I asked ChatGPT a question about a law conflict between Florida and the FAA

[mavictk]

I am posting the ChatGPT response only because I found its answer somewhat complete. I am fascinated that I can ask a very generic question and get a decent response. What do you think?

My question:
If the FAA has jurisdiction over the national airspace how can Florida create a law governing the use of the airspace for drones


ChatGPT response:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does indeed have jurisdiction over the national airspace in the United States, including the regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. However, while the FAA has primary authority over airspace regulation, there is a concept known as "preemption" that governs the relationship between federal and state laws in this context.
Under the doctrine of federal preemption, federal laws and regulations take precedence over state laws and regulations when there is a conflict or overlap. The FAA's authority over the national airspace preempts most state and local regulations related to drone operations. This means that states and local governments generally cannot create laws or regulations that directly conflict with or undermine FAA regulations.
However, there are exceptions to this preemption principle. States and localities may still have the authority to regulate certain aspects of drone operations, provided that their regulations do not conflict with federal law and do not interfere with the FAA's ability to manage and regulate the national airspace. For example:

1. Privacy: States can enact laws related to privacy and surveillance that may affect drone use, as long as they do not regulate the drone's flight altitude or other aspects of airspace management. These laws typically address issues such as surveillance and data collection by drones.
2. Land Use and Zoning: States and local governments can regulate where drones can take off and land, such as in parks or public property, without directly interfering with the FAA's airspace regulation.
3. Criminal Laws: States can enforce criminal laws related to the unsafe operation of drones, such as reckless flying or interference with emergency responders.
4. Emergency Response: States can regulate drone use in emergency situations or near disaster areas.

It's essential for states and localities to craft their drone-related laws carefully to avoid conflicts with federal regulations. They should also be aware that the FAA continues to develop and update regulations regarding UAS, and these federal regulations may evolve over time, potentially affecting the scope of state and local authority.
In summary, while the FAA has primary jurisdiction over the national airspace, there are areas where states and localities can still regulate aspects of drone use that do not directly conflict with federal law or undermine airspace management. However, any state or local regulations should be carefully considered and reviewed to ensure compliance with federal regulations and the principles of preemption.

 

[mavic3usa]

Case law will be the only way to begin properly resolving whatever conflict might exist.

 

[mavictk]

Case law will be the only way to begin properly resolving whatever conflict might exist.

I had asked ChatGPT another question and there is some case law quoted. Here is the Q&A

Where can I find offical documentation that the FAA preempts state governments on the control of the airspace

ChatGPT responds

The authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to regulate and control the national airspace is primarily derived from federal law. While there may not be a single document that explicitly states the FAA's preemption over state governments, the legal basis for this preemption can be found in various federal statutes and court decisions. Here are some key sources where you can find information supporting FAA preemption over state control of the airspace:

Federal Aviation Act (Title 49 U.S.C., Chapter 401): The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, is the foundational federal law that establishes the FAA's authority over aviation, including airspace. Section 40103 of this law provides the FAA with the exclusive authority to regulate the use of airspace in the United States.

49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1): This specific section of the Federal Aviation Act explicitly states that "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."

Supreme Court Cases: Court decisions have affirmed the FAA's authority and preemption over state regulation of airspace. One notable case is City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. (1973), in which the Supreme Court ruled that states and municipalities cannot enact regulations that interfere with the federal government's control over the national airspace.

FAA Regulations: The FAA's regulations, often published in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), provide detailed rules and requirements related to aviation, including airspace management. These regulations reflect the agency's authority over airspace matters.

FAA Advisory Circulars: While not legally binding, FAA Advisory Circulars (ACs) provide guidance and interpretations of FAA regulations and policies. AC 91-57B, for example, provides guidance on state and local regulation of UAS operations and discusses FAA preemption.

FAA Orders and Policy Statements: The FAA issues various orders and policy statements that may address airspace matters and the agency's position on preemption.

To access the official federal laws, regulations, and court decisions, you can use legal research databases such as the U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and legal research platforms like Westlaw or LexisNexis. Court decisions can be found in case law databases.

It's important to consult legal experts or resources when interpreting and applying federal aviation law, as it can be complex and subject to change through legislative updates and court decisions. Additionally, the FAA's official website provides information and resources related to its regulatory authority over airspace and aviation.

 

[mavictk]

Oh, I should add that there have been cases where ChatGPT's responses were incorrect or totally made up so we cannot rely on them but it did give me some pointers on where to look.

 

[mavic3usa]

More importantly in the short term: States vs local municipalities pre-emption

I don't expect for the FAA to fight for our cause until commercial activities pick up quite a bit.

 

[mavictk]

More importantly in the short term: States vs local municipalities pre-emption

I don't expect for the FAA to fight for our cause until commercial activities pick up quite a bit.

I used to listen to a law talk show and if any message came through loud and clear it was that you don't want to be the test case because legal proceedings are expensive and fraught with errors even if your activity was lawful.

 

[mavic3usa]

I used to listen to a law talk show and if any message came through loud and clear it was that you don't want to be the test case because legal proceedings are expensive and fraught with errors even if your activity was lawful.

A couple I remember off-hand:

tag based on what is being viewed. We filter the output of wp_title() a bit - see agriflex_filter_wp_title() in functions.php. --> <title> Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law - Texas Agriculture Law

agrilife.org

Michigan Judge Blocks Local Drone Ban in Public Parks

A Michigan judge has blocked a local law that bans drones in parks, citing a state law preventing local governments from enacting drone laws.

uavcoach.com

 

[mavictk]

A couple I remember off-hand:

tag based on what is being viewed. We filter the output of wp_title() a bit - see agriflex_filter_wp_title() in functions.php. --> <title> Federal Court Strikes Down Texas Drone Law - Texas Agriculture Law

agrilife.org

Michigan Judge Blocks Local Drone Ban in Public Parks

A Michigan judge has blocked a local law that bans drones in parks, citing a state law preventing local governments from enacting drone laws.

uavcoach.com

In the Florida law, FS 330.41 the locals are pre-empted from creating drone laws other than for harassing and stalking. With the July 2023 update the State of Florida decided to create their own list of critical infrastructure and then included the following:

(4) PROTECTION OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES.—
(a) A person may not knowingly or willfully:
1. Operate a drone over a critical infrastructure facility;

Note the word over above. I can only imagine how law enforcement might interpret the word over.

 

[Arnold LeVine]

I am posting the ChatGPT response only because I found its answer somewhat complete. I am fascinated that I can ask a very generic question and get a decent response. What do you think?

My question:
If the FAA has jurisdiction over the national airspace how can Florida create a law governing the use of the airspace for drones


ChatGPT response:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does indeed have jurisdiction over the national airspace in the United States, including the regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. However, while the FAA has primary authority over airspace regulation, there is a concept known as "preemption" that governs the relationship between federal and state laws in this context.
Under the doctrine of federal preemption, federal laws and regulations take precedence over state laws and regulations when there is a conflict or overlap. The FAA's authority over the national airspace preempts most state and local regulations related to drone operations. This means that states and local governments generally cannot create laws or regulations that directly conflict with or undermine FAA regulations.
However, there are exceptions to this preemption principle. States and localities may still have the authority to regulate certain aspects of drone operations, provided that their regulations do not conflict with federal law and do not interfere with the FAA's ability to manage and regulate the national airspace. For example:

1. Privacy: States can enact laws related to privacy and surveillance that may affect drone use, as long as they do not regulate the drone's flight altitude or other aspects of airspace management. These laws typically address issues such as surveillance and data collection by drones.
2. Land Use and Zoning: States and local governments can regulate where drones can take off and land, such as in parks or public property, without directly interfering with the FAA's airspace regulation.
3. Criminal Laws: States can enforce criminal laws related to the unsafe operation of drones, such as reckless flying or interference with emergency responders.
4. Emergency Response: States can regulate drone use in emergency situations or near disaster areas.

It's essential for states and localities to craft their drone-related laws carefully to avoid conflicts with federal regulations. They should also be aware that the FAA continues to develop and update regulations regarding UAS, and these federal regulations may evolve over time, potentially affecting the scope of state and local authority.
In summary, while the FAA has primary jurisdiction over the national airspace, there are areas where states and localities can still regulate aspects of drone use that do not directly conflict with federal law or undermine airspace management. However, any state or local regulations should be carefully considered and reviewed to ensure compliance with federal regulations and the principles of preemption.

WOW!

 

[RangerEd]

I am posting the ChatGPT response only because I found its answer somewhat complete. I am fascinated that I can ask a very generic question and get a decent response. What do you think?

My question:
If the FAA has jurisdiction over the national airspace how can Florida create a law governing the use of the airspace for drones


ChatGPT response:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does indeed have jurisdiction over the national airspace in the United States, including the regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. However, while the FAA has primary authority over airspace regulation, there is a concept known as "preemption" that governs the relationship between federal and state laws in this context.
Under the doctrine of federal preemption, federal laws and regulations take precedence over state laws and regulations when there is a conflict or overlap. The FAA's authority over the national airspace preempts most state and local regulations related to drone operations. This means that states and local governments generally cannot create laws or regulations that directly conflict with or undermine FAA regulations.
However, there are exceptions to this preemption principle. States and localities may still have the authority to regulate certain aspects of drone operations, provided that their regulations do not conflict with federal law and do not interfere with the FAA's ability to manage and regulate the national airspace. For example:

1. Privacy: States can enact laws related to privacy and surveillance that may affect drone use, as long as they do not regulate the drone's flight altitude or other aspects of airspace management. These laws typically address issues such as surveillance and data collection by drones.
2. Land Use and Zoning: States and local governments can regulate where drones can take off and land, such as in parks or public property, without directly interfering with the FAA's airspace regulation.
3. Criminal Laws: States can enforce criminal laws related to the unsafe operation of drones, such as reckless flying or interference with emergency responders.
4. Emergency Response: States can regulate drone use in emergency situations or near disaster areas.

It's essential for states and localities to craft their drone-related laws carefully to avoid conflicts with federal regulations. They should also be aware that the FAA continues to develop and update regulations regarding UAS, and these federal regulations may evolve over time, potentially affecting the scope of state and local authority.
In summary, while the FAA has primary jurisdiction over the national airspace, there are areas where states and localities can still regulate aspects of drone use that do not directly conflict with federal law or undermine airspace management. However, any state or local regulations should be carefully considered and reviewed to ensure compliance with federal regulations and the principles of preemption.

It sounds like ChatGPT has the ability to explain the laws and regulations clearly without sounding lawyerly which creates confusion. I get what the AI is saying but it leaves me to wonder how valid ChatGPT's answer is.

 

[rob@dronetrainingpros]

I am posting the ChatGPT response only because I found its answer somewhat complete. I am fascinated that I can ask a very generic question and get a decent response. What do you think?

My question:
If the FAA has jurisdiction over the national airspace how can Florida create a law governing the use of the airspace for drones


ChatGPT response:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does indeed have jurisdiction over the national airspace in the United States, including the regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly known as drones. However, while the FAA has primary authority over airspace regulation, there is a concept known as "preemption" that governs the relationship between federal and state laws in this context.
Under the doctrine of federal preemption, federal laws and regulations take precedence over state laws and regulations when there is a conflict or overlap. The FAA's authority over the national airspace preempts most state and local regulations related to drone operations. This means that states and local governments generally cannot create laws or regulations that directly conflict with or undermine FAA regulations.
However, there are exceptions to this preemption principle. States and localities may still have the authority to regulate certain aspects of drone operations, provided that their regulations do not conflict with federal law and do not interfere with the FAA's ability to manage and regulate the national airspace. For example:

1. Privacy: States can enact laws related to privacy and surveillance that may affect drone use, as long as they do not regulate the drone's flight altitude or other aspects of airspace management. These laws typically address issues such as surveillance and data collection by drones.
2. Land Use and Zoning: States and local governments can regulate where drones can take off and land, such as in parks or public property, without directly interfering with the FAA's airspace regulation.
3. Criminal Laws: States can enforce criminal laws related to the unsafe operation of drones, such as reckless flying or interference with emergency responders.
4. Emergency Response: States can regulate drone use in emergency situations or near disaster areas.

It's essential for states and localities to craft their drone-related laws carefully to avoid conflicts with federal regulations. They should also be aware that the FAA continues to develop and update regulations regarding UAS, and these federal regulations may evolve over time, potentially affecting the scope of state and local authority.
In summary, while the FAA has primary jurisdiction over the national airspace, there are areas where states and localities can still regulate aspects of drone use that do not directly conflict with federal law or undermine airspace management. However, any state or local regulations should be carefully considered and reviewed to ensure compliance with federal regulations and the principles of preemption.

All the laws on the books are great, but until there is precedent set in courts, will people follow them. For instance, shooting a drone is the same as shooting at a 747 since a UAS is classified as an aircraft. If you review the cases that have gone to court on this, you will see, so far its not being treated as someone shooting at an manned aircraft. The ChatGPT is cool stuff, but the court results dictate case law. One of the best drone lawyers that is constantly reviewing Drone court cases is Rupert if you like that stuff. I've followed since the start in 2016 is Rupert. Since I work with first responders, I try to understand the relationship to current law as well whats happening when the law is broken. Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance.
He's also a good guy to have on your side if you need that kind of help. If you can't stop the public from shinning laser in cockpits of landing aircraft(9,500 in 2022) and people taking shots at drones, how are they going to get compliance of RID? I thought we would be further along, but I think it will get accelerated once Fedex/UPS/Amazon/DHL enter the same space we fly in.
Interesting note: Amazon delivered 5.5 billion packages in 2021 of which 86% were less than 5lbs. It's gonna get interesting.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Looks like you guys haven't heard... it's pretty new news. ChatGPT has been exposed as a fraud:

Second row from the bottom is the Law section.

 

[Felix le Chat]

All the laws on the books are great, but until there is precedent set in courts, will people follow them. For instance, shooting a drone is the same as shooting at a 747 since a UAS is classified as an aircraft. If you review the cases that have gone to court on this, you will see, so far its not being treated as someone shooting at an manned aircraft. The ChatGPT is cool stuff, but the court results dictate case law. One of the best drone lawyers that is constantly reviewing Drone court cases is Rupert if you like that stuff. I've followed since the start in 2016 is Rupert. Since I work with first responders, I try to understand the relationship to current law as well whats happening when the law is broken. Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance.
He's also a good guy to have on your side if you need that kind of help. If you can't stop the public from shinning laser in cockpits of landing aircraft(9,500 in 2022) and people taking shots at drones, how are they going to get compliance of RID? I thought we would be further along, but I think it will get accelerated once Fedex/UPS/Amazon/DHL enter the same space we fly in.
Interesting note: Amazon delivered 5.5 billion packages in 2021 of which 86% were less than 5lbs. It's gonna get interesting.

Just a quick question. Exactly what do you think is going to happen to 'hobbyist' drone users once the big corporations pay the FAA fat annual license fees to take over the sub-400' airspace?

 

[rob@dronetrainingpros]

Just a quick question. Exactly what do you think is going to happen to 'hobbyist' drone users once the big corporations pay the FAA fat annual license fees to take over the sub-400' airspace?

My opinion, is that recreatiinal Droner's will eventually be pushed into Fria's. Just like the RC plane folks. However, getting your part 107, will allow you more freedom to fly where you want. Its just my opinion. I also think with the lack of ability to enforce laws at local level, it might take years if ever to get compliance.

 

[Felix le Chat]

My opinion, is that recreatiinal Droner's will eventually be pushed into Fria's. Just like the RC plane folks. However, getting your part 107, will allow you more freedom to fly where you want. Its just my opinion. I also think with the lack of ability to enforce laws at local level, it might take years if ever to get compliance.

107 doesn't apply to me (or a considerable number of other forum members).... I live and operate in England. You are bang on the money.... We'll be 'encouraged' to join our older brothers and sisters flying round and round in circles.
Big business already has its representation with their feet under the table as the unnamed 'stakeholders' thrashing out new regulation with the British CAA, I'm sure this will be the same with the FAA on the other side of the pond, so enforcement at local level is a very short step away.... Quite literally ... One city within 10 miles of where I'm based already has plans in place to create the UK's first drone-o-drome to service big business aerial delivery interests. That's 'plans' as in tacit planning permission from the city council.
Big business has deep pockets and investment in city infrastructure trumps the rights of your average Joe every time.

 

[hedbonker]

Talk to the harbormaster in Santa Barbara and he will tell you how you cannot fly over the harbor and what the minimum distance is that you can fly near the pier. Tell them they do not have jurisdiction over that airspace and they will be happy to tell you that they do not care - They are happy to have the police come and haul you away - FAA jurisdiction or not - They bank on the fact that you will not sue...

 

[Frank Dracman]

Oh, I should add that there have been cases where ChatGPT's responses were incorrect or totally made up so we cannot rely on them but it did give me some pointers on where to look.

It's called "artificial" intelligence for a reason.

 

[rob@dronetrainingpros]

Talk to the harbormaster in Santa Barbara and he will tell you how you cannot fly over the harbor and what the minimum distance is that you can fly near the pier. Tell them they do not have jurisdiction over that airspace and they will be happy to tell you that they do not care - They are happy to have the police come and haul you away - FAA jurisdiction or not - They bank on the fact that you will not sue...

I have a lot of situations where people don't understand the law and do stiupid things( I had my mavic 3 shot ). At the end of the day, some people would prefer to " square off" then to be open to learn something new. One way to pre-empt this is I call to the local enforcement authority ( PD, Park ranger, sheriff etc..) introduce yourself as a commercially licensed UAS pilot that will be flying a mission ( describe mission) and what time you plan to fly. Explain that it is an FAA authorized flight (LAANC) and being flown under CFR 14 Part 107. Invite them to send an officer out to observe if they would like. They usually won't. However, you can invite the harbour master to call the authoritys if he feels he's correct. It's sometimes easier to open minds with a neutral third party. Or if this is just for fun and your not hired to get footage, it might be easier to find another spot.
Cops hate being situation where they don't know the law. Most are still learning. The rehearsal forces them to to do the research because most of what you said they don't understand. By the time they get the call, they know your suppose to be there. It doesn't always work, and I don't have the appetite to spend my money proving case law, but the majority of the time it does. Over time the cops will know who you are and those problems go away. I hope that helps.

 

[copernicus]

Oh, I should add that there have been cases where ChatGPT's responses were incorrect or totally made up so we cannot rely on them but it did give me some pointers on where to look.

Indeed be warned. I once tested ChatGPT with a questions to which I knew the answer. The first 2 replies sounded plausible but were wrong, to which I replied with "incorrect, try again". The third answer was correct.

 

[Arnold LeVine]

So does that mean ChatGPT "learns" from its mistakes?