DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

City Park Ban in Oregon, is it legal?

You're confusing drone operation with property rights. The city owns the property. The property has nothing to do with airspace, where a drone operates. The state statute does not address property rights, it addresses drone ownership and operation.

Technically, the city cannot say you can't operate within the airspace of the park - the FAA controls airspace. They can tell you that you are not allowed to stand on their private property and launch your drone.
Well, that is just it. I think the city cannot regulate drones on their property. The reason I think this is the State law seems to pretty much say it, in if not plain english, in pretty clear legalese.
The States ban on a municipality regulating the use or ownership of drones makes no exception for city property. Indeed many of the types of municipalities listed have no regulatory authority other than on their own lands. The idea that the state regulation was meant to mean airspace makes no sense as the state has no regulatory ability there.
One could read the statute to mean that a city or county cannot ban ownership of a drone within the city limits but the statute also forbids regulation of operation. Since the state cannot regulate any craft once it is in the air, that being the FAA, the only rational conclusion is they mean where I can launch. If there was an exemption here to allow cities to regulate thatm I think it would have to be spelled out in the law.
The legislature, by specifically including not only cities but parks departments as well as a slew of other city and county agencies seems to make it plain and clear that no one may regulate drones in any way other than the state.
As to property right, they are complex when dealing with any property but public property is it's own reality.
The state law seems clear to me but I do want a legal opinion from a lawyer who actually studies these things. In the end I suspect I will need to pay for a legal opinion to carry with me, but unsure.

What I do not understand is why you feel the state law is invalid and the city one not?
You would have to argue that banning me taking off from a publically open area does not constitute regulating the use of a UAV by the city as that is what the law states. So, the legal argument would it seems have to be that the city can ban me from using the park for my drone but that ban is somehow in no way regulation of the operation of my drone and in truth, I think I would make the argument that in fact it is the definition of regulation of operation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lapeer20m
Here in Australia, we have 'cities' too, as in 'City of *', we have 560 of them apparently . . . but in general they are called local councils, and they LOVE bringing in "bylaws" prohibiting all sorts of things, or to penalise people for certain things like parking, littering etc . . . most of which normal people will agree are required to deal with the slovenly in this day and age, unfortunately.

We are facing the SAME issues with many councils putting outright bans on operating drones ON council land, and many more considering doing this.
It seems like many other such directives (most of our countries various state National Parks for example), you can launch / retrieve from outside a zone, and fly over an area, at least that's what pretty much all such directives read like.

Like air safety and incidents to aircraft, we have never had anything major happen, all this is pre-emptive / proactive, which we see so much in our modern world.
You can understand airspace safety, and to a degree peoples enjoyment of parks, safety, peace and quiet etc.
That said, if you want to fly over a place with safety, sensitivity, and empathy for others, not disturbing wildlife etc, common sense dictates day, time, when to fly and when not to, but of course common sense is not too common now, nor are all peoples sense of conditions to fly going to be the same.

So the blanket banning works for authorities, it's an easy / lazy way out, no need to police anything, it's simply banned.
Oh, and it's not just drones for most, many include model boats on lakes, and even saw one the other day kites with more than one string.

What I am trying to clarify here is :
What constitutes council responsible land ? (They don't OWN it, we do the taxpayer, they look after parks fro example for us, and are paid by us to do so.)
Obviously parks / gardens, local reserves, probably footpaths (what the US calls nature strips ?).

Not sure about roads, public carparks, etc.
If we at least know our rights, we can keep our flying legal and considerate, and be prepared for over zealous local rangers.

I don't THINK we have anything like 837.380 in state law, maybe worth checking here under state and federal law.

Oh, and it seems to me that forcing drone flights outside of public land is just asking for trouble, flights will not be as safe if you need to be further away from your flying area, and less fun too in that you aren't as close as you'd like sometimes.
(This will cause many to also disobey our rule to keep VLOS of the drone at all times too.)
 
Last edited:
I might have been a little quick on the uptake! This case lays out the case for federal preemption where a state's exercise of police power infringes upon the federal government's regulation of aviation. Good find Salty and well worth the read. I had trouble linking so here is the opinion:

Singer v. City of Newton, Civil Action 17-10071-WGY
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts September 21, 2017
(Citations omitted, edited for brevity)

I. INTRODUCTION

The crux of this dispute is whether portions of a certain ordinance (the “Ordinance”) passed by the City of Newton (“Newton”) on December 19, 2016 are preempted. Michael S. Singer (“Singer”) challenges portions of the Ordinance which require that all owners of pilotless aircraft (commonly referred to as “drones” or “UAS”) register their pilotless aircraft with Newton, and also prohibit operation of pilotless aircraft out of the operator's line of sight or in certain areas without permit or express permission.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

Newton is a municipality in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is organized under a charter pursuant to the Home Rule Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution. Singer resides in Newton. He is a Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”)-certified small unmanned aircraft pilot and owns and operates multiple drones in Newton. Singer does not operate or register his drones as a hobbyist. In August 2015, members of Newton's City Council proposed discussing the possibility of regulating drones for the principal purpose of protecting the privacy interests of Newton's residents. On March 23, 2016, an initial draft of the Ordinance was presented for discussion. Following further inquiry and amendment…Newton's City Council approved the final Ordinance on December 19, 2016.The Ordinance states in part:

Purpose: The use of pilotless aircraft is an increasingly popular pastime as well as learning tool. It is important to allow beneficial uses of these devices while also protecting the privacy of residents throughout the City. In order to prevent nuisances and other disturbances of the enjoyment of both public and private space, regulation of pilotless aircraft is required. The following section is intended to promote the public safety and welfare of the City and its residents. In furtherance of its stated purpose, this section is intended to be read and interpreted in harmony with all relevant rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, and any other federal, state and local laws and regulations.

“Pilotless aircraft” is defined as “an unmanned, powered aerial vehicle, weighing less than 55 pounds, that is operated without direct human contact from within or on the aircraft.” The Ordinance imposes certain registration requirements upon owners of all pilotless aircraft (and) operating prohibitions, including, inter alia, a ban on the use of a pilotless aircraft below an altitude of 400 feet over private property without the express permission of the owner of the private property, (flying) “beyond the visual line of sight of the Operator, ” (and flying) “in a manner that interferes with any manned aircraft, ” (flying) over Newton city property without prior permission, or to conduct surveillance or invade any place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Violations of the Ordinance are punishable by a $50 fine following a one-time warning.

III. RULINGS OF LAW

Specifically, Singer challenges four subsections of the Ordinance: the registration requirements of section (b) and the operation limits of subsections (c)(1)(a), (c)(1)(b), and (c)(1)(e). Singer argues that the Ordinance is preempted by federal law because it attempts to regulate an almost exclusively federal area of law in a way that conflicts with Congress's purpose. In turn, Newton posits that the Ordinance is not preempted by federal law because it falls within an area of law that the FAA expressly carved out for local governments to regulate, and thus can be read in harmony with federal aviation laws and regulations.

A. Preemption Standards

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that federal laws are supreme, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, thus requiring that federal laws preempt any conflicting state or local regulations, see Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981) (citing McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 427 (1819)). Under our federalist system, however, a court must be wary of invalidating laws in areas traditionally left to the states unless the court is entirely convinced that Congress intended to override state regulation. See, e.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991) (citing Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 243 (1985)). In contrast, if a state government attempts to regulate an area traditionally occupied by the federal government, a court need not seek to avoid preemption. See United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 108 (2000). Neither of these circumstances requires that Congress explicitly have stated its purpose; “[t]he question, at bottom, is one of statutory intent.” Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992).

If Congress has not expressly preempted an area of law, then a court must determine whether field or conflict preemption is evident. Field preemption occurs where federal regulation is so pervasive and dominant that one can infer Congressional intent to occupy the field. Conflict preemption arises when compliance with both state and federal regulations is impossible or if state law obstructs the objectives of the federal regulation.

B. The Federal Aviation Administration

Congress has stated that “[t]he United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1). This declaration does not preclude states or municipalities from passing any valid aviation regulations, see Braniff Airways v. Nebraska State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 347 U.S. 590, 595 (1954), but courts generally recognize that Congress extensively controls much of the field, see, e.g., Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 105, 107 (1948); United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Flores-Galarza, 318 F.3d 323, 336 (1st Cir. 2003). Accordingly, where a state's exercise of police power infringes upon the federal government's regulation of aviation, state law is preempted. See City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 638-39 (1973).

In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress directed the FAA to “develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system, ” FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-95 § 332, 126 Stat. 11, 73 (2012) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 40101 note), while limiting the FAA from “promulgat[ing] any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, ” id. § 336(a). Under this directive, the FAA promulgated 14 C.F.R. part 107, which declares that it “applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft systems[3] within the United States.” 14 C.F.R. § 107.1(a). The rule requires, inter alia, that anyone controlling a small unmanned aircraft system register with the FAA, id. §§ 91.203, 107.13; and keep the aircraft within the visual line of sight of the operator or a designated visual observer, id. §§ 107.3, 107.31, and below an altitude of 400 feet above ground level or within a 400 foot radius of a structure, id. § 107.51(b).

C. Field Preemption

Singer argues that because the federal government regulates unmanned aircraft and local aircraft operations, there is federal intent to occupy the field. Newton does not challenge that aviation is a traditionally federal field, but counters that federal regulations explicitly grant local authorities the power to co-regulate unmanned aircraft.

The FAA has stated:

[C]ertain legal aspects concerning small UAS use may be best addressed at the State or local level. For example, State law and other legal protections for individual privacy may provide recourse for a person whose privacy may be affected through another person's use of a UAS.

. . . The Fact Sheet also summarizes the Federal responsibility for ensuring the safety of flight as well as the safety of people and property on the ground as a result of the operation of aircraft. Substantial air safety issues are implicated when State or local governments attempt to regulate the operation of aircraft in the national airspace. The Fact Sheet provides examples of State and local laws affecting UAS for which consultation with the FAA is recommended and those that are likely to fall within State and local government authority. For example, consultation with FAA is recommended when State or local governments enact operation UAS restrictions on flight altitude, flight paths; operational bans; or any regulation of the navigable airspace. The Fact Sheet also notes that laws traditionally related to State and local police power -- including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations -- generally are not subject to Federal regulation.

81 Fed. Reg. 42063 § (III)(K)(6). Thus, the FAA explicitly contemplates state or local regulation of pilotless aircraft, defeating Singer's argument that the whole field is exclusive to the federal government. The FAA's guidance, however, does not go quite as far as Newton argues -- rather than an express carve-out for state and localities to regulate, the guidance hints that whether parallel regulations are enforceable depends on the principles of conflict preemption.

D. Conflict Preemption

Singer argues that the challenged sections of the Ordinance obstruct federal objectives and directly conflict with federal regulations. Newton fails to respond specifically to these arguments, again asserting that the FAA has granted states and localities the power to co-regulate pilotless aircraft. The Court addresses each challenged subsection of the Ordinance in turn.

1. Section (b)

Singer argues that section (b) of the Ordinance infringes upon and impermissibly exceeds the FAA's exclusive registration requirements. Section (b) states: “Owners of all pilotless aircraft shall register their pilotless aircraft with the City Clerk's Office, either individually or as a member of a club . . . .” Newton Ordinances § 20-64(b). The Ordinance defines “pilotless aircraft” as “an unmanned, powered aerial vehicle, weighing less than 55 pounds, that is operated without direct human contact from within or on the aircraft.” Id. § 20-64(a).

The FAA has also implemented mandatory registration of certain drones. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 48.1-48.205. Although such registration initially applied both to model and commercial drones, the FAA may not require registration of model aircraft, because doing so would directly conflict with the Congressional mandate in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. See Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089, 1092, 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Newton argues that this space creates a void in which the city may regulate drones. The FAA, however, explicitly has indicated its intent to be the exclusive regulatory authority for registration of pilotless aircraft: “Because Federal registration is the exclusive means for registering UAS for purposes of operating an aircraft in navigable airspace, no state or local government may impose an additional registration requirement on the operation of UAS in navigable airspace without first obtaining FAA approval.” State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Fact Sheet[5] (“FAA UAS Fact Sheet”) 2

Newton did not obtain FAA approval before enacting the Ordinance. Further, regardless of whether there is some space that would allow Newton to require registration of model drones, here Newton seeks to register all drones, without limit as to the at which altitude they operate, in clear derogation of the FAA's intended authority. Accordingly, the Ordinance's registration requirements are preempted.

2. Subsections (c)(1)(a) and (c)(1)(e)

Singer argues that subsections (c)(1)(a) and (c)(1)(e) conflict with FAA-permitted flight and restrict flight within the navigable airspace. Subsection (c)(1)(a) prohibits pilotless aircraft flight below an altitude of 400 feet over any private property without the express permission of the property owner. Subsection (c)(1)(e) prohibits pilotless aircraft flight over public property without prior permission from Newton. Id. § 20-64(c)(1)(e). Notably, subsection (c)(1)(e) does not limit its reach to any altitude. This alone is a ground for preemption of the subsection because it certainly reaches into navigable airspace, see 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(32); 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. Subsections (c)(1)(a) and (c)(1)(e) work in tandem, however, to create an essential ban on drone use within the limits of Newton. Nowhere in the city may an individual operate a drone without first having permission from the owner of the land below, be that Newton or a private landowner.

The FAA is charged with “prescrib[ing] air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft . . . for -- (A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft; (B) protecting individuals and property on the ground; [and] (C) using the navigable airspace efficiently.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2). In 2012, Congress tasked the FAA with “develop[ing] a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.” Pub. L. No. 112-95 § 332. In so doing, the FAA mandated that drone operators keep drones below an altitude of 400 feet from the ground or a structure. 14 C.F.R. § 107.51(b).

Newton's choice to restrict any drone use below this altitude thus works to eliminate any drone use in the confines of the city, absent prior permission. This thwarts not only the FAA's objectives, but also those of Congress for the FAA to integrate drones into the national airspace. Although Congress and the FAA may have contemplated co-regulation of drones to a certain extent, see 81 Fed. Reg. 42063 § (III)(K)(6), this hardly permits an interpretation that essentially constitutes a wholesale ban on drone use in Newton. Accordingly, subsections (c)(1)(a) and (c)(1)(e) are preempted.

3. Subsection (c)(1)(b)

Singer argues that subsection (c)(1)(b) conflicts with the FAA's visual observer rule and related waiver process, which only the FAA can modify. Pl.'s Mem. 13 (citing 49 U.S.C. § 106(f)(2), (g)(1); 14 C.F.R. §§ 107.31, 107.205). Subsection (c)(1)(b) states that no pilotless aircraft may be operated “at a distance beyond the visual line of sight of the Operator.” Newton Ordinances § 20-64(c)(1)(b). The Ordinance neither defines the term “Operator, ” nor sets an altitude limit.

The FAA “requires a delicate balance between safety and efficiency, and the protection of persons on the ground . . . . The interdependence of these factors requires a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation.” City of Burbank, 411 U.S. at 638-39. The Ordinance seeks to regulate the method of operating of drones, necessarily implicating the safe operation of aircraft. Courts have recognized that aviation safety is an area of exclusive federal regulation. See, e.g., Goodspeed Airport LLC v. East Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm'n, 634 F.3d 206, 208 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Congress has established its intent to occupy the entire field of air safety, thereby preempting state regulation of that field.”); US Airways, Inc. v. O'Donnell, 627 F.3d 1318, 1326 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[F]ederal regulation occupies the field of aviation safety to the exclusion of state regulations.”); Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 470 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Congress has indicated its intent to occupy the field of aviation safety.”). The First Circuit, in fact, has ruled “that Congress intended to occupy the field of pilot regulation related to air safety.” French, 869 F.2d at 4. In French, the First Circuit took note of Congress's delegation of authority to the FAA to issue the certificate -- and the terms for obtaining it -- required for any person to pilot a commercial aircraft. See id. at 3. Concluding that this grant of authority and the FAA's subsequent regulations expressed Congress's intent to preempt any state law in the area, id. at 4, the First Circuit struck down Rhode Island's statute requiring airline pilots to submit to drug testing, see id. at 7.

The circumstances are not so different here. Congress has given the FAA the responsibility of regulating the use of airspace for aircraft navigation and to protect individuals and property on the ground, 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2), and has specifically directed the FAA to integrate drones into the national airspace system, Pub. L. No. 112-95 § 332. In furtherance of this duty, the FAA has designated specific rules regarding the visual line of sight for pilotless aircraft operation. See 14 C.F.R. §§ 107.31-35, 107.205. First, the FAA requires either that (1) a remote pilot both command and manipulate the flight controls or (2) a visual observer be able to see the drone throughout its flight. Id. § 107.31. The regulations define “visual observer” as “a person who is designated by the remote pilot in command to assist the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS to see and avoid other air traffic or objects aloft or on the ground.” Id. § 107.3. Second, the FAA allows waiver of the visual observer rule. Id. §§ 107.200, 205.

The Ordinance limits the methods of piloting a drone beyond that which the FAA has already designated, while also reaching into navigable space. See Newton Ordinances § 20-64(c)(1)(b). Intervening in the FAA's careful regulation of aircraft safety cannot stand; thus subsection (c)(1)(b) is preempted.


IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that Ordinance sections (b), (c)(1)(a), (c)(1)(b), and (c)(1)(e) are preempted and judgment will enter so declaring. As it is unchallenged, the remainder of Newton's Ordinance stands. Of course, nothing prevents Newton from re-drafting the Ordinance to avoid conflict preemption.

SO ORDERED.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Salty
Yes, I launch from the ground, the only place the park has any possibility of regulating as the air is under the FAA and waterways in oregon are public.

To me, you're "operating" your drone the moment it's free of the ground. I think it's pretty far-fetched to consider placing your drone on the ground in preparation for launch to be "operating" the drone itself.

I 'm not sure what kayaking the waterways have do with launching a drone from within a park. The city does not own the waterways. It does own the land city parks are on. There are land use rules you must follow in a park. They're generally codified in city code or ordinance. The land is only "public" in that anyone is allowed to use it within the confines of said codes or ordinances. You don't personally have any vested ownership in the land that makes it "yours" in the sense of your yard.

My sense is that the state regulation was geared towards operations in the sense that the FAA looks at operations. Misguidedly, if so. IANAL, but nothing in that statue reads to me as "Nobody can tell you where you cannot launch or land your drone, except the State".
 
Misguidedly, if so. IANAL, but nothing in that statue reads to me as "Nobody can tell you where you cannot launch or land your drone, except the State".

This is precisely what the law means, in my opinion, and it is how preemption works. The state says that they (and the FAA) occupy the entire field of drone regulation and local units of government are prohibited from making rules regarding drones.

I've dealt extensively with firearm preemption in my state. Plenty of municipalities think they can post no gun signs or pass an ordinance prohibiting guns in the local park, but the municipality looses every single time.
 
I bet there are a lot of laws that could be ruled invalid by a higher court. I just don't want to invest the time, energy, and money to fight them. I'll find somewhere else to take off from. Life is short. Fly more, argue less :).
 
To me, you're "operating" your drone the moment it's free of the ground. I think it's pretty far-fetched to consider placing your drone on the ground in preparation for launch to be "operating" the drone itself.
Yet that is the only thing they can regulate, the launch. Once I launch I am in FAA space and the city has no say anyways. So if you are saying launching is not operating a drone, than the city has no ability to stop me anyways.
My sense is that the state regulation was geared towards operations in the sense that the FAA looks at operations. Misguidedly, if so. IANAL, but nothing in that statue reads to me as "Nobody can tell you where you cannot launch or land your drone, except the State".


"the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft systems is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. "
Yes, that is literally what the state says, only they can tell me where I can fly other than the FAA which they have no power to supercede.
I mean, that is exactly what the law actually states.
 
Yet that is the only thing they can regulate, the launch. Once I launch I am in FAA space and the city has no say anyways. So if you are saying launching is not operating a drone, than the city has no ability to stop me anyways.

That's exactly what I've been saying, they can prevent you from launching. The city can and does regulate permissible use of the land. If you want to somehow argue you can use park land for anything you want, that's a totally separate issue not having to do with drones, but land use rights and the definition of "public". If you don't believe the city has the authority to regulate what the land is used for, go ahead and drive your car around the baseball diamonds.

Yes, that is literally what the state says, only they can tell me where I can fly other than the FAA which they have no power to supercede.
I mean, that is exactly what the law actually states.

Are you saying that the act of placing your drone on the ground in preparation for flight is "flying" it, but it doesn't matter because because only the FAA can regulate flight? So the whole argument boils down to your belief that the FAA implicitly has authority to regulate land use in the context of launching a drone? The FAA doesn't generally dictate where you can fly from, it dictates operation of your drone when it's in the air.

Again, I believe you can use airspace above the park to fly your drone. The city can't regulate airspace. You just can't use park land as a base of operations.
 
Also, read 837.385 closely. It specifies 837.300 as the definition of a UAS. 837.300 in turn reads:

"Unmanned aircraft system" means an unmanned flying machine, commonly known as a drone. "Unmanned aircraft system" does not include a model aircraft as defined in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.
 
That's exactly what I've been saying, they can prevent you from launching. The city can and does regulate permissible use of the land. If you want to somehow argue you can use park land for anything you want, that's a totally separate issue not having to do with drones, but land use rights and the definition of "public". If you don't believe the city has the authority to regulate what the land is used for, go ahead and drive your car around the baseball diamonds.



Are you saying that the act of placing your drone on the ground in preparation for flight is "flying" it, but it doesn't matter because because only the FAA can regulate flight? So the whole argument boils down to your belief that the FAA implicitly has authority to regulate land use in the context of launching a drone? The FAA doesn't generally dictate where you can fly from, it dictates operation of your drone when it's in the air.

Again, I believe you can use airspace above the park to fly your drone. The city can't regulate airspace. You just can't use park land as a base of operations.

I am saying the city cannot regulate the use of land due to the state reg, I am saying the state reg clearly says so and that because the state cannot regulate the air, the regulation is obviously intended to meant the land. The city cannot regulate drones in any way shape or form as far as the statute clearly states, it makes no exceptions.
 
I am saying the city cannot regulate the use of land due to the state reg, I am saying the state reg clearly says so and that because the state cannot regulate the air, the regulation is obviously intended to meant the land.

There are zero references to land use in the state regulation. However, there are several references to "ownership" and "operation". Even if you steadfastly believe that placing your drone on the ground in preparation for flight is "operating" it, it's moot for most park flying because 837.385 doesn't appear to apply to 336.

You can't assume they meant the land because they cannot regulate airspace. They can make up any statute they want until someone challenges it.

You could ask your state representative to have "operation", as intended by the statute, clarified. I am not a lawyer, but I would guess the state isn't concerned about what Lake Oswego allows city owned land to be used for in the context of drones.

I think we have to agree to disagree, but if you get a definitive answer I'd be interested in hearing what the official line is.
 
There are zero references to land use in the state regulation. However, there are several references to "ownership" and "operation". Even if you steadfastly believe that placing your drone on the ground in preparation for flight is "operating" it, it's moot for most park flying because 837.385 doesn't appear to apply to 336.

You can't assume they meant the land because they cannot regulate airspace. They can make up any statute they want until someone challenges it.

You could ask your state representative to have "operation", as intended by the statute, clarified. I am not a lawyer, but I would guess the state isn't concerned about what Lake Oswego allows city owned land to be used for in the context of drones.

I think we have to agree to disagree, but if you get a definitive answer I'd be interested in hearing what the official line is.

I do not understand why you insist on purposely misreading the statute.

The state is absolutely concerned with what lake Oswego allows on city property in regards to drones....or else the legislature would not have passed the law that forbids the city from regulating drones.
 
I do not understand why you insist on purposely misreading the statute.

I see "operation" of a "drone" as the where and how the drone itself flies, not where the operator stands while the drone is "operating".

Like I said though, it may be largely moot since 837.385 doesn't appear to cover 336 operations.
 
As a City Council Member for a small town in Texas and as a COA pilot for my agency I have become pretty well versed in the rules.

The town can not prohibit you from flying in the park, technically they can not prohibit you from landing in the park (emergency), but they can prohibit taking off in the park. This one gets sticky though as the state has to first have a rule allowing municipalities the authority to regulate and have a statement as to why it is being prohibited. My city for years has had a prohibition on using the park for model aircraft because they didn’t like them. I have been working to change the mindset, because the benefits of using the park vs flying over homes is pretty great.

Try to talk them into creating a safe take off and landing area. A 50 x 50 concrete or asphalt pad with a 3-4 foot fence and a single gate opening for pilots. They could even put a donation box out at it and have a suggested $5 donation for non-residents. Also do a simple log system to track use, don’t go hog wild because people won’t do it, but you could do FAA registration and date/time for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeremyDWilliams
As mayor of a small town in Canada, I see these 'hot issues' come and go all the time. Best is to be respectful so it doesn't boil over. It sounds like the bylaw is poor at best, like a great many passed by councils across North America. It would be smart to politely email your members of council individually to educate them on the safety of drone flights and how much safer they are then other model aircraft. Have them understand that as model aircraft have been around for decades without any real safety concerns, drones shouldn't be. Explain the limitations of drone imagery in regards to privacy. Offer them a chance to see one in action. They need to know that these bylaws are not universally loved and could even anger drone enthusiasts. Council's don't like conflict. Having them know such a bylaw won't be s slam dunk may have them avoid the topic completely. We've had kites flying in parks for centuries without issue. Drones should be no different. And don't forget we are all ambassadors for drones. Be nice :)

As for the bylaw, I would suggest it wouldn't survive a court case.
 
If you feel you're in the right, fly it at the park. But if you get cited and plan to fight it, you're going to have to shell out for an attorney, and prep yourself for a long, expensive fight. Your decision on whether to push it or not.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,592
Messages
1,554,158
Members
159,593
Latest member
mini2+