AZ bill to make flying drones over houses a felony

[Red_Pyro]

I thought this would be the TOPIC.

AZ bill to make flying drones over houses a felony - Google Search

Already the case in France and it's a complete disaster

 

[Dangerly]

From a legal perspective, how can anyone other than the FAA regulate airspace? Can a town declare themselves a "no fly zone" with respect to certain aircraft, such as drones?

 

[anotherlab]

From a legal perspective, how can anyone other than the FAA regulate airspace? Can a town declare themselves a "no fly zone" with respect to certain aircraft, such as drones?

They are not regulating airspace, they are regulating privacy. I don't think the law will hold up as it stands, but that's the direction that they were heading in.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

I found the actual bill, SB1277: SB1277 - 561R - Senate Fact Sheet

 

[CactusJackSlade]

If I am reading the bill correctly, it looks like the key wording has changed a bit, looks like the proposed language was this: Intentionally photograph or loiter over or near a residential structure.

The new wording is: Deems it unlawful for a person to operate or use an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system to intentionally photograph, record or otherwise observe another person in a private place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[Dangerly]

If I am reading the bill correctly, it looks like the key wording has changed a bit, looks like the proposed language was this: Intentionally photograph or loiter over or near a residential structure.

The new wording is: Deems it unlawful for a person to operate or use an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system to intentionally photograph, record or otherwise observe another person in a private place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I believe it's already unlawful to do this at the federal level and more than that, I agree with this concept. If you disagree, I would love to hear your argument as to why.

 

[lookout]

If I am reading the bill correctly, it looks like the key wording has changed a bit, looks like the proposed language was this: Intentionally photograph or loiter over or near a residential structure.

The new wording is: Deems it unlawful for a person to operate or use an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system to intentionally photograph, record or otherwise observe another person in a private place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Reasonable expectation of privacy? Didn't they scratch that for drones so they could push remote id down our throats?

 

[Felix le Chat]

From a legal perspective, how can anyone other than the FAA regulate airspace? Can a town declare themselves a "no fly zone" with respect to certain aircraft, such as drones?

In the UK and Europe.... Yes. The framework is already in place, introduced by Brussels (E.U). Regional governmental bodies and local councils in all member states (and Britain) have been notified and as of January 1st 2023 they were obliged to submit whatever geographical area they wish to be included on the U-Space map database. These areas will be permanent restrictions to both drones and low flying private light aircraft and anyone wishing to use the airspace will have to gain operational permission from whatever USSP (U Space Service Provider) controls that specific area.

 

[Gagey52]

Hmmm, land of the free eh.
Regards

 

[lookout]

Hmmm, land of the free eh.
Regards

Don't forget to get your fireworks permit to celebrate your freedoms!

 

[CactusJackSlade]

I believe it's already unlawful to do this at the federal level and more than that, I agree with this concept. If you disagree, I would love to hear your argument as to why.

No argument with the revised language, I would have had a big problem with the originally proposed language... especially the very vague "or near a residential structure".

 

[Daytona500]

Hmmm, land of the free eh.
Regards

 

[rjwmorrell]

In Canada here, the regs state to keep 100' above structures. And it's prudent to be passing over and not lingering over private property. Are the proposed regs going to stop planes from passing over people's homes as well?

You are mistaken, it's the other way around.

From the CAR part IX:

"901.25(1) - Subject to subsection (2), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at an altitude *greater than* ... (b) 100 feet (30 m) above any building or structure, if the aircraft is being operated at a distance of less than 200 feet (61 m), measured horizontally, from the building or structure."

Subsection (2) gives an exception for SFOC operations.

You must remain within 100 feet above a building, not at least 100 feet above it.

 

[WanderLost]

You are mistaken, it's the other way around.

From the CAR part IX:

"901.25(1) - Subject to subsection (2), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at an altitude *greater than* ... (b) 100 feet (30 m) above any building or structure, if the aircraft is being operated at a distance of less than 200 feet (61 m), measured horizontally, from the building or structure."

Subsection (2) gives an exception for SFOC operations.

You must remain within 100 feet above a building, not at least 100 feet above it.

The regs were referring to the importance of not piercing the 400' limit except to safely follow terrain or go no more than 100' above a building in order to clear it if you are going to exceed 400'.
I see that I didn't get the proper meaning of the language - thanks for the clarification.

 

[rjwmorrell]

The regs were referring to the importance of not piercing the 400' limit except to safely follow terrain or go no more than 100' above a building in order to clear it if you are going to exceed 400'.
I see that I didn't get the proper meaning of the language - thanks for the clarification.

I'm studying to be a paralegal and thinking of going into practice doing transport appeals and aeronautical summary offences (which should both be within the scope of practice) so I've been paying close attention to the wording of these regulations and to the case law, so no problem, hope you didn't take offence to the correction.

There is almost no case law on drones in Canada yet, certainly not a lot since 2019 when the new Part IX regulations were put into effect. Yet with 70,000+ registered drones and who knows how many unregistered ones, it's inevitable there will be more fines, charges, incidents etc.

 

[EssenYVR]

Another Arizona Lawmaker trying to protect us from something he hasn't a clue about.

We drone pilots know what it is we're doing, the public does not. Even I would be rather creeped out if I spotted a drone hovering at a relatively low altitude over my back yard or near one of my windows. Politicians respond to public sentiment, and public sentiment holds that drones are invasive if they're flown in a manner that seems questionable.

Unfortunately, humans being what we are, some (small, I hope) percentage of us are going to use drones in a way that annoys people, whether innocently or not. And because of that, politicians are going to respond with restrictions. We can rail against it as much as we want, but I don't see how we're going to change it.