Orlando wants to fleece drone operators for every flight

enigmamdw · Jan 24, 2017

Oh yay... Glad I don't live in Orlando.

Orlando approves new rules for drones

Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

Cyberpower678 · Jan 24, 2017

enigmamdw said:
Oh yay... Glad I don't live in Orlando.

Orlando approves new rules for drones

Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

No kidding.

Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots

LuvMyTJ · Jan 24, 2017

How will they enforce this? FAA controls the NAS, not the city of Orlando so this is gonna get interesting. I could understand if they said you can't take off or land with those restrictions like the national park service does, but this is over control of the NAS that they have no control over.

cybertech · Jan 24, 2017

I heard the FAA truly only has jurisdiction from 500 feet and above. Is that true?

Sent from my SM-G900T using MavicPilots mobile app

cybertech · Jan 24, 2017

cybertech said:
I heard the FAA truly only has jurisdiction from 500 feet and above. Is that true?

Sent from my SM-G900T using MavicPilots mobile app

And I don't mean near airports... Everywhere else

Sent from my SM-G900T using MavicPilots mobile app

LuvMyTJ · Jan 25, 2017

In the USA, the airspace between 83' and 500' is a gray area, especially since drones have convoluted the question.

The FAA argues that it “has authority to regulate aircraft in U.S. Airspace” at any altitude because Federal law states that the FAA “shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1).

Even if navigable airspace does not extend to the surface, the FAA has argued that it may regulate below navigable airspace because it can prescribe regulations “on the flight of aircraft for navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft” and “protecting individuals and property on the ground.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2).

Until we see a court case that addresses this problem, it will continue to be interpreted in many ways.

TeamDaedalusDrones · Jan 25, 2017

There is a lot going on in Orlando airspace. For once, glad I live in the middle of nowhere.

Former Member · Jan 25, 2017

They should just create an E-Z Pass lane for drones in addition to all their other bloated exorbitant tolls. And I wonder what they consider an "accredited pilot."

"An annual permit, available only to accredited pilots, is expected to cost $150"

enigmamdw · Jan 25, 2017

One could argue that the FAA is asserting that if you jump you are under the jurisdiction of the FAA.

Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

enigmamdw · Jan 25, 2017

Legislation=more ways to steal from you.

Sent from my iPad using MavicPilots

cybertech · Jan 25, 2017

LuvMyTJ said:
In the USA, the airspace between 83' and 500' is a gray area, especially since drones have convoluted the question.

The FAA argues that it “has authority to regulate aircraft in U.S. Airspace” at any altitude because Federal law states that the FAA “shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1).

Even if navigable airspace does not extend to the surface, the FAA has argued that it may regulate below navigable airspace because it can prescribe regulations “on the flight of aircraft for navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft” and “protecting individuals and property on the ground.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2).

Until we see a court case that addresses this problem, it will continue to be interpreted in many ways.

That's great information! Thank you for compiling it.

Sent from my SM-G900T using MavicPilots mobile app

DodgeP · Jan 25, 2017

You could assume that at some point, every operator will be required to be licensed and there will no longer be a "hobbyist" category.

Cyberpower678 · Jan 25, 2017

DodgeP said:
You could assume that at some point, every operator will be required to be licensed and there will no longer be a "hobbyist" category.

Wouldn't be such a bad thing. If you have a license that establishes that you are a safe operator, it would end a lot of bullying and harassment from rogue law enforcement.

enigmamdw · Jan 25, 2017

As long as it cost nothing I can't tentatively support that. But your talking about licencing minors... that's just messed up. LEO will always bully you. It certainly doesn't stop them from it now with all clearly defined laws in every other aspect.

DodgeP · Jan 31, 2017

Cyberpower678 said:
Wouldn't be such a bad thing. If you have a license that establishes that you are a safe operator, it would end a lot of bullying and harassment from rogue law enforcement.

Would be a terrible thing and nothing would change, in my opinion. I think it would cause more problems than it would solve. You'd have to what? Show proof of license prior to purchase, you put the obligation to follow the law in the laps of the retailers? Not likely.

LuvMyTJ · Jan 31, 2017

DodgeP said:
Would be a terrible thing and nothing would change, in my opinion. I think it would cause more problems than it would solve. You'd have to what? Show proof of license prior to purchase, you put the obligation to follow the law in the laps of the retailers? Not likely.

An operators license would be the best thing that could happen to the hobby. Have you ever had to show your automobile drivers license to buy a car? Retailers would have no obligation to check anything like that... maybe I am purchasing for a family member... I wouldn't need a license to do that. It would show authorities in the field that you have been trained and passed a knowledge test in order to safely operate one. Can you imagine if we just decided to do away with all licenses of all types? It is clear there is a need for it.

Cyberpower678 · Jan 31, 2017

LuvMyTJ said:
An operators license would be the best thing that could happen to the hobby. Have you ever had to show your automobile drivers license to buy a car? Retailers would have no obligation to check anything like that... maybe I am purchasing for a family member... I wouldn't need a license to do that. It would show authorities in the field that you have been trained and passed a knowledge test in order to safely operate one. Can you imagine if we just decided to do away with all licenses of all types? It is clear there is a need for it.

This.

Sent from my iPhone using MavicPilots