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

Dangerous legislation in Missouri

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.
Email sent to my Congressman explaining my shock at Phil Washington being nominated to that post. I also expressed that politics, race, creed, sex, etc. should have no part in the nomination for that position, and only the most qualified person should fill that vacancy.
 
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.

Does this law not ban overflight of private property at less than 400 feet?
That’s the way I read it. And since we are limited to 400’ that blocks traversing over property which is supposed to be allowed.
 
There is no federal park, forest, or wildlife management area in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The police officer was not misleading @GregS. The city has an ordinance that prohibits flying drones on all city property, rights of way, specified venues, and all Gulf beaches. The prohibition against operating in the national airspace above those areas may not be valid in light of FAA control. But it is part of the city ordinance.

What about a regular plane flying over or shot air balloon. What would they say?
 
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.
Does that surprise anyone? Look at the other appointees… ☹️
 
  • Like
Reactions: Walleye Hunter
What about a regular plane flying over or shot air balloon. What would they say?
They would be above 400 feet, so the drone gods that drafted the law would graciously allow (sarcasm!)
 
Email sent to my Congressman explaining my shock at Phil Washington being nominated to that post. I also expressed that politics, race, creed, sex, etc. should have no part in the nomination for that position, and only the most qualified person should fill that vacancy.
Letting my senators know the same.
 
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.
Get a load of this.


Former inexperienced and non pilot FAA administrators including Michael Huerta, are endorsing this piece of work.
 
Get a load of this.


Former inexperienced and non pilot FAA administrators including Michael Huerta, are endorsing this piece of work.
Unbelievable! The video of his interview says it all. The man has no background to run the FAA. How can a person that knows absolute zilch about aviation and aviation safety be considered a safety expert. All I can hope is that my Congressman and both Senators from Michigan listen to the messages I sent them about this person’s ineptitude for the job.
 
Isn't the role of the Administrator to administrate?

In the ideal world, we'd all like to see someone in the position who as a child had a passion for flying model airplanes, later flew real planes, now with a continuing side hobby or possibly even career of flying drones, plus a deep understanding and experience in writing useful, practical, applicable and enforceable safety regulations that actually made any kind of sense.

But in the end, I'd even settle for someone who knows absolutely nothing at all about the subject, as long as he/she is good at hiring, managing, motivating, and directing the experts who actually do know something about the relevant subjects and lets them do a good job.

It would be nice if they put someone in charge who is sympathetic to drone pilots. But really, do you actually think the Administrator in charge is going to be able to recite every regulation in the book? Do you think the guy ultimately in charge, the President of your country, regardless of Republican or Democrat, would ever be able to tell you the difference between Part 107 or anything else when ambushed with detailed questions like that?

The guy isn't being appointed to be an air traffic controller, or to fly planes, or to write or enforce new regulations all on his own. He's there to manage the experts who do all those things for him and who coach him on which topics currently require his attention on important decisions.
 
Isn't the role of the Administrator to administrate?

In the ideal world, we'd all like to see someone in the position who as a child had a passion for flying model airplanes, later flew real planes, now with a continuing side hobby or possibly even career of flying drones, plus a deep understanding and experience in writing useful, practical, applicable and enforceable safety regulations that actually made any kind of sense.

But in the end, I'd even settle for someone who knows absolutely nothing at all about the subject, as long as he/she is good at hiring, managing, motivating, and directing the experts who actually do know something about the relevant subjects and lets them do a good job.

It would be nice if they put someone in charge who is sympathetic to drone pilots. But really, do you actually think the Administrator in charge is going to be able to recite every regulation in the book? Do you think the guy ultimately in charge, the President of your country, regardless of Republican or Democrat, would ever be able to tell you the difference between Part 107 or anything else when ambushed with detailed questions like that?

The guy isn't being appointed to be an air traffic controller, or to fly planes, or to write or enforce new regulations all on his own. He's there to manage the experts who do all those things for him and who coach him on which topics currently require his attention on important decisions.
Most of the people at the top have credentials, but it follows the person who nominated him. They all resemble a certain pattern of not having credentials just an ability to play with the taxpayers money.


You must really love me! Portraying a time in the Oscars past (Sally Fields).
 
Last edited:
Isn't the role of the Administrator to administrate?

In the ideal world, we'd all like to see someone in the position who as a child had a passion for flying model airplanes, later flew real planes, now with a continuing side hobby or possibly even career of flying drones, plus a deep understanding and experience in writing useful, practical, applicable and enforceable safety regulations that actually made any kind of sense.

But in the end, I'd even settle for someone who knows absolutely nothing at all about the subject, as long as he/she is good at hiring, managing, motivating, and directing the experts who actually do know something about the relevant subjects and lets them do a good job.

It would be nice if they put someone in charge who is sympathetic to drone pilots. But really, do you actually think the Administrator in charge is going to be able to recite every regulation in the book? Do you think the guy ultimately in charge, the President of your country, regardless of Republican or Democrat, would ever be able to tell you the difference between Part 107 or anything else when ambushed with detailed questions like that?

The guy isn't being appointed to be an air traffic controller, or to fly planes, or to write or enforce new regulations all on his own. He's there to manage the experts who do all those things for him and who coach him on which topics currently require his attention on important decisions.
And if you are totally ignorant of what you are administrating how do you make good decisions? I’m sorry, but life experience has shown me that a manager that has no knowledge of what they are managing is very ineffective at the job.

He comes from a military background and promotions there are made inside a career field. That way you are managing people and assets that you are familiar with.
 
Isn't the role of the Administrator to administrate?

In the ideal world, we'd all like to see someone in the position who as a child had a passion for flying model airplanes, later flew real planes, now with a continuing side hobby or possibly even career of flying drones, plus a deep understanding and experience in writing useful, practical, applicable and enforceable safety regulations that actually made any kind of sense.

But in the end, I'd even settle for someone who knows absolutely nothing at all about the subject, as long as he/she is good at hiring, managing, motivating, and directing the experts who actually do know something about the relevant subjects and lets them do a good job.

It would be nice if they put someone in charge who is sympathetic to drone pilots. But really, do you actually think the Administrator in charge is going to be able to recite every regulation in the book? Do you think the guy ultimately in charge, the President of your country, regardless of Republican or Democrat, would ever be able to tell you the difference between Part 107 or anything else when ambushed with detailed questions like that?

The guy isn't being appointed to be an air traffic controller, or to fly planes, or to write or enforce new regulations all on his own. He's there to manage the experts who do all those things for him and who coach him on which topics currently require his attention on important decisions.
The problem with that assumption is that he would be able to know which experts to count on for advice. His predecessor, Stephen Dickson, came in with years of experience as a pilot and as an airline executive. Dickson was an advocate for air safety. Washington just doesn't have that experience.
 
The problem with that assumption is that he would be able to know which experts to count on for advice. His predecessor, Stephen Dickson, came in with years of experience as a pilot and as an airline executive. Dickson was an advocate for air safety. Washington just doesn't have that experience.
Michael Huerta may have been right in the middle of the drone mania, while not having any aviation experience either. But now we have the reauthorization act coming up at the same time we have an open chair to fill. We might get Shanghaied for awhile before anything actually starts to happen.
 
I'd even settle for someone who knows absolutely nothing at all about the subject, as long as he/she is good at hiring, managing, motivating, and directing the experts who actually do know something about the relevant subjects and lets them do a good job.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MS Coast
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:Missouri House of Representatives - Bill Information for HB178

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.
It is illegal for states to enact legislation related to drones. Of course state parks are off limits, but that's as far as it goes. Drone law falls under the pervue of the FAA, ie Federal Law..

FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority​

Friday, July 20, 2018
Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety, the efficiency of the navigable airspace, and air traffic control, among other things. State and local governments are not permitted to regulate any type of aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the navigable airspace.
However, these powers are not the same as regulation of aircraft landing sites, which involves local control of land and zoning. Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.

Cities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft.
However, as indicated, they may generally determine the location of aircraft landing sites through their land use powers.
 
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:Missouri House of Representatives - Bill Information for HB178

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.
I live in a state bordering Missouri, and can attest to the reality that legislators in Missouri aren't particularly concerned with what the FAA rules are. They absolutely will make it a point to hurry legislation like this through the approval process AND will make it a point to have their law enforcement agencies focus their attention on catching offenders for this instead of more serious offenses. This will likely get pushed to a federal review.
 
Whoever wrote this bill didn't understand the rules as they currently exist, is braindead, or is deliberately doing it because they don't like drones.

"federally certified pilots ... are exempt from the provisions of the bill."

Well, uh, okay? All 44809 and 107 pilots are exempt from it then. It only applies to you if you decide to fly without having either of those things, in which case it's still illegal because of:

49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

Cities, states, and so on can't prevent you from launching, landing, or operating above private property.
 
The FAA has control of the air space not the towns , cities or anyone else . They can't stop you from flying over anything except , jails and certain infrastructure How many times has this been said they can't enforce a law like that.period .
Cities or states can't prevent you from flying over jails, prisons, "critical infrastructure" etc.
That would be an airspace regulation.

The only actual "critical infrastructure" that you are federally forbidden from flying over is listed on the FAA ArcGIS page:
ArcGIS Web Application
This includes things like military bases and firing ranges, nuclear power plants, and some specific national landmarks. It does NOT include giant lists of every possible industrial facility known to mankind, or every government building, jail, prison, police station, etc. Those are NOT critical infrastructure as defined by the FAA.

I am exhausted of these stupid and ridiculous laws such as this, as well as ones of similar nature like in Oregon (ORS 837.372, et al) and Arizona (ARS 13-3729). I'm sure other states or cities have ones like that too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DoomMeister
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

Forum statistics

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