Can you help me force Port Canaveral Florida to allow drones as they currently violate Florida laws

[mattbratt]

Hi @TomKennelly, I joined up, just because of this thread.

I think you are missing the point.

The Port Authority has not banned overflight of their property. What they have banned is the operation of drones from their property. They have done this within the bounds of all local, Florida law, and Federal law.

Florida Statute 330.41 specifically states that no other entity can restrict flight. Specifically:

Except as otherwise expressly provided, a political subdivision may not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the design, manufacture, testing, maintenance, licensing, registration, certification, or operation of an unmanned aircraft system, including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements; the purpose of operations; and pilot, operator, or observer qualifications, training, and certification.

And...there you go...Anyone can ban operation of a drone ::from:: their lands, just not the flight of the drone. Just as much as I can do so from my private property, I can tell you "don't fly that drone from my property", and I will be able to enforce that 100% by calling law enforcement and have you arrested for trespassing on my property. The same is true for the Port Authority, and this is in fact what they have done, and legally so. Maybe if you wanted to piss me off, you could take your drone and fly it from the sidewalk outside of my property lines, then you can overfly my property, provided that you are not violating any local laws such as harassment, etc.

However, if you can
1. Find a safe, and legal space (land that is not restricted by FAA - Check LAANC) either public or private that does not expressly forbid operation of a drone ::from:: their land
2. Maintain clear VLOS to the drone, and fly over areas of the Port that are ::not:: restricted by the FAA

Then eat your heart out.

 

[mavictk]

Hey @mattbratt do you think the Port Authority is private property because it is not. The Port is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. If you read back a bit FS 300.41 3(a) states that only the State of Florida can regulate drones on public land. The Port is public property and therefore must adhere to FS 330.41

 

[mattbratt]

@mavictk There is no provision in 330.41 3(a) (not 330.41 as you wrote) that says that any entity, public or private cannot ban drone operations from operated from their property.

I would agree, that you cannot ban drones from overflying non restricted airspace, but anyone CAN ban operating a drone FROM the property. There is nothing in the law that says that any entity cannot decide what can and cannot be done FROM their property.

More importantly, the intent of the Florida statue is to pre-empt other municipalities from creating unnecessary laws. A state-wide law simplifies and even clarifies the law state-wide, without infringing on federal law as the statue says "except as provided in federal regulations, authorizations, or exemptions", which satisfies the sovereign domain of the FAA.

 

[Heavydpj]

I guess you did not follow my logic. CPD cannot according to 330.41 3(b) make up rules about drones with the exception 330.41 3(c). CPD is forbidden by state law from the drone rules they have enacted. CPD states in their tariff that they are a political subdivision of the state of Florida and therefore 330.41 3(b) applies directly to CPD and the state law preempts CPD rules. I wonder if you don't understate state preemption?

Except that it's not preemption if the state grants that authority, as it did in the charter.

You seem to be overlooking the first four words of 330.41(3)(b) - "Except as expressly provided ..."

The CPD will argue, (successfully, IMO) that the state expressly provided the authority to do exactly what it is doing when the state granted the CPD their latest charter.

I guess the proof will be in the pudding - prove me wrong when you post the court's opinion.

BTW, have you even filed yet?

 

[mavictk]

Except that it's not preemption if the state grants that authority, as it did in the charter.

You seem to be overlooking the first four words of 330.41(3)(b) - "Except as expressly provided ..."

The CPD will argue, (successfully, IMO) that the state expressly provided the authority to do exactly what it is doing when the state granted the CPD their latest charter.

I guess the proof will be in the pudding - prove me wrong when you post the court's opinion.

BTW, have you even filed yet?

Not filed yet. Still trying to find a way to do this without spending cash.

 

[PK&W Modelwerx]

Fortunately there is a gap between Patrick Spaceforce Base and Cape Canaveral where you can fly.
View attachment 145985View attachment 145986View attachment 145987View attachment 145988

Nice shots! Thanks for sharing. Beautiful area.

 

[Heavydpj]

I started a GoFundMe, [Link removed by ADMIN due to Community Guideline #11]

to obtain funding to sue Port Canaveral (CPA) to follow Florida Statute 330.41 which prohibits political subdivisions, like CPA, from enacting their own drone rules.

Florida Statue 330.41 3(b) vests drone regulation in the state and not political subdivisions (e.g. cities, counties, ports). CPA has stubbornly refused to follow the law claiming the Port is private property. According to Florida Statute 315.11 the Port is public property but the Port won't hear of it even though the Port used this statute in a lawsuit in the 1990's.

So, help me make a government entity follow the law and removes its rules against flying drones in the Port.

Thanks for reading.

How's this working out for you?

 

[mavictk]

Terribly. Since I tried the GoFundme the state of Florida changed the law, FS 330.41 designating the Port critical infrastructure and thereby eliminating the ability to take off and land. Additionally, Florida’s law stated you could not fly over critical infrastructure which is in conflict with the FAA and airspace regulation. Not sure how the FAA will address the fly over issue.

 

[WanderLost]

I started a GoFundMe, [Link removed by ADMIN due to Community Guideline #11]

to obtain funding to sue Port Canaveral (CPA) to follow Florida Statute 330.41 which prohibits political subdivisions, like CPA, from enacting their own drone rules.

Florida Statue 330.41 3(b) vests drone regulation in the state and not political subdivisions (e.g. cities, counties, ports). CPA has stubbornly refused to follow the law claiming the Port is private property. According to Florida Statute 315.11 the Port is public property but the Port won't hear of it even though the Port used this statute in a lawsuit in the 1990's.

So, help me make a government entity follow the law and removes its rules against flying drones in the Port.

Thanks for reading.

Let's pretend for a minute that you are successful. This will open the door for drone operators to launch from the port property, fly when they want, interfere with operations and maybe even cause major disruptions.
We have no business flying in areas of critical infrastructure due to the possibility of damage or a needless and expensive delay in flights or other operations that may put national security or rocket launches at risk.
Get a drone with a big zoom camera and fly off property.

 

[mavictk]

Let's pretend for a minute that you are successful. This will open the door for drone operators to launch from the port property, fly when they want, interfere with operations and maybe even cause major disruptions.
We have no business flying in areas of critical infrastructure due to the possibility of damage or a needless and expensive delay in flights or other operations that may put national security or rocket launches at risk.
Get a drone with a big zoom camera and fly off property.

Let’s just say I disagree because you present a worst case scenario. As of July 1, 2023 the point is moot because Florida designated the port, with its beaches, restaurants, boat ramps, and recreational areas, as critical infrastructure and now you cannot launch or land on critical infrastructure. Additionally, Florida says you cannot fly over critical infrastructure which puts it into conflict with FAA airspace regulation.

 

[WanderLost]

Let’s just say I disagree because you present a worst case scenario. As of July 1, 2023 the point is moot because Florida designated the port, with its beaches, restaurants, boat ramps, and recreational areas, as critical infrastructure and now you cannot launch or land on critical infrastructure. Additionally, Florida says you cannot fly over critical infrastructure which puts it into conflict with FAA airspace regulation.

"Additionally, Florida says you cannot fly over critical infrastructure which puts it into conflict with FAA airspace regulation."
In Canada here, that's always been the rule. Are you saying that the FAA doesn't have a problem with people flying over critical infrastructure?
Here's the FAA UAS map which seems to show the area is off limits for a number of reasons. I'm confused.

 

[mavictk]

"Additionally, Florida says you cannot fly over critical infrastructure which puts it into conflict with FAA airspace regulation."
In Canada here, that's always been the rule. Are you saying that the FAA doesn't have a problem with people flying over critical infrastructure?
Here's the FAA UAS map which seems to show the area is off limits for a number of reasons. I'm confused.
View attachment 169395

First of all notice that Port Canaveral only has a lightly shaded red area over it which is class D airspace for an airport called KXMR. If you read the chart supplement for KXMR you will find out that it’s only class D by NOTAM. Therefore, most of the time, that shaded red area over Port Canaveral is not active and therefore class G airspace. At this point, I will stop discussing the federal regulations and move on to the state regulations.

The state of Florida has designated Port Canaveral as critical infrastructure, and that does not show up on FAA maps. The FAA has a designation for critical infrastructure, but somehow that process never has seemed to work.

The state of Florida designation of the port, as critical infrastructure is over abroad. Check out this video of part of the port.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The bottom line for me is that the FAA has been lax in their designation of what critical infrastructure is. The state of Florida decided that it would designate what critical infrastructure is but widely exaggerated what is considered critical infrastructure. For example, if you watched the video, the beach is considered critical infrastructure because it is part of the Port.

I will reiterate that the go fund me process is moot because the Florida law changed, and therefore made the approach I wanted to take invalid . For me, the only outstanding question is whether Florida can designate the airspace over critical infrastructure as controlled by Florida as opposed to controlled by the FAA.