East Bay Regional Parks Information and question.

[gunslinger221]

I am in the process of writing the FAA a letter regarding information regarding a municipal code put out by the East Bay Regional Parks. I went to one of the park locations and read a sign saying no drones allowed, came home and found this code they have about drones.

SECTION 409. - MISCELLANEOUS REGULATED ACTIVITIES.

No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District except in areas specifically designated and set aside from time to time by the Board for such activities.

409.3 Operate self-propelled (motor driven) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS aka "drone") model aircraft, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description, or fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations. (I) (rev. 4/16)

My question is this, closer then 500 feet? Maybe I am mistaken but I am under the impression the FAA ceiling for drone altitudes is set at a maximum altitude of 400 feet? So they want you to violate FAA regulations and fly over east bay regional parks at 500 feet? Wow, has anyone had any experiences with EBRPD? What is the deal here?

 

[Thomas B]

I am in the process of writing the FAA a letter regarding information regarding a municipal code put out by the East Bay Regional Parks. I went to one of the park locations and read a sign saying no drones allowed, came home and found this code they have about drones.

SECTION 409. - MISCELLANEOUS REGULATED ACTIVITIES.

No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District except in areas specifically designated and set aside from time to time by the Board for such activities.

409.3 Operate self-propelled (motor driven) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS aka "drone") model aircraft, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description, or fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations. (I) (rev. 4/16)

My question is this, closer then 500 feet? Maybe I am mistaken but I am under the impression the FAA ceiling for drone altitudes is set at a maximum altitude of 400 feet? So they want you to violate FAA regulations and fly over east bay regional parks at 500 feet? Wow, has anyone had any experiences with EBRPD? What is the deal here?

The FAA alone controls the sky. I believe they can forbid take-off and landing in the park, but the rest is not legal. Of course, fighting the reg would prove very expensive if a contest/ questioning of the reg at the groups local meetings was unsuccessful.

 

[gunslinger221]

Yes, I understand taking off and landing would be a violation. Thanks for the input, so you think flying over at 200 feet would not be a problem? I flew near the Black Diamond Mines , this is about a year ago and noticed the EBRPD helicopter was orbiting around my drone so I landed in a parking lot, which was not in the EBRPD jurisdiction. Maybe that is why they did not send anyone out to question me. Not sure but the helicopter did not come until I was flying for about an hour. I was at about 120 feet at that time.

 

[Norb_DAIS]

I am in the process of writing the FAA a letter regarding information regarding a municipal code put out by the East Bay Regional Parks. I went to one of the park locations and read a sign saying no drones allowed, came home and found this code they have about drones.

SECTION 409. - MISCELLANEOUS REGULATED ACTIVITIES.

No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District except in areas specifically designated and set aside from time to time by the Board for such activities.

409.3 Operate self-propelled (motor driven) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS aka "drone") model aircraft, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description, or fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations. (I) (rev. 4/16)

My question is this, closer then 500 feet? Maybe I am mistaken but I am under the impression the FAA ceiling for drone altitudes is set at a maximum altitude of 400 feet? So they want you to violate FAA regulations and fly over east bay regional parks at 500 feet? Wow, has anyone had any experiences with EBRPD? What is the deal here?

I don't know if you ever received an response to this, or if it is still relevant to you. I had an incident with the EBRPD about 2 years ago. Went to court and received a judgement against my case arguing the same thing you have brought up here. PM me and I can go into more detail if you're still interested.

-Norb

 

[MavicPeter]

They are setting a "floor" of 500 ft that is higher than the 400 ft AGL ceiling set by the FAA to try to effectively enforce a drone no-fly zone over the area. (In addition to forbidding takeoff/landing/operation in the area, which they are allowed to do)
This probably isn't legal as the FAA AFAIK has sole authority over airspace like this.

Now whether you could actually fight this ordinance and whether it's worth your time is a completely different question.

 

[MavicPeter]

Also forgot to mention that having a some authority *other* than the FAA impose a *minimum* flight altitude is not without precedent, as NOAA has done so. (Albeit this is a federal agency)
See: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) NOAA Regulated Overflight Zones of West Coast National Marine Sanctuaries | Office National Marine Sanctuaries

3) How can NOAA impose overflight regulations when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the only agency that can establish flight rules and restricted airspace?
Answer: NOAA recognizes the FAA's authority to regulate airspace and worked closely with the FAA to craft regulations that are explicitly linked to NOAA's statutory authority for natural resource protection. NOAA has established a minimum altitude disturbance threshold for federally protected marine mammal and seabird communities within discrete areas of each relevant west coast national marine sanctuary. Flying motorized aircraft below the 1,000-foot minimum altitude threshold in certain coastal areas of these sanctuaries violates a federal wildlife disturbance prohibition – not an FAA airspace restriction. The FAA, in a 2012 letter to the Aircraft Operators and Pilots Association (AOPA), stated that it does not view NOAA's minimum altitude disturbance thresholds as airspace regulations, nor as an infringement on the FAA's stated authority to regulate airspace.

So I would say this issue may be a bit complicated and ultimately I'd reach out to the FAA to ask for clarification as to whether they view this minimum 500 ft altitude as a "regulation" that infringes on their authority.

 

[MavicPeter]

I found this legal case which has some relation to the issues discussed here. Specifically a city tried to ban drones below 400 ft, a guy took them to court and won. This is just a very rough summary and there are many other specific details that make the case quite complicated and I’m not a lawyer. However it is a very good summary and analysis.

Singer v. City of Newton-(Case Declaring Local Drone Law Illegal)

City of Newton's drone ordinance was declared illegal by federal district court judge. We discuss the ruling & issues not answered.

jrupprechtlaw.com

 

[DStanworth]

I am in the process of writing the FAA a letter regarding information regarding a municipal code put out by the East Bay Regional Parks. I went to one of the park locations and read a sign saying no drones allowed, came home and found this code they have about drones.

SECTION 409. - MISCELLANEOUS REGULATED ACTIVITIES.

No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District except in areas specifically designated and set aside from time to time by the Board for such activities.

409.3 Operate self-propelled (motor driven) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS aka "drone") model aircraft, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description, or fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations. (I) (rev. 4/16)

My question is this, closer then 500 feet? Maybe I am mistaken but I am under the impression the FAA ceiling for drone altitudes is set at a maximum altitude of 400 feet? So they want you to violate FAA regulations and fly over east bay regional parks at 500 feet? Wow, has anyone had any experiences with EBRPD? What is the deal here?

horizontally 500 feet, not vertically.