Law Question: Can a City Commission arbitrarily make rules regulating Drones without FAA approval?

[Chip]

I am not a fan of what Ken and his team did here. I like Ken, and talk to him fairly regularly. And I do understand his kitsch, but making fun of city council members isn't the way to go.

And Jason, Geeksvana, and especially Ryan, should have presented this in a much better fashion.

Three of our local drone pilots were actively working with not only the Brook Park Council, but also the Chief of Police and the Law Clerk. This was under control. The pilots (& FAA person) testifying had to apologize about some of the comments made on Ken's show. The Council was told about this video, and weren't really happy with how they were characterized. I'm not saying some of it wasn't accurate, but this isn't how you approach governments when you're trying to work with them. Making fun of them doesn't help the situation. It makes it harder for the locals who are working on the ground.

The City Council will talk about this again in a few days, and I'm pretty sure it's a dead deal.

So all's well that ends well, so that ended up not being an issue. But you can't talk about people like that and expect them to not dig in deeper. Luckily cooler heads prevailed.

I am curious as to who had to apologize and why? Some of the criticism is harsh but we are talking about public figures who live stream themselves conducting government business and are inviting public comment (if they like it or not). Some of the things said were humorous imho. Right at the start the sponsor of the ordinance said he has long coveted this law. I agree with those guys on video it is a funny word to use. But then he acknowledges that no member of the public has filed any drone complaints except himself. Then on cue, one guy realizes what if we want to use drones ourselves, do we not need a special exemption? I can see that video will not be every body's cup of tea but I actually found it informative in some ways.

 

[Vic Moss]

I am curious as to who had to apologize and why? Some of the criticism is harsh but we are talking about public figures who live stream themselves conducting government business and are inviting public comment (if they like it or not). Some of the things said were humorous imho. Right at the start the sponsor of the ordinance said he has long coveted this law. I agree with those guys on video it is a funny word to use. But then he acknowledges that no member of the public has filed any drone complaints except himself. Then on cue, one guy realizes what if we want to use drones ourselves, do we not need a special exemption? I can see that video will not be every body's cup of tea but I actually found it informative in some ways.

Publicly ridiculing public officials, especially on a platform with Ken's viewership, puts drone owners in a bad light. This put those public officials on the defense before anyone even has a chance to talk with them.

I understand the desire to do this (probably better than most), but it's counterproductive in many cases.

 

[kshaw]

Where can you get such a policy?

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has a drone subgroup and offers their same legal insurance coverage offered to aircraft pilots to drone operators. You will have to be a member to get the insurance. Your Freedom to Fly

 

[TomKennelly]

Towns / cities / and states CAN and DO enact "No Drone Laws" - and NC has them, mostly in State Parks. It is legal for them to stop you on the ground, but they can't restrict you "typically" in the air - as the FAA controls that.

GA has same rules for state parks and been that way for a few years. CO and the City oof Denver have rules for no fly in their parks and the "Denver" rule extends far beyond the city limits of Denver.

Easiest way to bypass this is to simply take-off / land outside of said park / zone that restricts drones from doing that part. Until the FAA designates airspace over such parks, including Nat Parks as NO FLY ZONES, nothing stops a rec or 107 pilot from legally taking off and landing outside those zones.

I'm in the Outer Banks now and most of the southern part of Hatteras Island is considered National Park. Yet, many spits of land that are outside of the Nat Park Zone that allow me to t.o. / land. I'm sure some overly zealous Park Ranger / local LEO may want to restrict it, but they truly cannot. Would I argue with them - NO! I could show them in Aloft / etc that where I am standing for t.o. / landing is outside of their purview of control. If they still would want to push it, I'd just land and move on to another safe / legal flying spot.

In Florida there is a specific state law, that preempts all political subdivision, from enacting drone laws period except for harassment and stalking. The Florida Statue is 330.41. Look at 3(b). Ok, I realize no one is going to look so I will post it the relevant section.

(b) Except as otherwise expressly provided, a political subdivision may not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the design, manufacture, testing, maintenance, licensing, registration, certification, or operation of an unmanned aircraft system, including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements; the purpose of operations; and pilot, operator, or observer qualifications, training, and certification.

So, cities, counties and etc cannot have drone laws because the state preempts.

No matter how cut and dried the Florida law is there are political subdivisions in Florida that make drone laws and dare you (e.g. $$$) challenge them.

 

[MKurr]

In Florida there is a specific state law, that preempts all political subdivision, from enacting drone laws period except for harassment and stalking. The Florida Statue is 330.41. Look at 3(b). Ok, I realize no one is going to look so I will post it the relevant section.

(b) Except as otherwise expressly provided, a political subdivision may not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the design, manufacture, testing, maintenance, licensing, registration, certification, or operation of an unmanned aircraft system, including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements; the purpose of operations; and pilot, operator, or observer qualifications, training, and certification.

So, cities, counties and etc cannot have drone laws because the state preempts.

No matter how cut and dried the Florida law is there are political subdivisions in Florida that make drone laws and dare you (e.g. $$$) challenge them.

This is very interesting, it seems that there is less and less ground for "no-drone" mandates to stand on. Either way the idea that a private establishment, or even public one (park, etc.), can regulate the airspace above it seems not be supported by FAA regulations. The most common issue would probably remain flying over people who are not 'members of the crew', in cases such as beaches, parks and ski slopes.

 

[lookout]

This is very interesting, it seems that there is less and less ground for "no-drone" mandates to stand on. Either way the idea that a private establishment, or even public one (park, etc.), can regulate the airspace above it seems not be supported by FAA regulations. The most common issue would probably remain flying over people who are not 'members of the crew', in cases such as beaches, parks and ski slopes.

Mandates are not law either.

My city did try to pass a drone ordinance, didn't say you couldn't, just more or less on the basis of a peeping tom ordinance, and most of the verbage was cut and paste from some part of the federal regulations. As far as I know it hasn't been officially posted into the code of ordinances.

When I talked to AOPA about a helicopter ordinance, they stated that cities can state where a helicopter can operate as in a land ordinance. They cannot however, regulate any part of the national airspace. But I went to a place where a helicopter was operating a little too close to people landing and taking off (the blades can suck up things and throw them). The man from the FAA was there. He told the helicopter they better not do that again. People have to be at least 50' away from the launch site.

So looking back at the minutes of what resulted in the ordinance, they failed to mention what the actual situation was. I believe the missing part of the minutes is in fact that they were flying in too tight of corners. There might have been a small possibility of a 50'x50' square, but it was most likely not away from any structure or person. So under that case, the zoning ordinance would actually have to give way to the federal regulations, because there would be a violation of those regulations, but the city wasn't going to look through the federal regulations for something like that.

 

[MKurr]

cities can state where a helicopter can operate as in a land ordinance.

I think that is where the whole question often will hinge: Does the UAV/Heli/Aircraft take-off or land from the property of the establishment (or is it being controlled from the property). If that is the case, obviously they can regulate that, but if not, they would have to supersede federal regulations to create their own NFZ. Then often, if the grounds in question are rather extensive ( eg. a large park), it can easily become a problem to maintain VLOS while flying from a position that is not on the property.
Still, at least for now, it seems we UAV pilots have the right to override the whims of nervous magistrates and certain land-owners.

 

[lookout]

I think that is where the whole question often will hinge: Does the UAV/Heli/Aircraft take-off or land from the property of the establishment (or is it being controlled from the property). If that is the case, obviously they can regulate that, but if not, they would have to supersede federal regulations to create their own NFZ. Then often, if the grounds in question are rather extensive ( eg. a large park), it can easily become a problem to maintain VLOS while flying from a position that is not on the property.
Still, at least for now, it seems we UAV pilots have the right to override the whims of nervous magistrates and certain land-owners.

It was going to start on the public property, but didn't actually take place there. But it moved to a private property, and despite whether the ordinance applied or whether the federal regulations applied, we have no indication of whether they got permission from the property owner, so this could've been a really sticky situation, maybe even controversial.