DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Michigan passes UAS preemption law

Lapeer20m

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,293
Reactions
1,627
Location
Southeast Michigan
This is awesome news! Michigan bans cities, parks, and other local units of government from regulating possession or use of drones.

Now all local ordinances regarding drones are unenforceable.

Michigan Legislature - Section 259.305.new

(1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.

I see Lots of doom and gloom on this forum, so it's nice to see some good news.
 
What about part 2... is it saying they can still exclude drones within their boundaries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blades
What about part 2... is it saying they can still exclude drones within their boundaries?

As I understand it, section 2 reads like this: [words added by me]

2) This act does not prohibit [a CITY]from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of [CITY OWNED] unmanned aircraft systems by the [CITY EMPLOYEES] within the boundaries of the [CITY]


section 2, from my understanding, allows a city police department for instance, to make operational guidelines and rules for the police officers to follow while operating a police drone inside the city limits.
 
As I understand it, section 2 reads like this: [words added by me]

2) This act does not prohibit [a CITY]from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of [CITY OWNED] unmanned aircraft systems by the [CITY EMPLOYEES] within the boundaries of the [CITY]


section 2, from my understanding, allows a city police department for instance, to make operational guidelines and rules for the police officers to follow while operating a police drone inside the city limits.

I just ask because I know that the Parks Depts on the east side are/try to be very strict about drones in county parks...
 
I just ask because I know that the Parks Depts on the east side are/try to be very strict about drones in county parks...

I noticed that the metroparks have an unenforceable drone policy.

What other parks do you know of in Michigan that are attempting to regulate drones? I will reach out to them.
 
I predict that it won't be long before Congress fixes the federal statute to reinstate the FAA authority and the registry. The FAA obviously wants it. The major hobby organizations are onboard with it. Most responsible hobby pilots are cool with it.

I wasn't surprised the lawsuit shot them down in the judiciary. The language the statute used was pretty darn specific and the FAA's justification was weak. But all they have to do is go back to Congress and remove that wording and it will be back on.

There's another suit out there that claims that below 500 feet doesn't fit the definition of "navigable airspace" but imho that's a really weak case. They obviously have the right to regulate that around airports. I'm sure the court will determine it to be necessary for aviation safety and shoot that down.
 
I predict that it won't be long before Congress fixes the federal statute to reinstate the FAA authority and the registry. The FAA obviously wants it. The major hobby organizations are onboard with it. Most responsible hobby pilots are cool with it.

I wasn't surprised the lawsuit shot them down in the judiciary. The language the statute used was pretty darn specific and the FAA's justification was weak. But all they have to do is go back to Congress and remove that wording and it will be back on.

There's another suit out there that claims that below 500 feet doesn't fit the definition of "navigable airspace" but imho that's a really weak case. They obviously have the right to regulate that around airports. I'm sure the court will determine it to be necessary for aviation safety and shoot that down.

The FAA stilL controls the airspace. Most rules or ordinances that pertain to Drones at the local level prohibit takeoff or landing within the park.

Michigan's new law addresses these ordinances and makes them unenforceable.
 
The FAA stilL controls the airspace. Most rules or ordinances that pertain to Drones at the local level prohibit takeoff or landing within the park.

Michigan's new law addresses these ordinances and makes them unenforceable.

tl;dr Due to recent events the current legal situation leaves a lot of leeway to state and local jurisdictions.

I'm glad to see states stepping in to do that. I would worry they might do the opposite and ban them from certain places.

Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 states, “Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.” This is the act that the FAA operates under for its entire authority.
The FAA released an interpretation statement that said they had authority under different sections of the law. But a federal judge recently ruled against them. That's why you are no longer required to register hobby drones.

That said, above 400 feet agl the law clearly gives them authority to regulate airspace for safety purposes. But there is now a big grey area as to whether the authority to ban flight in certain areas rests with federal or local law, since the act specifically prohibits the FAA from regulating hobby drones.

The lawsuit was targeted specifically at the registry, but it effects other areas of the law. I don't know if the FAA has filed an appeal or not. The best way to deal with it would be to have congress remove that clause. That would make federal preemption certain, and the FAA has stated that their authority would override state and local laws. That would include takeoff/landing because their authority there for aircraft is quite clear.

Now, the FAA has no authority over photography, which is what we generally use our drones for. They could also still make laws about privacy or other uses, like stalking, etc. The FAA also cooperates with local entities for things such as noise ordinances and such. An example is wildlife refuges. FAA regs request aircraft to remain at least 200ft agl over them to avoid stressing wildlife. They will move runway thresholds to comply with noise laws. So it's unknown whether they might, at some point, make regulations to harmonize with local ordinances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skeester
tl;dr Due to recent events the current legal situation leaves a lot of leeway to state and local jurisdictions.

I'm glad to see states stepping in to do that. I would worry they might do the opposite and ban them from certain places.

Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 states, “Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.” This is the act that the FAA operates under for its entire authority.
The FAA released an interpretation statement that said they had authority under different sections of the law. But a federal judge recently ruled against them. That's why you are no longer required to register hobby drones.

That said, above 400 feet agl the law clearly gives them authority to regulate airspace for safety purposes. But there is now a big grey area as to whether the authority to ban flight in certain areas rests with federal or local law, since the act specifically prohibits the FAA from regulating hobby drones.

The lawsuit was targeted specifically at the registry, but it effects other areas of the law. I don't know if the FAA has filed an appeal or not. The best way to deal with it would be to have congress remove that clause. That would make federal preemption certain, and the FAA has stated that their authority would override state and local laws. That would include takeoff/landing because their authority there for aircraft is quite clear.

Now, the FAA has no authority over photography, which is what we generally use our drones for. They could also still make laws about privacy or other uses, like stalking, etc. The FAA also cooperates with local entities for things such as noise ordinances and such. An example is wildlife refuges. FAA regs request aircraft to remain at least 200ft agl over them to avoid stressing wildlife. They will move runway thresholds to comply with noise laws. So it's unknown whether they might, at some point, make regulations to harmonize with local ordinances.

After a bunch of reading I need to amend my last post somewhat.

The FAA certainly believes it has preemption authority over takeoff/landing sites. They put out an advisory "fact sheet" about the subject. In it they state this as an example of a local law that would be preempted: "a city ordinance banning anyone from operating UAS within the city limits, within the airspace of the city, or within certain distances of landmarks. Federal courts strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight."

They cite several federal cases, including Burbank vs Lockheed. In their opinion, if they are indeed given authority over hobby drones, the local regs would be unenforceable. They can still claim this for part 107 commercial drones.

In the other hand, their rationale for the registration requirement for hobby drones has so far not convinced the court. So the FAA can be wrong. Someone pointed me to a federal appeals court decision (in the 6th district which covers Michigan) where the court basically like Zorro on a plaintiff's case for federal preemption on a landing site. (The case involved a sea plane landing on a city lake.) They even did a pretty thorough job of showing how Burbank vs Lockheed did not apply.

I might dig into some of the other cases they cite and see what they have to say. It may be quite a few years before the law is settled on local anti-drone ordinances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lapeer20m
After a bunch of reading I need to amend my last post somewhat.

The FAA certainly believes it has preemption authority over takeoff/landing sites. They put out an advisory "fact sheet" about the subject. In it they state this as an example of a local law that would be preempted: "a city ordinance banning anyone from operating UAS within the city limits, within the airspace of the city, or within certain distances of landmarks. Federal courts strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight."

They cite several federal cases, including Burbank vs Lockheed. In their opinion, if they are indeed given authority over hobby drones, the local regs would be unenforceable. They can still claim this for part 107 commercial drones.

In the other hand, their rationale for the registration requirement for hobby drones has so far not convinced the court. So the FAA can be wrong. Someone pointed me to a federal appeals court decision (in the 6th district which covers Michigan) where the court basically like Zorro on a plaintiff's case for federal preemption on a landing site. (The case involved a sea plane landing on a city lake.) They even did a pretty thorough job of showing how Burbank vs Lockheed did not apply.

I might dig into some of the other cases they cite and see what they have to say. It may be quite a few years before the law is settled on local anti-drone ordinances.

I went back to read the page from the link above. Page is GONE! Like not found!
 
That is odd. "It might have been repealed?"
I sent that link to Michigan friend the other day. I live in NV but born and raised in MI. I bought him a MP and he was just asked to leave a park he was flying in. I came here to get the link again. I opened the page to make sure it was the correct one...empty. I think something is up!
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,066
Messages
1,559,494
Members
160,049
Latest member
kramme