Dangerous legislation in Missouri

[robc007]

I just found this gem in the April update of the FAA AIM:

11-4-6(g) There can be certain local restrictions to airspace. While the FAA is designated by federal law to be the
regulator of the NAS, some state and local authorities may also restrict access to local airspace. UAS pilots
should be aware of these local rules.

Here is a relevant legal opinion.

Finally: Clearer FAA Guidance on State and Local Airspace Restrictions – State Aviation Journal

stateaviationjournal.com

Reading one of the court documents from that article, it appears to set precedent forbidding local registration of drones, forbidding unlimited restrictions over private property, forbidding unlimited restrictions below 400 feet, and forbidding restriction of operations allowed under FAA waivers.

That court allowed city-imposed fines, privacy restrictions, non-interference with manned aircraft, etc.

That city's revised ordinance is here under 20-64:

https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/29803/638010923598570000

That same city forbids weekend lawn mowing outside the hours of 9:30 am to 8pm.

 

[teejay2024]

Greetings from Birmingham Alabama USA, welcome to the forum! We look forward to hearing from you!
Drop by the pilot’s check-in to introduce yourself.

I don't see anything "Dangerous" about it. In fact, if you're planning on taking off or landing on "private property" you should get permission with or without legislation. I'm sure it is because of blatant disrespect for personal property this legislation was introduced. Furthermore, anyone can be asked to leave private property and if they refuse they can be charged with transpassing.

Basically, it all boils down to the fact that the politicians haven't yet figured out how to tax recreational UAS operation.
This proposed legislation is discriminatory right out of the gate. This is because it doesn't recognize the fact that any airplane or helicopter pilot with a decent camera and a fair powered telephoto lens can do the same thing. In fact, some years ago i had a pilot knock on my door wanting to sell me an aerial picture he took of my home and property...and he never bothered to ask my permission to do so.
My point is, if airplane pilots can do it why are we singling out drone operators.

 

[GregS]

Basically because there are sooo many drone 'pilots' out there that are abusing the heck out of flying drones. They either don't care, or are just plain ignorant. I go with the first...
I can pull up a really good photo of someone's house by using Google Earth. Also, I stay in a condo on the beach in Florida each winter and no drones can fly there because we would be looking in the condo windows. Everyone I know down there has a very nice set of binoculars; but that's 'different'.

 

[teejay2024]

It passed out of committee with 8-0, now onto the floor.

I have to wonder what the real beef is here that the legislators are so imperitative about making this all pass in as many ways as possible.

Most likely because they haven't figured out how to tax all drone operations yet. Just like online gambling was illegal 8 years ago...now its legal but its taxed like crazy and regulated to no end.

 

[GregS]

Greetings from Birmingham Alabama USA, welcome to the forum! We look forward to hearing from you!
Drop by the pilot’s check-in to introduce yourself.

I don't see anything "Dangerous" about it. In fact, if you're planning on taking off or landing on "private property" you should get permission with or without legislation. I'm sure it is because of blatant disrespect for personal property this legislation was introduced. Furthermore, anyone can be asked to leave private property and if they refuse they can be charged with transpassing.

The part that concerns me is the second line stating no flying over any private property within 400 AGL above that property. So you would be very restricted as to where you could fly.

 

[GFields]

Basically, it all boils down to the fact that the politicians haven't yet figured out how to tax recreational UAS operation.
This proposed legislation is discriminatory right out of the gate. This is because it doesn't recognize the fact that any airplane or helicopter pilot with a decent camera and a fair powered telephoto lens can do the same thing. In fact, some years ago i had a pilot knock on my door wanting to sell me an aerial picture he took of my home and property...and he never bothered to ask my permission to do so.
My point is, if airplane pilots can do it why are we singling out drone operators.

For starters, they don't take off or land from your property. That is the point I was making!

 

[GregS]

Technically, the only control they can have is the take-off and landing points. Once airborne the FAA has jurisdiction.

Technically, that is true. However in many places like Gulf Shores, AL it is illegal to fly drones except in one place, the size of a soccer field at the north end of town. No flying outside that area.
I wanted to get my drone to help look for a guy that fell off his paddle board, but the Deputy told me; "Drone flying is illegal here". I think he finally drowned.

 

[GFields]

Technically, that is true. However in many places like Gulf Shores, AL it is illegal to fly drones except in one place, the size of a soccer field at the north end of town. No flying outside that area.
I wanted to get my drone to help look for a guy that fell off his paddle board, but the Deputy told me; "Drone flying is illegal here". I think he finally drowned.

Only if the FAA has restricted the Air Space.

 

[teejay2024]

This never passed. It was passed by the house but was never heard by the senate. So at least for now, it's DOA.

 

[ericole]

Basically, it all boils down to the fact that the politicians haven't yet figured out how to tax recreational UAS operation.
This proposed legislation is discriminatory right out of the gate. This is because it doesn't recognize the fact that any airplane or helicopter pilot with a decent camera and a fair powered telephoto lens can do the same thing. In fact, some years ago i had a pilot knock on my door wanting to sell me an aerial picture he took of my home and property...and he never bothered to ask my permission to do so.
My point is, if airplane pilots can do it why are we singling out drone operators.

interesting that you bring this up. My parents built a new house 37 years ago in what used to be farm land. Uncle next door, and friends on the other side - all on acreage. Not long after their house was built a guy showed up with aerial photos of the house looking to sell them. Clearly this was done from a plane or helicopter - not a drone. I do think RC planes had cameras back then, but of very poor quality - plus there was no where an RC plane could take off for the operator to have been able to see it there.

 

[ericole]

This never passed. It was passed by the house but was never heard by the senate. So at least for now, it's DOA.View attachment 174499

maybe someone finally told them they don't control the airspace above property and this law couldn't survive litigation?

 

[ballardb]

I'm certainly no lawyer but the words here are the ones that need clarification. It seems obvious to me that those of us who are certified 107 holders meet the criteria of being "federally certified" since we hold a "certificate" issued by the FAA - a federal agency.

But if that is true, then it begs the question - Does not having a TRUST "Certificate" issued by that same federal agency mean that recreational flyers hold a federal certification (of a different type no doubt) but none the less still, are federally certified?

Hi Steve, sounds like you just need to get Part 107 certified and you won't have to be concerned about this if it passes.

Michael

What a out the TRUST that is still a federal certification wouldn't that also be exempt?

 

[mavic3usa]

What a out the TRUST that is still a federal certification wouldn't that also be exempt?

I see several indications where "certified" was replaced by "authorized" but that doesn't clear anything up, really. Overall the bill was too comprehensive, too vague, a bunch of head scratchers and likely several conflicts with the federal law. Missouri is one of those states who pay equal attention to both the citizens and the authorities so this bill places some restrictions on law enforcement which could be one reason why it didn't get any traction. I'm sure they'll try again one day and yes, the way it is written, recreational flyers would likely take a beating otherwise who else would fall under the non-exempt? There isn't anyone left so it's gotta be the bottom rung. That bill would have allowed anyone to complain and therefore law enforcement could investigate and ultimately take action.