NYS ... Trying to ban drones near schools....more braindead legislation

[spsphotos]

Not sure where to begin on how this proposed law is in clear violation of FAA authority. Sigh. And the article is not even well researched...

"The Federal Aviation Administration generally allows certificate holders with lightweight drones to operate over people below 400 feet in most areas (though some sensitive areas, including airports, are still controlled). States are allowed to add their own limits below 400 feet, and several states have now banned low-flying drones from “critical infrastructure.”

- No, we Part107 holders cannot "fly over people below 400ft". We can't even fly OVER 400ft...lol.
- No, States are NOT allowed to add their own limits below 400ft

Just want to bang my head on the desk sometimes...

https://www.timesunion.com/education/article/new-york-proposal-ban-low-flying-drones-school-18449306.php?utm_content=hed&sid=6335ff168925eed1e909185c&ss=P&st_rid=null&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=headlines&utm_campaign=altu%20%7C%20daily%20headlines

 

[mavic3usa]

Not sure where to begin on how this proposed law is in clear violation of FAA authority. Sigh. And the article is not even well researched...

"The Federal Aviation Administration generally allows certificate holders with lightweight drones to operate over people below 400 feet in most areas (though some sensitive areas, including airports, are still controlled). States are allowed to add their own limits below 400 feet, and several states have now banned low-flying drones from “critical infrastructure.”

- No, we Part107 holders cannot "fly over people below 400ft". We can't even fly OVER 400ft...lol.
- No, States are NOT allowed to add their own limits below 400ft

Just want to bang my head on the desk sometimes...

Wait a second. You can't possibly believe the FAA regulations are so clearly written that ordinary people cannot interpret the drone rules like this article does. Sure, the article is not 100% spot on but it does make references to topics that are often ambiguous or left open to interpretation by the FAA, likely on purpose.

Of course, as avid drone users, we know the rules quite well in our heads. But we don't practice them in the field and the public is not in our head, they see what we do and what we post. Nobody in this country actually believes a drone is prohibited from flying in the airspace that is directly above a single car or a single person. It's done all the time, nobody has been sanctioned for doing it, and our neighbor country expressly forbid it without using weasel words and including measurements and the FAA in one breath says no, then says we mean crowds, then says traversing over cars is ok, and then says people in cars are protected.....easy to see how the general public thinks it is ok. Actually nobody believes you can hover over a 1000 people in a concert or 200 parents on the soccer sidelines, or the food court at the mall. But a public park with people scattered about....it's impossible to fly FPV at that park....anyway, you get the point. There are no category drones in the US but the public wouldn't know that because even the rules point out the accepted specs but then on top of that, the specs don't mean anything unless the FAA approves. As a result, plenty of people think you can slap guards onto a 250g drone and have at it.

And don't even get me started with state laws. The courts just the other day ruled in favor of Texas which is a defacto ruling against the feckless FAA that allows a state to makes ridiculous laws even if they are clearly unconstitutional much less against FAA regulations. Yes it is frustrating but honestly, we have a bunch of forum members across the internet who believe it themselves to some extent and agree with the some of the same things being said; we're not even on the same page in the community. For me it's a bright line but for others, it is very much blurred. And here comes the "you believe you can do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it" retort.

Not enough space to go into the 400 feet debate....or flying at night. Or, the "morals" of flying that have somehow found their way into the discussion.

 

[spsphotos]

Wait a second. You can't possibly believe the FAA regulations are so clearly written that ordinary people cannot interpret the drone rules like this article does. Sure, the article is not 100% spot on but it does make references to topics that are often ambiguous or left open to interpretation by the FAA, likely on purpose.

Of course, as avid drone users, we know the rules quite well in our heads. But we don't practice them in the field and the public is not in our head, they see what we do and what we post. Nobody in this country actually believes a drone is prohibited from flying in the airspace that is directly above a single car or a single person. It's done all the time, nobody has been sanctioned for doing it, and our neighbor country expressly forbid it without using weasel words and including measurements and the FAA in one breath says no, then says we mean crowds, then says traversing over cars is ok, and then says people in cars are protected.....easy to see how the general public thinks it is ok. Actually nobody believes you can hover over a 1000 people in a concert or 200 parents on the soccer sidelines, or the food court at the mall. But a public park with people scattered about....it's impossible to fly FPV at that park....anyway, you get the point. There are no category drones in the US but the public wouldn't know that because even the rules point out the accepted specs but then on top of that, the specs don't mean anything unless the FAA approves. As a result, plenty of people think you can slap guards onto a 250g drone and have at it.

And don't even get me started with state laws. The courts just the other day ruled in favor of Texas which is a defacto ruling against the feckless FAA that allows a state to makes ridiculous laws even if they are clearly unconstitutional much less against FAA regulations. Yes it is frustrating but honestly, we have a bunch of forum members across the internet who believe it themselves to some extent and agree with the some of the same things being said; we're not even on the same page in the community. For me it's a bright line but for others, it is very much blurred. And here comes the "you believe you can do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it" retort.

Not enough space to go into the 400 feet debate....or flying at night. Or, the "morals" of flying that have somehow found their way into the discussion.

I disagree. The rules are very clear and a simple Google search will show many pages. We are not talking about Joe Citizen not knowing the rules, we are talking about a reporter who did NOT do proper research and legislators who are simply kowtowing to the uninformed constituents with BS based on emotion, ignorance, and laziness. Yes, I did email the author and clarified a few of her mistakes (and she did respond with some questions). I also plan on emailing my local rep to do the same. I also going to send this to the DSPA for their comment. We need to kill off these types of illegal or misguided bills before they get anywhere.

 

[shb]

I live right next to a high school here in the Philippines. I used to fly inside the school which has a rectangular shape with a courtyard in the middle. One time a school employee came and told me not to fly there. I can fly outside the school, and the students see me. I try to avoid doing this much because I don't want to distract the students during class. I could see where a school wouldn't want a drone distracting the students during open hours.

 

[spsphotos]

I commend you for being considerate. But that's a choice, not a law. Big difference. Since schools are usually in urban areas near housing this law would have an impact on pilots doing real estate and surveying. And the law is totally unnecessary. It's just the media freaking people out by suggesting that school shooters (yes, a huge problem in the States that is not being addressed properly, but that's another thing) are going to use drones to survey the school? Or that pedophiles are using them to spy on kids. Neither is backed up by facts and really would not be practical (i.e. stealthy) especially with RID.

 

[mavic3usa]

I disagree. The rules are very clear and a simple Google search will show many pages. We are not talking about Joe Citizen not knowing the rules, we are talking about a reporter who did NOT do proper research and legislators who are simply kowtowing to the uninformed constituents with BS based on emotion, ignorance, and laziness. Yes, I did email the author and clarified a few of her mistakes (and she did respond with some questions). I also plan on emailing my local rep to do the same. I also going to send this to the DSPA for their comment. We need to kill off these types of illegal or misguided bills before they get anywhere.

Well, good luck. I'm totally on your side and I support your efforts. The time to fight this was earlier but it's not too late. Yet we cannot win these battles on our own without the support from the FAA and the entire drone community. But the FAA will not defend your rights to fly a drone over a school during school hours or over a jail or over a police station or over.... [fill in a thousands places that are "critical"]. The events from 22 years ago have forever made it clear that anytime you invoke "safety" then you are allowed to bend the rules or forgo the rules completely. You may not get away with it in the long run but there's nothing stopping these bans and even the courts are reluctant to get involved.

Reporters are Joe Citizen. And yes they are lazy. And they will be happy to revisit factual mistakes. But you won't get them to print this bill is illegal and stupid. Drones are not so important that they need "research" because I still disagree with you that the FAA rules are clear. They are confusing at best. For example, how is anyone in the public expected to know the difference between 400 feet above the ground and 400 feet altitude? The rules clearly says "AGL" but when a drone is hovering over a building which is 550 feet high, 99% of the people will go "huh?" Again, it's clear to me how this works....as long as you parse and dissect the rules which btw, imagine if the rules of the road for automobiles had such clauses. No one is used to that, nobody thinks "waivers" and frankly, we cannot expect anyone outside the community to get used to it. The public believes that RID is delayed. The FAA did not do a good job with explaining delayed enforcement and so the public believes it isn't happening because they don't know about standard RID and built-in vs. external broadcast, etc. You and I know what uncontrolled airspace means but the public doesn't have a part 107. Uncontrolled to the public likely means the FAA is not fully in control and...you know the rest.

When you allow morals and "social norms" to creep into the hobby, then you allow laws based on emotion. That's where we are. NY doesn't fully observe the Constitution and they already have dubious drone laws in the City, this one isn't any different. The FAA has published examples of how states are allowed to regulate drones and simply by doing that, they have conceded that the drone space is not entirely their exclusive domain and they have invited and allowed the states to get a foot in the door which means they're coming in whole hog and the only way to keep them at bay will be legal action. The states will bite off more than they can chew and if the FAA doesn't push back, where are we?

I feel for you. NY State Law is not administrative like the FAA, these are criminal codes with real sanctions including arrest, fines, and jail time. And there are troopers and police officers everywhere unlike FAA police. If it's anything like around here, if you cannot fly near a school, you won't be flying. Remember this popular sentiment: If we can prevent even one, even the first incident, if it means infringing on the rights and/or privileges of the public, it's worth it.

 

[Vic Moss]

This popped up Thursday, and there are already a number of folks who have reached to the sponsor of the bill, as well as to a couple of new agencies that posted completely erroneous information about drone regs.

I probably had 6 or 7 conversations about this with different drone folks in NY that will be taking action. I don't expect this to go anywhere, but we are keeping an eye on it.

 

[CadrePilot]

... but we are keeping an eye on it.

Thanks!

 

[Vic Moss]

Wait a second. You can't possibly believe the FAA regulations are so clearly written that ordinary people cannot interpret the drone rules like this article does. Sure, the article is not 100% spot on but it does make references to topics that are often ambiguous or left open to interpretation by the FAA, likely on purpose.

Of course, as avid drone users, we know the rules quite well in our heads. But we don't practice them in the field and the public is not in our head, they see what we do and what we post. Nobody in this country actually believes a drone is prohibited from flying in the airspace that is directly above a single car or a single person. It's done all the time, nobody has been sanctioned for doing it, and our neighbor country expressly forbid it without using weasel words and including measurements and the FAA in one breath says no, then says we mean crowds, then says traversing over cars is ok, and then says people in cars are protected.....easy to see how the general public thinks it is ok. Actually nobody believes you can hover over a 1000 people in a concert or 200 parents on the soccer sidelines, or the food court at the mall. But a public park with people scattered about....it's impossible to fly FPV at that park....anyway, you get the point. There are no category drones in the US but the public wouldn't know that because even the rules point out the accepted specs but then on top of that, the specs don't mean anything unless the FAA approves. As a result, plenty of people think you can slap guards onto a 250g drone and have at it.

And don't even get me started with state laws. The courts just the other day ruled in favor of Texas which is a defacto ruling against the feckless FAA that allows a state to makes ridiculous laws even if they are clearly unconstitutional much less against FAA regulations. Yes it is frustrating but honestly, we have a bunch of forum members across the internet who believe it themselves to some extent and agree with the some of the same things being said; we're not even on the same page in the community. For me it's a bright line but for others, it is very much blurred. And here comes the "you believe you can do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it" retort.

Not enough space to go into the 400 feet debate....or flying at night. Or, the "morals" of flying that have somehow found their way into the discussion.

Very little of 44809 or 107 are "ambiguous" or "open to interpretation".

While there may be a reg or two with some grey area (Cat 1 drones for instance), pretty much everything else if quite black and white.

Misinterpretations come into play with people don't bother reaching out to the FAA when they're trying to craft legislation, or when they see something as erroneous as a couple of article about this current issue in NY State.

Political subdivisions may not control the NAS w/o approval from the FAA. There is no two ways about it at this time.

 

[Vic Moss]

The latest from NY Assemblywoman Fahy's staff. We're still fighting this. I'll update as warranted. They reached out this morning.

"Hi Edward,

Thanks for reaching out about our recently introduced legislation, which relates to prohibiting the use of drones over schools and critical infrastructure.

The proposed legislation was written to prohibit the use of unauthorized drones in these locations--it allows school administrators or officials in charge of critical infrastructure facilities to provide permission for drone use whenever they deem it appropriate. There will certainly be instances in which drone use at school could enrich students' learning, and prior authorization would be perfectly appropriate.

In researching this bill, the Bethlehem superintendent and police made it clear that the realtor, who was flying a drone over local schools, was compiling a detailed aerial layout and diagram of all of the facilities inside and outside of the schools. The realtor's stated intent was to distribute such information so that potential buyers could have a detailed look at the schools they would send their children to. School officials and local police were quite alarmed that this was going to be up on a real estate website for anyone’s use. Given the tragic frequency of mass killings and the potential use of drones to record and surveil school grounds, we believe this is a serious problem.
Under current FAA regulations, there are no restrictions on drone use below 400 feet above school grounds. The FAA restricts drone use over a narrow category of sensitive locations, such as airports and military bases. Several states have already supplemented these federal regulations with state laws restricting the use of drones over critical infrastructure facilities. Per FAA guidance, states may enact "privacy-related restriction applied to the lower altitudes over facilities where people could likely have an expectation of privacy—such as parks or schools" or "tailored security-related restrictions over open-air water treatment facilities or certain types of critical infrastructure." Please see page 6 of the attached document for additional information.

Given the continued challenges we face in ensuring the security of our schools and critical infrastructure, we think requiring prior authorization for drone use in these locations is warranted. Nothing would prevent you from using drones anywhere outside a school or critical infrastructure facility. I hope this helps clarify the intent of the legislation, and we appreciate the outreach.

Please don't hesitate to reach out to me with any further questions or concerns.
Best,

Clare Boone
Legislative Analyst
XXX-XXX-XXXX

---

From: "Edward xxxx" <[email protected]>
To: "Patricia Fahy" <[email protected]>
Cc: "vic" <[email protected]>,
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 1:29:53 PM
Subject: Re: Opposition and reasoning to BILL NO: A08176

Good afternoon Assembly Member Fahy & Staff,
Cc: Vic Moss, Drone Service providers alliance & XXXXX.
I am writing to express my concern and opposition with Bill No: A08176.
Let me first say that I am understanding of the emotional response and feelings that people experience when they see a drone above. I am a Police Officer with the Town of East Greenbush, I’m also our School Resource officer so I further understand the extreme sensitivity of matters concerning our youth. I am also a recreational and commercial drone pilot, run and after school drone program, flight racing drones competitively and am a member of the "AMA" Academy of Model Aeronautics, FPV Freedom Coalition and Flite Test Community Association, All geared towards the education and safe operation of drones.
I was very troubled when I saw the first press release from the Bethlehem Police Department that spoke to the incidents of Drones flying around the Schools, Not so much because of the actions of the drone operator, but the way in which the story was reported that an “Unauthorized drone” was flying over the school when in fact the pilot was Licensed and abiding by the already in place regulations set forth by the FAA. I don’t feel that the FAA has done a good job of educating the public or even Law Enforcement for that matter of the fact that drones are Aircraft and as such regulated by the FAA, what the basic rules of operation are and that drones are not bad things they are a tool and can be used for many beneficial things. This lack of knowledge and fear of the unknown can lead to some knee jerk reactions that are not necessary or reasonable In my opinion.
I’m going to attach document recently released by the FAA regarding Federal preemption of State and Local laws in regards to (UAS) Unmanned Aerial Systems “Drones” and suggest that your bill be removed from the floor until it can be redrafted with consultation of the FAA’s general counsel and further research and discussion with not only concerned citizens but also members of the drone community and responsible operators like myself.
I would also be more than happy to set aside time to meet with you or any of your constituents who have concerns or an interest in hearing from both sides of this issue, and answer questions, provide a demonstration or drone experience that will leave you with more of an appreciation for all factors involved in this issue.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding my concerns.
Edward xxxxxx
[email protected]
XXX-XXX-XXXX"


I emailed the FAA's Litigation Division the following, and cc'd a number of others, including Jeffrey Vincent, Executive Director of the UAS Integration Office.

"To Aviation Litigation Division personnel.

This is the exact issue this industry knew would crop up when we read the vague language once your office published the new Fact Sheet. Ms. Boone is using the very section that truly has no place in the fact sheet to begin with.

Please reach out to Ms. Fahy and Ms. Boone and help them understand that they cannot do what they are proposing to do. Not only can they NOT arbitrarily declare airspace Critical Infrastructure the state level (View Rule), they cannot close airspace over the schools. This is outside the authority of any political subdivision unless they work directly with the FAA to enact this.

The FAA needs to assert their authority here, or you’ll end up with the dreaded “patchwork quilt” of UAS regulations across the country. And that will likely cripple many areas of our industry. Please help the NY Assembly understand what they can and cannot do under their authority.

And while your division is at it, please remove and rewrite the offending section so we don’t have to keep fighting things like this. It only hurts the industry.

Thank you.

Vic Moss"


We'll see what I get as an answer. If you want to reach out with your concerns, please be professional about it.

 

[Vic Moss]

... quick upate.

One of the FAA folks I cc'd (not Mr. Vincent) just sent me a PM on Facebook. His PM: "Go Vic go!"

We do have people inside the FAA who fight for us.