Drone pilots refuse to be grounded by The Villages FL

[Captain Spock]

The The Flying Jib response is laced with emotion, but covers the basics about airspace ownership. HOWEVER, The Villages is a BIG outfit with a LOT of lawyers and it could be that the The Flying Jib has"awakened a sleeping giant."
Drone pilots refuse to be grounded by The Villages

 

[DashSolo]

Stand strong, I've got a lot of friends there and agree.

 

[Cafguy]

They put up a no Drone sign LOL! I have a must pay 100 dollars to pass this sign sign in my yard But people still walk by for free.

 

[Captain Spock]

Don at GoldWingNut Productions does aerial photo missions at The Villages . . .
Nicely done.
Gold Wingnut Productions
More about Don here in the original ban . . .
The Villages orders drone pilots to cease flights over construction sites

 

[chadCO]

Perhaps a carefully arranged demonstration of their lack of authority over airspace might be in order.

 

[spsphotos]

They need better lawyers who actually understand the law. Any lawyer worth their weight would tell them they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[RangerEd]

They put up a no Drone sign LOL! I have a must pay 100 dollars to pass this sign sign in my yard But people still walk by for free.

 

[chadCO]

They need better lawyers who actually understand the law. Any lawyer worth their weight would tell them they don't have a leg to stand on.

They haven't the slightest regard for the law, if they did they wouldn't have engaged with lawyers.

 

[Army Vet]

They need a New Jersey Drone Show to show them the error of their ways.

 

[SkySteve83]

Unless you are in the business of flying, most average U.S. citizens have no idea about the FAA laws regarding the use of airspace. They only learn when they try to stop us from flying over them. I'm sure most lawyers also only discover FAA airspace regulations when they get a call from a client trying to stop someone from flying over their property (unless they are smart enough to contact an aviation attorney). 51 Drones just had a video about the problem with municipalities trying to ban drones where they have no legal right to do so.

 

[BlueHeeler]

The The Flying Jib response is laced with emotion, but covers the basics about airspace ownership. HOWEVER, The Villages is a BIG outfit with a LOT of lawyers and it could be that the The Flying Jib has"awakened a sleeping giant."
Drone pilots refuse to be grounded by The Villages

Thank You for sharing, I got a kick out of that letter.

 

[Cafguy]

They need better lawyers who actually understand the law. Any lawyer worth their weight would tell them they don't have a leg to stand on.

A stubborn client can be profitable I suppose.

 

[hank970]

Any jurisdiction, including The Villages, can enact and enforce ordinances which restrict or forbid the launching and retrieval of drones within its boundaries. Taking off and landing are ground operations. But The Villages doesn't have jurisdiction over the airspace above, so it should and would remain permissible to launch a drone outside the community's boundaries (assuming that surrounding jurisdictions allow ground operations), fly in that airspace, and land outside.

As always, personal discretion and respect for the rights and interests of others are wise choices.

 

[CadrePilot]

Any jurisdiction, including The Villages, can enact and enforce ordinances which restrict or forbid the launching and retrieval of drones within its boundaries.

It could be argued that any jurisdiction taking something that was legal on private property and making it illegal is guilty of violating the private property rights of the owners.

 

[hank970]

It could be argued that any jurisdiction taking something that was legal on private property and making it illegal is guilty of violating the private property rights of the owners.

That would be a losing argument. Towns may prohibit the discharge of firearms on private property, regulate how many pets an owner can have, forbid accumulations of trash in peoples' yards, dictate what kinds of outdoor lighting are permitted, establish reasonable noise limitations, require that property owners mow their lawns and shovel their walks, and so on. The list is long. There are also unwritten rules or societal norms that most of us willingly respect. Regardless of our religious beliefs or the lack thereof, we all seem to agree that it would be inappropriate to ride motorcycle down church aisles.

Just because someone invents or purchases a new toy, like a drone, for example, shouldn't oblige everyone else to accommodate or tolerate its use.

I don't know much about The Villages, but a neighbor couple rented a place there for a month a few years ago and quickly concluded it wasn't their cup of tea. Too crowded, too much orchestrated "fun," too many oldsters riding garish golf carts willy-nilly, and too many petty (in their view) restrictions -- like an HOA on steroids. For others, such a controlled environment might be ideal. I'd imagine that those who choose to live there are made aware of the covenants and happily accept them before signing on the dotted line. Common courtesy demands that the rest of abide by their rules should we choose to visit.

 

[SkySteve83]

Any jurisdiction, including The Villages, can enact and enforce ordinances which restrict or forbid the launching and retrieval of drones within its boundaries. Taking off and landing are ground operations. But The Villages doesn't have jurisdiction over the airspace above, so it should and would remain permissible to launch a drone outside the community's boundaries (assuming that surrounding jurisdictions allow ground operations), fly in that airspace, and land outside.

As always, personal discretion and respect for the rights and interests of others are wise choices.

This is an important point. How can you fly if you can't take off? Is passing a law against landing and retrieving legal? That would certainly present a problem for us in most locations. If a town can ban launching and retrieving, how can you legally fly?

 

[Blue Thunder Pilot]

Is passing a law against landing and retrieving legal?

That's a question for qualified lawyers with expertise in that area. Otherwise you're stuck with forum opinions.

Not being a lawyer and visiting friends in a few of these communities, I'd bet any private community restriction that's not contrary to state or federal law would be legal. But that's just a guess.

A family I know moved into an HOA housing tract because of the restrictive environment. They wanted away from teens speeding up and down city streets, neighbors who blasted music all day and night, neighbors with 6-7 cars parked all over, etc. Can't blame them.

But then the HOA came down on them for having a roof mounted TV antenna so they took it down. I mentioned the HOA doesn't have the authority in that instance courtesy of the FCC. They told the HOA and were told to pound salt. The family got a lawyer, sued and won plus court costs.

A lot of neighbors then had antennas installed. The HOA watched them like a hawk, but they were happy to comply with all the other stuff.

The key here was 'lawyer'. Nothing in the two articles above suggested the sky pilots had conferred with knowledgeable lawyers. So until they get that, they're shoveling sand against the tide. Mr. Wiley isn't fairing well in the Daily Rag.

 

[hank970]

This is an important point. How can you fly if you can't take off? Is passing a law against landing and retrieving legal? That would certainly present a problem for us in most locations. If a town can ban launching and retrieving, how can you legally fly?

Take off someplace else and fly over The Villages if that's what floats your boat.

A jurisdiction can enact an ordinance or pass a law which forbids taking off and landing drones within its boundaries, but it can't regulate the airspace above. That's the province of the FAA. If neighboring lands outside the jurisdiction boundaries don't have similar prohibitions, and if the FAA hasn't published any restrictions applicable to those areas, then it should be legal to take off and land outside jurisdiction boundaries and fly over it in FAA-regulated airspace. No doubt private and commercial pilots routinely fly over The Villages in their Cessnas and 737s in compliance with FAA regulations and nobody gives it a second thought.

What sets drones apart from other aircraft (other than helicopters) is their ability to fly lower and slower, and to hover. Plus, they're usually equipped with cameras. Concerns about intrusive behaviors raise some folks' hackles and may prompt jurisdictions to restrict drone use.

 

[Blue Thunder Pilot]

This kind of paranoia reminds me of a local court case where a bar owner prohibited people speaking other than English on his premises over concerns "they could be plotting against you". They. The owners lost based on racial discrimination because there was no requirement for others (white people) to speak loud enough so anybody would know if they too "were plotting against you".

Even without cameras, electric airplanes would get pushback at The Villages. I think "what sets drones apart" is largely irrelevant to these people.

I don't know about what floats anybody's boat but it's not surprising that anyone would want the convenience of launching from their own yard.

But sure, go off the property and go New Jersey on their butts. Do air races at 200' or whatever is the minimum ceiling for unrestricted airspace. Just check six for triple-A.

I want to see some links to posts by actual lawyers familiar with drones and FAA regs.

 

[GadgetGuy]

This is an important point. How can you fly if you can't take off? Is passing a law against landing and retrieving legal? That would certainly present a problem for us in most locations. If a town can ban launching and retrieving, how can you legally fly?

Especially under VLOS requirements from your launch location outside the prohibited area! It's a de facto ban with VLOS limitations. You would barely be able to legally fly inside the perimeter.