Help defining context and nuance of Chicago drone ordinance

[Skybuyer]

I have a few missions that I'd like to fly in the City of Chicago. My plan is to do it early enough in the morning that few if any people would be out. Chicago is one of those places where the intepretation of the law or the law itself can be largely what the authority on hand says it is. That being said, I think I'm within the law to fly the missions, but there are some nuances the way the Chicago Municipal Code drone ordinance is written and I'd like some input how both definition and authority. So, as written (abridged) the ordinance
Chicago municipal Code 10-36-400(b)(2), Chicago Drone Ordinance states :


(1) No person shall operate a drone in city airspace except for hobby or recreational purposes only and in conformity with this section. Check. Recreational.

(2) directly over any person who is not involved in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft, without such person’s consent. No issue. No intent on flying over people.

(3) over property that the operator does not own, without the property owner’s consent, and subject to any restrictions that the property owner may place on such operation. Aye, there's the rub (and question).

One one hand, a lay person could make the case that "there is no owner" and it is public land. OTOH, the authority in the flesh might take a position that "the city owns the propertly, even though public, and you must get a permit from (someone in) the city (whoever that person is, you can only imaging the size and relative anonymity of the bureaucracy here.

So... How do you read #3, and how would you approach the situation?

 

[Thomas B]

I think you could still get in trouble, but FAA is the authority from the ground up other than national parks and federallly designated wilderness.

 

[Skybuyer]

I think you could still get in trouble, but FAA is the authority from the ground up other than national parks and federallly designated wilderness.

I understand. For those who haven't lived here, Chicago is another world when it comes to rules and laws. I could literally write a book about the contradictions of laws and ordiances and the inverse of intended affects of those here, but this isn't the place. While one could rightfully argue that the FAA controls the air, tell that to a Park District cop who cites the ordinance and say you can't fly "over" the area- a clear contradition and conflict of authority. You can cite FAA all you want, but if he tickets you and confiscates your drone you now have an expensive battle to fight the citation and a stiffer, probably separate legal battle for regaining possession of your drone.

 

[brett8883]

I understand. For those who haven't lived here, Chicago is another world when it comes to rules and laws. I could literally write a book about the contradictions of laws and ordiances and the inverse of intended affects of those here, but this isn't the place. While one could rightfully argue that the FAA controls the air, tell that to a Park District cop who cites the ordinance and say you can't fly "over" the area- a clear contradition and conflict of authority. You can cite FAA all you want, but if he tickets you and confiscates your drone you now have an expensive battle to fight the citation and a stiffer, probably separate legal battle for regaining possession of your drone.

What’s even more frustrating is is that Illinois state law preempts local ordinances and only allows federal laws to be enforced EXCEPT in counties that have populations over 1,000,000. Lots of States specifically do not allow ordnances like this so that’s why I looked but I’ve never seen a state actually HAVE this kind of law but have an exemption lol. That’s crazy!

620 ILCS 5/42.1

(b) To the extent that State-level oversight does not conflict with federal laws, rules, or regulations, the regulation of an unmanned aircraft system is an exclusive power and function of the State. No unit of local government, including home rule unit, may enact an ordinance or resolution to regulate unmanned aircraft systems. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution. This Section does not apply to any local ordinance enacted by a municipality of more than 1,000,000 inhabitants.

You know exactly how that happened!

 

[Thomas B]

In Arizona one law was passed... and it states that Arizona state law preempted all other nonfederal jurisdictions in the state as far as drones.

 

[Skybuyer]

What’s even more frustrating is is that Illinois state law preempts local ordinances and only allows federal laws to be enforced EXCEPT in counties that have populations over 1,000,000. Lots of States specifically do not allow ordnances like this so that’s why I looked but I’ve never seen a state actually HAVE this kind of law but have an exemption lol. That’s crazy!

620 ILCS 5/42.1

(b) To the extent that State-level oversight does not conflict with federal laws, rules, or regulations, the regulation of an unmanned aircraft system is an exclusive power and function of the State. No unit of local government, including home rule unit, may enact an ordinance or resolution to regulate unmanned aircraft systems. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution. This Section does not apply to any local ordinance enacted by a municipality of more than 1,000,000 inhabitants.

You know exactly how that happened!

I'll leave the specific politics out of it, but those saavy will get the drift. The ordinance in question is loosely worded so that anyone can interpret it as they see fit for that day. . The puzzling part is that the ordinance references the ability to control airspace that is specifically granted to the FAA. There is so much more I can write.

 

[brett8883]

I'll leave the specific politics out of it, but those saavy will get the drift. The ordinance in question is loosely worded so that anyone can interpret it as they see fit for that day. . The puzzling part is that the ordinance references the ability to control airspace that is specifically granted to the FAA. There is so much more I can write.

Well what is the actual wording?

 

[Skybuyer]

Well what is the actual wording?

" "City airspace" means the airspace above the land, water and waterways within the jurisdiction of the city. "
Isn't the airspace the domain of the FAA? Jurisidiction over water???

And then there is the kicker (typical of Chicago)...
" (e) Seizure for unlawful use. If the mayor, superintendent of police, commissioner of aviation, fire commissioner or their duly authorized enforcement officers (in other words, pretty much any "official" who thinks they know the law and refuses to recognize FAA jurisdiction or understands application of the law and appropritate jurisdiction.) or designees have a reasonable basis to believe that any small unmanned aircraft is or has been operating in violation (note: suspicion is enough and a "reasaonble basis" is CYA talk for acting without real evidence. And worded so as any level of *suspected* violation would warrant seizure. Note that it doesn't say "factual evidence leading to a reasonable conclusion of violation.)

 

[theDRONEranger]

I understand. For those who haven't lived here, Chicago is another world when it comes to rules and laws. I could literally write a book about the contradictions of laws and ordiances and the inverse of intended affects of those here, but this isn't the place. While one could rightfully argue that the FAA controls the air, tell that to a Park District cop who cites the ordinance and say you can't fly "over" the area- a clear contradition and conflict of authority. You can cite FAA all you want, but if he tickets you and confiscates your drone you now have an expensive battle to fight the citation and a stiffer, probably separate legal battle for regaining possession of your drone.

That, my good man is the downside! Far too many entities within the US believe they own the airspace above their property. No one owns the airspace! The sole entity for the use of and governing of airspace (within the US of A) is the FAA. Many entities have placed restrictions on where and/or when drones may take off/land from/at via ordinances and/or other means. They can do this! Research of the proposed area of flight is a must these days to be sure to avoid and potential litigation problems. Happy flying!

 

[Deleted member 114292]

I have a few missions that I'd like to fly in the City of Chicago. My plan is to do it early enough in the morning that few if any people would be out. Chicago is one of those places where the intepretation of the law or the law itself can be largely what the authority on hand says it is. That being said, I think I'm within the law to fly the missions, but there are some nuances the way the Chicago Municipal Code drone ordinance is written and I'd like some input how both definition and authority. So, as written (abridged) the ordinance
Chicago municipal Code 10-36-400(b)(2), Chicago Drone Ordinance states :


(1) No person shall operate a drone in city airspace except for hobby or recreational purposes only and in conformity with this section. Check. Recreational.

(2) directly over any person who is not involved in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft, without such person’s consent. No issue. No intent on flying over people.

(3) over property that the operator does not own, without the property owner’s consent, and subject to any restrictions that the property owner may place on such operation. Aye, there's the rub (and question).

One one hand, a lay person could make the case that "there is no owner" and it is public land. OTOH, the authority in the flesh might take a position that "the city owns the propertly, even though public, and you must get a permit from (someone in) the city (whoever that person is, you can only imaging the size and relative anonymity of the bureaucracy here.

So... How do you read #3, and how would you approach the situation?

Dude you’re in crook county.
Laws don’t really matter if they decide to confiscate your drone you’ll have to fight to get it back.
If you do win it’ll cost you a bundle.

 

[Cw4bray]

If Cook, county believes they'll be the last City in the country to receive Amazon drone delivery's because of "City airspace", maybe they'll rewrite the ordinance to exclude non cargo drones ?

 

[Skybuyer]

If Cook, county believes they'll be the last City in the country to receive Amazon drone delivery's because of "City airspace", maybe they'll rewrite the ordinance to exclude non cargo drones ?

Money always talks in Chicago. It's funny, that the primary author of Chicago's drone laws was recently indicted for corruption. It only took them 35 years to catch up with him. We all knew what he was about.

Personally I highly doubt that Amazon will have a viable drone delivery service in the city. There are so many logistical hurdles, not even talking about securing the product from theft once "dropped" off. Most of Chicago is high density and high traffic, both vehicle and foot. And let's face the fact that a drone equipped to carry any payload would not be quiet by any stretch and would invoke public ire. The only question would be, which would be more powerful, the voice of the people or the money behind the mission. I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure that it will be an idea that "takes off" in the volume that concerns so many.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Money always talks in Chicago. It's funny, that the primary author of Chicago's drone laws was recently indicted for corruption. It only took them 35 years to catch up with him. We all knew what he was about.

So true. I think we defined The context.

 

[PhotoDog]

Listening to a police scanner last week, an officer reported seeing a drone "near" a downtown intersection. All units (and downtown there are many these days) were advised to look for the operator who was quickly located,. A supervisor ordered the unit to ascertain if they had the "proper permits" and detain the operator if not. No permit, and a few minutes dispatch notified that special paperwork would need to be filled out for further action on any drone incidents.

I've also had occasion to see an officer tell someone to just land the drone and another time one was ignored. In Chicago, ymmv, with this and a lot of other laws.

Also, Chicago Park District enforced by police and security, restricts taking off, landing, or operating from their property, like Millennium, Lincoln, Grant Parks (recognizing they can't control flyovers). The same is true of the forest preserves in and around the city. Do you feel lucky?

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Do you feel lucky?

Well, do ya, punk ...