Sorry All... meant to note that.
Thanks @AMann
It’s OK, but it is a good commentary that people should listen to before they write their representatives because it brings up some good points about how this bill will allow different municipalities to enforce different regulations, and they are going to be scattered all over the place making it very confusing for everyone.
And I thought the privacy laws in Europe regarding public photography were bad enough!![]()
Not for argument, but just to point out current law defines FAA control from the ground up.I don't know who the individual was that began speaking at 41:10 put he makes some very valid points.
You can't have every municipality creating rules for their municipality.
As for private property owners I think a simple rule would be the property owner has the right to the airspace up to the height of the highest object on their property. If there are trees that are 50' high they have the right to the airspace up to 50'. I think this would be a rational solution in most place and a logical barrier since why would anyone want to fly their drone lower than the height of an obstacle on someone else's property.
I think there need to be some very clear general rules and where exceptions need to be made those exceptions can be worked out on a case by case basis.
However, if Congress changes that, the FAA has to follow. FAA's jurisdiction is based upon authority given to them by Congress. If Congress abdicates control of the first 200 feet to local municipalities, the FAA would have no control over it anymore, and we would be facing a nightmare of inconsistent regulations from city to city!Not for argument, but just to point out current law defines FAA control from the ground up.
Would definitely create a quagmire of rules.... and likely tax the ability of local LEOs to do that enforcement as well as fight real crime.However, if Congress changes that, the FAA has to follow. FAA's jurisdiction is based upon authority given to them by Congress. If Congress abdicates control of the first 200 feet to local municipalities, the FAA would have no control over it anymore, and we would be facing a nightmare of inconsistent regulations from city to city!![]()
I don't know who the individual was that began speaking at 41:10 put he makes some very valid points.
You can't have every municipality creating rules for their municipality.
As for private property owners I think a simple rule would be the property owner has the right to the airspace up to the height of the highest object on their property. If there are trees that are 50' high they have the right to the airspace up to 50'. I think this would be a rational solution in most place and a logical barrier since why would anyone want to fly their drone lower than the height of an obstacle on someone else's property.
I think there need to be some very clear general rules and where exceptions need to be made those exceptions can be worked out on a case by case basis.
Well, then you get groups of paranoid land owners putting up "CB radio towers" just so they can get a 150' ceiling....
Nobody wants to see themselves on YouTube naked in your own back yard, but I would think local Peeping Tom laws would already cover a lot of concerns?
Under current law you have no expectation of privacy in your backyard.
There may be a few but I don't expect there are going to be great many people putting up 150' towers just for the sake of having a 150' ceiling over their property (I'm guessing it would cost prohibitive).
Actually there have been several arrests using peeping tom laws and privacy on your property, do a general search... and yes, there is an expectation of privacy in your own back yard. That is what Peeping Tom laws are about. The question is where does that privacy end? 200 feet, 50 feet, 10 feet? that is the current dilemma right now for the FAA and local law.
As for people putting up large towers to have a higher ceiling... you might be surprised how paranoid people are about privacy and go to extreme lengths - agree that would be few and far between... and i guess HAM operators will have a head start ;-)
I had just written to Senator Lee, my Senator, and was pleased to hear all my concerns voiced in the video above. I, however, did not include concerns in my questions about manned flight. I have requested a reply for more details and hope I don't just receive a pre-prepared response.If anything, listen to it beginning at 41:10- Senator Lee’s bill regarding airspace regulations below 200ft
However, if Congress changes that, the FAA has to follow. FAA's jurisdiction is based upon authority given to them by Congress. If Congress abdicates control of the first 200 feet to local municipalities, the FAA would have no control over it anymore, and we would be facing a nightmare of inconsistent regulations from city to city!![]()
Trying to find a silver lining if this were to pass. If the FAA no longer controled ground to 200ft would that not mean UAV PIC would no longer have to abide by FAA regulations like flying at night or over people as long as they were within 0-200ft??However, if Congress changes that, the FAA has to follow. FAA's jurisdiction is based upon authority given to them by Congress. If Congress abdicates control of the first 200 feet to local municipalities, the FAA would have no control over it anymore, and we would be facing a nightmare of inconsistent regulations from city to city!![]()
i guess that would be correct, but every man and his dog would be making rules that would be far more detrimental.Trying to find a silver lining if this were to pass. If the FAA no longer controled ground to 200ft would that not mean UAV PIC would no longer have to abide by FAA regulations like flying at night or over people as long as they were within 0-200ft??
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.