Congress Updating 336

[jwblair]

From the AMA:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2017/06/336-bill-compare.pdf

 

[Kestrel]

Basically every thing is going to stay the same. No flying out of line of sight and no flying above 400 feet, that ones been up in debate for a while here on the forum but now it seems its going to be true no going above 400 feet. I still don't agree with the FPV part of it though, having a spotter with you while sounds like a good idea in reality for me at-least I don't know anyone that's into drones, my wife isn't into them either.

Forgot to mention Registration is coming back under that bill. I'm ok with it, I just want to know if someone shoots down my drone in public is it treated like a legit aircraft.

 

[tcope]

Basically every thing is going to stay the same.

Not even close. I don't see that the AMA listed the difference correctly in that they left out the biggest change that would almost make it impossible for anyone to fly a done.

Section 3, b, 3c:

This states that you need to obtain permission from every property owner that you fly less then 200' over. This mainly applies to any place you take off or land. So you'd either need to be on your own property or you'd need that land owners permission. Lets assume that most people don't always and only launch and land from their own property. If you wanted to fly any place else, you'd need to find out how to get ahold of that land owner in order to ask their permission. Even if you could plan ahead and do this, most of the time they are not going to give that permission as they would realize that it would sound like they were assuming liability for your flight from their property. Can you see trying to call the city or county for permission to take off or land from their property? So have fun flying only from property you own and no where else.

The way that this bill is written is complelty over-bearing and, in effect, could easily stop almost every person from flying a drone. Is this "staying the same"?

I'm not even getting into the fact that this bill allows the FAA to set up any type of class requirements that they want. Who do you think is going to pay for those classes? Certainly not the FAA. They wll farm this out to a 3rd party who will be allowed to make huge profits for running these classes.

Feinstien is an idiot who wants nothing more than to outlaw all drones.

 

[KaiservonPoopChute]

Couldn't you just fly above 200' from point A to point B if flying over someones property or am I missing something?

 

[tcope]

Couldn't you just fly above 200' from point A to point B if flying over someones property or am I missing something?

If you take off from someone else's property (person, company, city, county, etc.) are you not now under 200' over their property? That is, you can't go from ground level right to 200' and not be lower than 200' over someone else's property.

I'll be brief... I've always seen this to be an issue with drones. They give a vantage point into someone's personal property that would not have been available otherwise. However, 1) I don't think it's a big issue and 2) there are already laws that would probably work in that situation. Can I fly 100' over someone's property? Yes. Is that an issue? Yeah, I can see where it might be. But if it only happens once I don't see it as a big issue. If a person does it all of the time or does something like hover over someone's property than I think current laws could probably address that but if that can't, then make _that_ the law. Now some blanket 200' rule.

Fienstien hates drones. Shes known for this. Given her past it appears she would have no problem in outlawing them all together.

 

[KaiservonPoopChute]

If you take off from someone else's property (person, company, city, county, etc.) are you not now under 200' over their property? That is, you can't go from ground level right to 200' and not be lower than 200' over someone else's property.

I'll be brief... I've always seen this to be an issue with drones. They give a vantage point into someone's personal property that would not have been available otherwise. However, 1) I don't think it's a big issue and 2) there are already laws that would probably work in that situation. Can I fly 100' over someone's property? Yes. Is that an issue? Yeah, I can see where it might be. But if it only happens once I don't see it as a big issue. If a person does it all of the time or does something like hover over someone's property than I think current laws could probably address that but if that can't, then make _that_ the law. Now some blanket 200' rule.

Fienstien hates drones. Shes known for this. Given her past it appears she would have no problem in outlawing them all together.

So I did a quick and dirty search on Feinstein's hatred for drones and it turns out it stems from an incident where a protestor was flying a small, pink toy helicopter outside of her window and now all drones must be regulated. I see what you're saying though about the whole permission issue. This would in fact make it **** near impossible to take off anywhere other than properties you own or public spaces that haven't prohibited drones entirely. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Kestrel]

Not even close. I don't see that the AMA listed the difference correctly in that they left out the biggest change that would almost make it impossible for anyone to fly a done.

Section 3, b, 3c:

This states that you need to obtain permission from every property owner that you fly less then 200' over. This mainly applies to any place you take off or land. So you'd either need to be on your own property or you'd need that land owners permission. Lets assume that most people don't always and only launch and land from their own property. If you wanted to fly any place else, you'd need to find out how to get ahold of that land owner in order to ask their permission. Even if you could plan ahead and do this, most of the time they are not going to give that permission as they would realize that it would sound like they were assuming liability for your flight from their property. Can you see trying to call the city or county for permission to take off or land from their property? So have fun flying only from property you own and no where else.

The way that this bill is written is complelty over-bearing and, in effect, could easily stop almost every person from flying a drone. Is this "staying the same"?

I'm not even getting into the fact that this bill allows the FAA to set up any type of class requirements that they want. Who do you think is going to pay for those classes? Certainly not the FAA. They wll farm this out to a 3rd party who will be allowed to make huge profits for running these classes.

Feinstien is an idiot who wants nothing more than to outlaw all drones.

Where does it say that in the PDF. I agree shes an idiot.

 

[tcope]

Where does it say that in the PDF. I agree shes an idiot.

Didn't I kind of put that information right in my post?

Section 3, b, 3c:

3(c) of the Drone Federalism Act of 2017), the operator has the permission of the property owner.’’. 2 (c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘immediate reaches of the airspace above property’’, with respect 4 to the operation of a civil unmanned aircraft system, includes— 6 (1) any area within 200 feet above the ground 7 level of the property; 8 (2) any area within 200 feet above any structure on the property; and 10 (3) any area where operation of the aircraft 11 system could interfere with the enjoyment or use of 12 the property.

 

[geigy]

Most of the comments here are off the mark, in my opinion. There is no prohibition from taking off from public property, such as a roadside or public park.

And it's not just Feinstein. Droners are misbehaving, and when they misbehave all of us get spanked for the actions of a few, and it's been an ongoing theme of news pieces for years.

Many people hate drones because they hate what droners are doing to their privacy. Just look up drone sunbathers, and you'll get dozens of news pieces like this one:

Sunbathing woman outraged over 'lingering' drone over her backyard

And not just news pieces, but videos from people privately harrassing women and posting the result to youtube, as a kind of trophy - half a million hits on this one:

 

[jwblair]

Actually, the way the proposal is worded, local regulations could forbid you from taking off from even your own property if it was within 200' of a neighbor's house, which is the case in almost all urban environments.

(And in re-reading it, local regulations could, regardless of location--even your own property, regulate any and all takeoffs and landings, which, by definition, occur below 200' above ground level.)

See text of full Senate proposal at:
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s1272/BILLS-115s1272is.pdf

(b) RESERVED POWERS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In prescribing regulations or standards related to civil unmanned aircraft systems, the Administrator shall ensure that the authority of a State, local, or tribal government to issue reasonable restrictions on the time, manner, and place of operation of a civil unmanned aircraft system that is operated below 200 feet above ground level or within 200 feet of a structure is not preempted.​

 

[tcope]

Most of the comments here are off the mark, in my opinion. There is no prohibition from taking off from public property, such as a roadside or public park.[/qyote]As mentioned above, you there would be.

And it's not just Feinstein. Droners are misbehaving, and when they misbehave all of us get spanked for the actions of a few, and it's been an ongoing theme of news pieces for years.

Skateboarders are misbehaving. I'm betting I can find 100 of those such videos for every one drone abuse video. yet we don't outlaw skateboards.

Truth is, drone abuse is not really an issue. Are there isolated problems? Yes. but no more than with any other thing. Probably less. The problem right now is media coverage. It's all negative about drones and it's interesting... so it gets covered. What lawmakers feel the need to do is duplicate existing laws and then even push them a bit further. This simply is not needed.

 

[geigy]

Relax. The 200 foot rule is a reasonable compromise, that gives us some breathing room - we can fly at 200 to 400 feet over private property and lower than that provided we are located 200 feet horizontally from a private structure. I see this as giving us a solid 200 foot altitude corridor, if you will, where we may move freely. I see no reason for the FAA to impinge on this intent

Compare this with existing scenarios where it is illegal to fly less than 500 feet above a private dwelling, with an FAA mandated maximum height of 400 feet., in effect making it illegal to fly over private property at all.

The new law may make things more solid and predictable for droners.

 

[jwblair]

(b) RESERVED POWERS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In prescribing regulations or standards related to civil unmanned aircraft systems, the Administrator shall ensure that the authority of a State, local, or tribal government to issue reasonable restrictions on the time, manner, and place of operation of a civil unmanned aircraft system that is operated below 200 feet above ground level or within 200 feet of a structure is not preempted.​

Relax. The 200 foot rule is a reasonable compromise, that gives us some breathing room - we can fly at 200 to 400 feet over private property and lower than that provided we are located 200 feet horizontally from a private structure. I see this as giving us a solid 200 foot altitude corridor, if you will, where we may move freely. I see no reason for the FAA to impinge on this intent

Compare this with existing scenarios where it is illegal to fly less than 500 feet above a private dwelling, with an FAA mandated maximum height of 400 feet., in effect making it illegal to fly over private property at all.

The new law may make things more solid and predictable for droners.

I think you are misreading the law. It does not say that we have the right to fly 200 feet above private property. It says that local governments can make their own rules for drones flying below 200' AGL (which can include taking off and landing) or within 200' of any structure (there is no qualification of public or private land or structure in the text) without having to worry about the FAA claiming that such laws are preempted by FAA regulations. 336 only restricts the FAA from regulating recreational drone flights, not local governments. In the past the FAA claimed that local governments could not regulate any aircraft operations in the air as that was the sole purview of the FAA. This language explicitly states that local governments can make their own rules for the airspace below 200' AGL and that such local rules have precedence over the FAA rules. I see this as a bad thing.

 

[tcope]

Relax. The 200 foot rule is a reasonable compromise, that gives us some breathing room - we can fly at 200 to 400 feet over private property and lower than that provided we are located 200 feet horizontally from a private structure. I see this as giving us a solid 200 foot altitude corridor, if you will, where we may move freely. I see no reason for the FAA to impinge on this intent

Compare this with existing scenarios where it is illegal to fly less than 500 feet above a private dwelling, with an FAA mandated maximum height of 400 feet., in effect making it illegal to fly over private property at all.

The new law may make things more solid and predictable for droners.

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand the regulations correctly (current or proposed).

There is no requirement from the FAA to fly under 400'. That is a (hobby) recommendation only. The proposed 200' rule is that you cannot _operate_ a drone at less than 200' over property without the owners permission. This means you cannot take off of land on _anyone_ elses property without their permission (as you'd end up flying over their property at less than 200'). Where do you usually fly? Think about yur last few flights. Can you name everyone's who's property you flew over? Would you then also be able to contact them and obtain their permission (even to simply fly _over_ their property)? Keep in mind, most people would say no 1) because they can and 2) because they see asking permission as a liability issue for them. So you want to drive 50, 100, 200 miles away from your home and fly.... good luck! You now need to check in with _everyone_ who owns the property you are flying over. You have their phone numbers?

But this is just a start! We would then have 10 entities making up what ever other rules they want against drone flights. Those would then be added to what I mentioned above. No one is going to join that list unless they want to make rules _against_ drone flights. So this would be just a start.

Even this law would just about make flying illegal in the US (as it did in Canada). And all for a toy that takes photos.

 

[geigy]

No - what ever you want call it, the 400 foot rule is there for the safety of other people who are flying. I place a very high value on that. Ignore it and you put their lives in danger.

 

[tcope]

No - what ever you want call it, the 400 foot rule is there for the safety of other people who are flying. I place a very high value on that. Ignore it and you put their lives in danger.

What I stated is correct (400' and other information). You are to be commended for flying in a safe manner. I'm also not condoning flying above 400'. I'm only pointing out that fact. It's also possible for fly over 400' and still be safe (which is probably why it's never been a requirement). There are hundreds of posts on this board (even an entire thread of people breaking the law and flying in an "unsafe" manner) about flying well beyond VLOS. I don't see you being critical of them.... and they are actually breaking the law. Instead you indicate people who fly above 400' are unsafe. Again, if you feel that you are flying in a safe manner, great. I commend that. If the speed limit is 45mph and you feel safe driving 40mph, good for you. However, I'm not doing anything wrong by driving 45mph.Same thing.

 

[geigy]

I think it's unreasonable to expect me to jump on every asinine thing that is posted here. I'd get bony fingers!

And the 200 foot limit is intended to stop people from hovering over your yard and photographing you for as long as they want. I don't see any reason the FAA would go beyond that and prevent people from launching from a normal sized lot. I think it's a more than fair approach. I would have also added a hover limitation - keep moving nothing to see here.

 

[tcope]

And the 200 foot limit is intended to stop people from hovering over your yard and photographing you for as long as they want. I don't see any reason the FAA would go beyond that and prevent people from launching from a normal sized lot.

If that is what Feinstein wanted, the statute should have been written that way. It's not so much the FAA I'd be worried about. I'd be more worried about the local police. At any time they could threaten people with a referral to the FAA to levy a fine if the flight was not ended. When a police officer comes up to you and tells you that you are flying illegally and he/she is going to confiscate your drone are you going to tell them to go pound sand and keep in flying? It _will_ happen as it does happen now. With a law on the books that actually allows them to make this threat, it will happen a lot more.

There are plenty of laws already on the books that protect people's privacy. I think there is some room for further laws but they should be very limited at most. Privacy against drones is simply not an issue. Does it happen? Yes. Is it really an issue? No. Cell phones and digital cameras are a much higher threat than drones.

But also keep in mind, this proposal would allow 10 entities to make further laws (as they saw fit) against drone flying. The bill leaves this _WIDE_ open to anything. Does anyone know what those additional laws would be? Nope. I see no reason to leave such a wide door open for further regulation when we are talking about flying a toy around.