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

Dangerous legislation in Missouri

Yes. BUT!

The problem is that the FAA isn't going to be there when the local police officer confronts you for flying in violation of the city ordinance. See post #25. Until those ordinances are tested in court, they stand and the police are obligated to enforce them.
Don't forget that the faa is handing it over to the local jurisdiction via remote id.
 
As I updated in my original post, things are not what they seemed. My OP quoted the official summary on the House website — but the bill itself was heavily modified before passing in committee before passing. The summary of the version that passed in committee was not published until yesterday.

One of the changes was to define "Model aircraft" as something flown within the visual line of sight of the operator and flown for hobby or recreational purposes. Then it said the nasty bits of the bill do not apply to the use of such "model aircraft".

That language is not explained in even the new summary. But it is pretty clear in the bill text (https://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/hlrbillspdf/0816H.03C.pdf Page 1 lines 12-16, and Page 3 line 37.


There remains a question of whether monetized use of drone footage (like those who get ad revenue from a youtube channel) would appear to mean you are NOT exempted.
 

Arizona is trying to do the same thing!


They even were trying to ban use of police drones without a warrant. Interesting that not many states have considered that one though.

However, Arizona is being pawned by the Mexican cartel. Maybe some clues here. Can't stop the elections or the border intrusions because of being bought off by the Mexican cartel having more force than the Mexican military.
 
There remains a question of whether monetized use of drone footage (like those who get ad revenue from a youtube channel) would appear to mean you are NOT exempted.

So if you have a monetized channel in which you are using a drone to capture the footage, you are likely already a 107 (federally certified) pilot and therefore exempt anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torque and smashse
I like this one:

305.639. 1. Sections 305.635 to 305.641 do not prohibit the use of a manned aircraft, drone, or unmanned aircraft by:
(5) Any state-licensed real estate agent or broker, professional land surveyor, or real estate appraiser, or any person acting on behalf of such persons, in connection with the marketing, sale, or financing of real property;

I guess a realtor in MO can now take photos and videos without needing a §107 certification according to this legislation.

Once again I reiterate that those below the federal level need to keep their nose out of legislation pertaining to the NAS. This is the responsibility of the US Congress and the FAA. They can add their own more stringent regulations for government agencies under their control, but cannot take away the use of airspace granted to individuals by the FAA
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torque and Ty Pilot
I like this one:

305.639. 1. Sections 305.635 to 305.641 do not prohibit the use of a manned aircraft, drone, or unmanned aircraft by:
(5) Any state-licensed real estate agent or broker, professional land surveyor, or real estate appraiser, or any person acting on behalf of such persons, in connection with the marketing, sale, or financing of real property;

I guess a realtor in MO can now take photos and videos without needing a §107 certification according to this legislation.

Once again I reiterate that those below the federal level need to keep their nose out of legislation pertaining to the NAS. This is the responsibility of the US Congress and the FAA. They can add their own more stringent regulations for government agencies under their control, but cannot take away the use of airspace granted to individuals by the FAA
I don't think the faa will take a liking to this regulation. State law isn't prohibiting it, but the federal government is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torque and smashse
I
Hello:
I just learned that Missouri House bill HB 178 was passed out of committee on Feb 28 by a vote of 8-0, and is now headed to the House floor. Here is the link:https://www.house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB178&year=2023&code=R

And here is the summary:

HB 178 -- UNLAWFUL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SPONSOR: Van Schoiack
A person commits the offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft if they launch, land, or operate an unmanned aircraft on private property, or within a vertical distance of 400 feet from the ground within a private property line, without permission from the property owner. Unmanned aircraft operated by officials associated with public and private utilities and electric cooperatives; federally certified pilots; law enforcement or public safety departments; fire department or fire protection district; the Federal Railroad Administration; realtors and land surveyors; and insurance companies are exempt from the provisions of the bill. The offense of unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm new to the drone community, and this is the first forum I've joined. So those of you more familiar with the landscape, please help get the word out on this disastrous piece of legislation.
If I'm reading this right, the restriction on *operating* inside someone else's property below 400 ft is a non-starter.

That's FAA territory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranger
I don't think the faa will take a liking to this regulation. State law isn't prohibiting it, but the federal government is.
That was a little bit tongue in cheek on my part🤭 by pulling that one portion from the legislation. One would think they would at least consult with people that use drones before they start committing their stupidity to paper. The way they worded it any realtor could use a drone in the function of their business which we all know is NOT the case.

Sorry to say I’m starting to believe that all politicians have the brain capacity of a blow up punching toy like the clowns we had as kids. Nothing but hot air!
 
That was a little bit tongue in cheek on my part🤭 by pulling that one portion from the legislation. One would think they would at least consult with people that use drones before they start committing their stupidity to paper. The way they worded it any realtor could use a drone in the function of their business which we all know is NOT the case.

Sorry to say I’m starting to believe that all politicians have the brain capacity of a blow up punching toy like the clowns we had as kids. Nothing but hot air!
Sorry man but this made me laugh. I know it's not funny but are you new to America? Did you see any of the video on the proposed head of the FAA as he was grilled by Congress? The guy really doesn't seem to know the difference between manned vs unmanned or fixed wing vs rotary wing. And he never heard of Part 107 before.
 
Sorry man but this made me laugh. I know it's not funny but are you new to America? Did you see any of the video on the proposed head of the FAA as he was grilled by Congress? The guy really doesn't seem to know the difference between manned vs unmanned or fixed wing vs rotary wing. And he never heard of Part 107 before.


Sorry I can't answer that right now, it doesn't have anything to do with inclusion or diversity.
 
Last edited:

Former FAA administrator Michael Huerta probably where these drone regulations we don't understand started, wasn't a pilot either.
Unfortunately, they all install their buddies to cabinet positions and always did. I can still see and hear my 7th grade history teacher say, "To the victor go the spoils", as she described this to us. What's her name, Betsy Voss?, who Trump appointed as Secretary of Education? She had no experience in that field either. They all play that game and we pay for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torque
If this bill would prohibit flying over private property by unmanned aircraft (in the only part of the airspace where these are lawfully permitted to fly which means below 400 ft in the USA) not launched on that private property but elsewhere, then that is not lawful. They can't lawfully enact such a restriction. This would basically do the same thing as a law prohibiting manned aircraft from flying over private property in the airspace where manned aircraft are allowed to fly. Which is, create an impossible situation where the aircraft operator has to obtain permission in advance from every private property owner of lands it intends to fly over.

Not doable. Not lawful.
 
Sorry man but this made me laugh. I know it's not funny but are you new to America? Did you see any of the video on the proposed head of the FAA as he was grilled by Congress? The guy really doesn't seem to know the difference between manned vs unmanned or fixed wing vs rotary wing. And he never heard of Part 107 before.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention!!!

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!

This is absolutely unbelievable! I am writing to my Congressman first thing tomorrow and asking him what in the heck is wrong with our administration even suggesting that this guy is qualified to head the FAA. That is even worse than when Elaine Chao was Secretary of Transportation riding herd over the FAA.

Hopefully Congress will stand their ground and not confirm this guy. I also served in the military and I’m versed in a lot of piloting and airspace subjects, but am not qualified for leading the FAA and I know more than Mr. Washington on the subject.

This reminds me of when GM started hiring ‘rent-a-bosses’ for manufacturing departments and even more so with the skilled trades. If you are not well versed in the area you are supposed to manage you cannot be an effective manager.
 
Last edited:
It's not the take off or landing that's the issue, it's that you can't fly over at less than 400'. Since we can't go over 400' that basically means you (hobbiest) can't fly/pass over private property. If I read it correctly, they definitely wrote it to exempt everyone except folks flying for fun.
What is it you don't understand, No one can tell you you can't fly over private property . You can fly over at 25 ft if you want they can't stop you. I wouldn't advise it but you could and its perfectly legal.There are some place you can't fly. Natl Parks, jails, airports ,certain infrastructure to name a few but for the most part your free to fly . why is everybody in an uproad about stupid laws that cant be enforced
 
Unfortunately, they all install their buddies to cabinet positions and always did. I can still see and hear my 7th grade history teacher say, "To the victor go the spoils", as she described this to us. What's her name, Betsy Voss?, who Trump appointed as Secretary of Education? She had no experience in that field either. They all play that game and we pay for it.
Betsy Devos
 
What is it you don't understand, No one can tell you you can't fly over private property . You can fly over at 25 ft if you want they can't stop you. I wouldn't advise it but you could and its perfectly legal.There are some place you can't fly. Natl Parks, jails, airports ,certain infrastructure to name a few but for the most part your free to fly . why is everybody in an uproad about stupid laws that cant be enforced
The way America is run anymore, is that they (the gubment) get to do whatever they want and violate our rights repeatedly and we have to go to court to 'win' our rights back. The notion that any states would try this does not surprise me but it does aggravate me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torque and Ranger
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

Forum statistics

Threads
129,875
Messages
1,547,040
Members
158,949
Latest member
Horuz