Great news for US Drone pilots!

[williamtthomas]

It looks like city drone laws are now not valid as long as they conflict with FAA laws. In other words, you can’t be banned from flying just because the city says you can’t. You can fly over someone’s house because it is not ‘private property’ according to this judge.

Judge Affirms Limited Power of States and Cities Over Drones

 

[UAVXTC]

Waiting to see if something similar will happen over the pond here in the UK. Our Local Authorities think they are our masters and make up tons of bye-laws, only thing is I think our Legal system is heavily swayed towards them and Orwellian like. Nice to hear common sense from a Judge for a change. I believe in the common sense approach, if you can't use common sense and cause harm or loss, you must face the consequences, luckily I think most in the hobby / profession use their head, but then again there are a few who score low on the Darwinian scale.

 

[danman999]

Flying low over peoples homes and/or property without permission is rude and inconsiderate, regardless of the law. This behavior is what has lead, in part, to cities passing ordinances restricting or prohibiting drones.
Just be courteous and considerate, and use common sense.

 

[WolfgangStiller]

Flying low over peoples homes and/or property without permission is rude and inconsiderate, regardless of the law. This behavior is what has lead, in part, to cities passing ordinances restricting or prohibiting drones.
Just be courteous and considerate, and use common sense.

That's a great point. We all need to consider more than just what is legal and be considerate of others.

 

[Qoncussion]

I'm unable to read the whole story unless I subscribe to the WSJ site... What level of court is this judge? I am guessing that this only applies to Newton, Mass..? Sacramento, close to where I live, has banned drones in all parks. I'd love to see a ruling like this go nation-wide.

 

[tcope]

Flying low over peoples homes and/or property without permission is rude and inconsiderate, regardless of the law. This behavior is what has lead, in part, to cities passing ordinances restricting or prohibiting drones.

Where did anyone mention anything about flying low? Truth is, no one ever mentioned it. Flying into the side of someone's house is also rude. We could go on and on but it's not what was being discussed at all.

Truth is, _everyone_ here has flown over someone else's property without their permission and unless you are always launching from your own property, everyone here has flown low over someone else's property without their permission.

What lead to UAV restriction on the city level are law makers not knowing anything about UAVs and not understanding that their laws were unlawful.

 

[tcope]

I'm unable to read the whole story unless I subscribe to the WSJ site... What level of court is this judge? I am guessing that this only applies to Newton, Mass..? Sacramento, close to where I live, has banned drones in all parks. I'd love to see a ruling like this go nation-wide.

Ruling gives FAA more power over drones than local governments

Judge is District Court so this is most likely just local. Still, good precedent.

 

[Sevier456]

What even happens if you fly a drone then a cop comes and tells you to bring it down. If the cop is a **** what could he do? Take it ? Give you a fine ? Realistically if your not flying over you neighbor hood looking at houses you should be fine if the B4 you fly app of hover app doesn't have any caution you are fine just don't give people a reason to hate you

 

[tcope]

What even happens if you fly a drone then a cop comes and tells you to bring it down. If the cop is a **** what could he do? Take it ? Give you a fine ? Realistically if your not flying over you neighbor hood looking at houses you should be fine if the B4 you fly app of hover app doesn't have any caution you are fine just don't give people a reason to hate you

I'm not sure you understand the situation. In many cases local laws are being made that pretty much prevent you from flying. For example, there are a few that state that you need to obtain everyone's permission before flying over their property. So this basically means that you can only take off, fly over and land on your own property. No where else. Think about that. You just spend $1200 on a Mavic and now you basically can only fly right over your house. No where else. Worse yet, let's say you go to a city or area with that law. How would you know what the law was or where it applied? No app is out there to show you this information. It is whatever random (illegal) law some town,city, county, etc. wants to make. In the case mentioned here, you'd even need to _PAY_ that town to fly. You'd be registering yourself with them for a fee. No one is going to tell you that this needs to be done or where... you'd just need to know. The list goes on and one. What happens when the police show up and you don't have all the proper permits? You could very well get a citation which might cost you $50, $100 or $500. You simply need to be in violation of the law. You don't need to be spying on anyone or really doing anything else wrong. The police officer does not like drones or just thinks the law should be enforced so you get a ticket.

Keep in mind... these are _illegal_ laws and are being made because people have no clue about people simply wanting to fly a drone and not bother anyone.

 

[BIGLUG24]

I though you can't fly over house's because it is there space up to
500ft and by law we can only go
400 above a house

 

[tcope]

I though you can't fly over house's because it is there space up to
500ft and by law we can only go
400 above a house

In the US that would not be correct. No one owns public airspace. Property owner only have what amounts to an easement for the space above their property. That easement allows them to use the property as it was intended.

There is no 500' or 400' law. There is certainly no law that applies to a "house".

 

[smurfslayer]

A lot of this comes from tendency of government to want to control, the complete brainwashing of Americans that we require government permission for anything we do and if confronted we have been cowering in the corner begging to not be imprisoned.

There are a few topical analogies, but a god one currently is the panic rush by local governments to "regulate" Airbnb type rentals. This is a governmental protection racket to tax what was already legal conduct. UAVs were close to the level of loacal regs. Lots of passive aggressive so sought to sick the government on UAV flyers only to be frustrated by the lack of illegality. Once local governments realize they are leaving something legal on the table they study it, form a committee, produce reports that ordinary humans cannot understand and finally outlaw it wit equally incomprehensible language to discourage the sheep from challenging the restrictions.

Unfortunately, I think this case will be an outlier, and more lower level judges will side with their employers. AKA the local government.

I think that this will make a lot of amateur political activists out of UAV enthusiasts, some of whom don't even know it yet

 

[TylerDurden]

I'm unable to read the whole story unless I subscribe to the WSJ site... What level of court is this judge? I am guessing that this only applies to Newton, Mass..? Sacramento, close to where I live, has banned drones in all parks. I'd love to see a ruling like this go nation-wide.

It is a federal court. You are correct that this applies in the Federal District of Massachusetts, however it currently controls in the First Circuit and is persuasive in Cali and the [moronic/always wrong] Ninth Circuit. If Sacramento tried ticketing me, I would feel very confident that I would win in court based on this federal judicial opinion.

 

[jerryflah]

It is a federal court. You are correct that this applies in the Federal District of Massachusetts, however it currently controls in the First Circuit and is persuasive in Cali and the [moronic/always wrong] Ninth Circuit. If Sacramento tried ticketing me, I would feel very confident that I would win in court based on this federal judicial opinion.

good..... but I for one don't need the aggravation.

 

[jerryflah]

Sooooooooo, only a municipality's building regs. prevent me from building a towering monument on my 1/4 acre to my own stupidity. Wow fame at last?!

 

[tcope]

What you posted does not contradict what I stated. You are talking about air rights, not ownership. A landowner does have rights to the airspace above his/her property. If you want to build upward into public airspace, you can. You have that right. However, you never own that airspace above your property. As you build, that airspace converts from public airspace into your property because it's no longer airspace.

Here is the information from Wikipedia that explains some of Air Rights:

Air rights in development
The owner of the land has the exclusive development rights in the 'space' above his lands. Under common law, building a 'hangover' that breaks the vertical plane of a neighbors property is a trespass and the property owner has the right to remove offending structure. The Airspace is property and retains Developmental rights which can be sold or transferred. Thus in a dense downtown area, each building in the area may have the right to thirty-five stories of airspace above his own property. The owners of an older building of only three stories high could make a great deal of money by selling their building and allowing a thirty-five story skyscraper to be built in its place. For example, a skyscraper developer may purchase the unused airspace from an adjacent landowner in order to develop a broader building. In November 2005, Christ Church in New York sold its vertical development rights for a record $430 per square foot, making more than $30 million on the sale

A person is free to sell the rights to develop into that airspace. Don't want a 500' tall building next to your building... sign a lease with that person not to build. You are basically leasing that person's right to that airspace.

I'm not a lawyer but I also think the wiki quote above may be slightly off. I don't think you can ever buy someone's right to airspace. I'm betting you could only lease it. A minor point for this discussion.

So.... not the same thing.

 

[gnirtS]

Flying low over peoples homes and/or property without permission is rude and inconsiderate, regardless of the law. This behavior is what has lead, in part, to cities passing ordinances restricting or prohibiting drones.
Just be courteous and considerate, and use common sense.

....and this is the problem. Just because you (currently) CAN do something doesn't mean you should. Play nice with other people, dont go out to annoy them and then theres more chance of being left alone.
Too many drone owners see it as their "right" to fly any way they like even if it inconveniences other people. The result is legislation and rules get imposed. We've got a toy that is fun to use but is also easy to annoy non users. That part seems to get forgotten.

 

[gnirtS]

Waiting to see if something similar will happen over the pond here in the UK. Our Local Authorities think they are our masters and make up tons of bye-laws, only thing is I think our Legal system is heavily swayed towards them and Orwellian like. Nice to hear common sense from a Judge for a change. I believe in the common sense approach, if you can't use common sense and cause harm or loss, you must face the consequences, luckily I think most in the hobby / profession use their head, but then again there are a few who score low on the Darwinian scale.

The UK doesn't need that ruling. The law as it stands is fine. Private bodies can restrict operations from, taking off or landing from their property and thats it. The "bye laws" thing trotted out mainly by odious bodies like the national trust are untested in law, they're unable to provide the specific bylaw when asked and most likely completely legally invalid.

Providing you're following the CAA drone rules, aren't causing a public nuisance or similar issue then you're good to fly providing the land owner is happy to let you take off, land and stand there.

 

[jazar]

Flying low over peoples homes and/or property without permission is rude and inconsiderate, regardless of the law. This behavior is what has lead, in part, to cities passing ordinances restricting or prohibiting drones.
Just be courteous and considerate, and use common sense.

That depends on how high you are flying.

 

[smurfslayer]

....and this is the problem. Just because you (currently) CAN do something doesn't mean you should. Play nice with other people, dont go out to annoy them and then theres more chance of being left alone.
Too many drone owners see it as their "right" to fly any way they like even if it inconveniences other people. The result is legislation and rules get imposed. We've got a toy that is fun to use but is also easy to annoy non users. That part seems to get forgotten.

Rules, regulation and legislation happen whether you are Mr. Nice Guy with your drone or you’re a complete a$$hole, or anything in between. As I tell my wife frequently ( she’s a JBT )

There is a fundamental difference between a diamondback rattlesnake and a government employee. If you leave the snake alone, the snake will leave you alone. If you leave the government employee alone, they will not leave you alone.

You need not inconvenience or affect anyone. There will be some bad actor government agency, authority, department or board that will find a way to outlaw you. Most of the major or larger urban government entities communicate via professional groups. They form model rules, regulations and legislation via working group and shop this model language around. Take a look at municipal park rules some time and note the similarity you’ll find. A lot of what the bigger local governments do is not because of some local concern, but to “get ahead of” stuff.

I’m not advocating being a jerk. OTOH, we would be well served to keep a diligent watch on local governments.