Proposed drone law

[vindibona1]

As a new pilot I want to make sure I have a clear understanding of the rules and regulations of flying and permissible air space. At this moment things are unclear, but there (in the US) is a commission, the ULC- Uniform Laws Commission, which has a draft of drone laws, which seem to make sense and provide clarity. I thought it might be useful to post part of the text of the article I found pertaining to the proposition. Does anyone know the status of the proposed draft?
Here's a link to the article...
Drone law drafts

Here are some of the details of the proposed law.

SECTION 5: AIRSPACE INTRUSIONS.
(a) An aerial trespass occurs when a person intentionally and without consent of the landowner operates an unmanned aircraft in the airspace over the landowner’s property and by so doing causes substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the property.
(b) The determination of whether an unmanned aircraft’s operation over property has caused substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of property shall be based upon a review of the totality of the circumstances, including:
(1) The amount of time the unmanned aircraft was operated over the landowner’s property;
(2) The altitude at which the unmanned aircraft was operating;
(3) The number of times unmanned aircraft have been operated over the property;
(4) Whether the unmanned aircraft recorded or captured audio, video or photographs while in operation over the property;
(5) Whether the landowner has regularly allowed operation of unmanned aircraft over the property;
(6) Whether the operation of the unmanned aircraft caused physical damage to persons or property;
(7) Whether the operation of the unmanned aircraft caused economic damage;
(8) The time of day the unmanned aircraft was operated over the landowner’s property;
(9) Whether an individual on the land saw or heard the unmanned aircraft while it was over the property; and,
(10) The operator’s purpose in operating the unmanned aircraft over the property.
(c) Repeated or continual operation of an unmanned aircraft over a landowner’s property shall not give rise to prescriptive rights in the airspace
Definition of “Intrusions on Land”:

SECTION 6: INTRUSIONS ON LAND.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who, without permission, intentionally lands an unmanned aircraft on the land of another, or who intentionally causes an unmanned aircraft to come into physical contact with a structure, plant life, or individual on the land of another, commits a trespass to land.
(b) A trespass to land does not occur under subsection (a) when:
(1) the unmanned aircraft operator is forced to land the unmanned aircraft because of unexpected circumstances that reasonably justify such a landing; or,
(2) the unmanned aircraft malfunctions or otherwise touches down upon the surface of the land because of weather or other factors beyond the operator’s control.
(c) A person asserting the privileges provided in subsection (b) is liable for any damage caused by the unmanned aircraft’s operation.
(d) Regardless of how an unmanned aircraft came to rest upon the property of another, the owner or operator of the unmanned aircraft has a right to recover the unmanned aircraft upon a request to the owner of such property. A landowner shall not unreasonably refuse a request to return the unmanned aircraft or to permit the unmanned aircraft’s operator to recover the unmanned aircraft from the property.
Definition of “Violations of Privacy”:
SECTION 8: UNMANNED AIRCRAFT AND VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY.
(a) Privacy related civil actions may be based upon the operation of an unmanned aircraft.
(b) A determination of whether an unmanned aircraft’s operation over property was used to violate a privacy-related right shall be based upon a review of the totality of the circumstances, including:
(1) Whether by hovering or repeated flights the unmanned aircraft was likely to have provided the operator with the opportunity to use the unmanned aircraft to view, listen to, record or capture by camera, microphone or other device, individuals who were present at that place and time; and,
(2) Whether the operator made statements or took other overt actions indicating a desire to use an unmanned aircraft to infringe upon rights of privacy recognized in this state.

 

[z28lt1]

Two things to keep in mind to answer your question about "status" of the law:

1) The ULC creates drafts of laws in hopes that states will use that or similar language to pass laws, so that things aren't so varied from state to state. It is up to each state to decide if and how it wants to use what is provided by the ULC.
2) I believe that the ULC has not had their final vote on the draft of the law yet, so at this point they would not even be suggesting it for the states.

So, first the ULC needs to finalize and vote on it, internally. Then a state needs to decide to adopt it in whole or part, with or without changes, for this to be meaningful.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

(5) Whether the landowner has regularly allowed operation of unmanned aircraft over the property;

Strikes me as 'worrying' in that it implies permission to overfly is already a current requirement OR gives grounds for arguing that it is already a requirement

 

[z28lt1]

Strikes me as 'worrying' in that it implies permission to overfly is already a current requirement OR gives grounds for arguing that it is already a requirement

That's not what this is about. This draft, which at the moment is totally meaningless, purposely uses "totality" of those things most be considered in order to make the determination. One alone does not rule something as an invasion or not, and all things must be considered. So permission is one thing to consider, but everything else must be considered as well.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

I agree that it is one point in amongst others and one of a number of conditions that must be, possibly simultaneoiusly, met but, to me, it still implies that the landowner has or maybe will have, the right to refuse or grant perrmission for an overflight or cracks open the door to their having that right. and that is, as far as I know, contrary to current standing of USA law.
Anyhow it doesn't affect me and it is something that the American pilots might wish to consider, I have drawn attention to it and that was my intention

 

[z28lt1]

I agree that it is one point in amongst others and one of a number of conditions that must be, possibly simultaneoiusly, met but, to me, it still implies that the landowner has or maybe will have, the right to refuse or grant perrmission for an overflight or cracks open the door to their having that right. and that is, as far as I know, contrary to current standing of USA law.
Anyhow it doesn't affect me and it is something that the American pilots might wish to consider, I have drawn attention to it and that was my intention

There are a couple of jurisdictions in US who have privacy/trespassing that allow a land owner to initiate a complaint and revoke "permission" for flying over in some cases. For example, in Nevada, if you fly below 250 feet over a persons property and they complain to you, you can be charged with trespassing if you do it again. That's what something like this "draft" is designed to do, make it the same everywhere.

And all of the on-the-books privacy/peeping tom laws could apply to drone use....so in essence every single one of those inherently involves permission. If I take pictures of you naked through a window by climbing your fence or by flying my drone outside your window, I probably have violated a law. If you invited me into your home and ask me to take them (gave me permission) I probably did not violate a law (assuming you are not a minor). Permission matters.

The owner permission is with everything else, so it works both ways. I hovered over your property at 10 feet filming for 7 minutes. If I had permission, that's clearly not a problem. If I didn't have permission, it probably is. On the other hand, I flew at 20MPH over your property at 350 feet and wasn't filming. I was over your property for approximately 5 seconds. With or without your permission, this isn't a problem. I'm not sure how (or why) you would write this without "permission" being one of the deciding factors if this is intrusion. If you take it out "permission" you could be asked by your neighbor to film something on their property for them, and then later get sued for trespass/invasion (because having permission doesn't matter anymore, we took it out).

 

[vindibona1]

There are a couple of jurisdictions in US who have privacy/trespassing that allow a land owner to initiate a complaint and revoke "permission" for flying over in some cases. For example, in Nevada, if you fly below 250 feet over a persons property and they complain to you, you can be charged with trespassing if you do it again. That's what something like this "draft" is designed to do, make it the same everywhere.

And all of the on-the-books privacy/peeping tom laws could apply to drone use....so in essence every single one of those inherently involves permission. If I take pictures of you naked through a window by climbing your fence or by flying my drone outside your window, I probably have violated a law. If you invited me into your home and ask me to take them (gave me permission) I probably did not violate a law (assuming you are not a minor). Permission matters.

The owner permission is with everything else, so it works both ways. I hovered over your property at 10 feet filming for 7 minutes. If I had permission, that's clearly not a problem. If I didn't have permission, it probably is. On the other hand, I flew at 20MPH over your property at 350 feet and wasn't filming. I was over your property for approximately 5 seconds. With or without your permission, this isn't a problem. I'm not sure how (or why) you would write this without "permission" being one of the deciding factors if this is intrusion. If you take it out "permission" you could be asked by your neighbor to film something on their property for them, and then later get sued for trespass/invasion (because having permission doesn't matter anymore, we took it out).

It may be important for the discussion to recognize that different countries look at even the text and meaning of laws differently. The idea behind the uniform law is to make it easy to know the law without having to do a research project every time you want to fly. The State of Illinois (where I live) has gone to the extent to write into law that the State has the sole authority to regulate UAV's and that no local jurisdiction, with the exception of those that have over 1 million people, can make laws concerning UAV's. So in terms of within the borders of Illinios it's pretty straight forward, and other than watching out for FAA restrictions and other occuasional inconveniences, one shouldn't have to worrry about crossing 50 feet into another local jurisdiction... but we know how that can go sideways with uninformed authority figures. The proposed draft is created to expand the concept of having one set of regulations that make it easy for people to know. I believe this proposal tries to balance the needs and privacies of the home/landowner and drone pilot, particularly those who fly as a hobby.

 

[buddb55]

Peoples Republic of Cook County!!!! I love it. We the people of Kendall County are waving to you. LOL.

 

[Ken no Barbie]

Peoples Republic of Cook County!!!! I love it. We the people of Kendall County are waving to you. LOL.

Born and raised in Cook, Lived in Lake, matured in McHenry and then got the hell out of dodge and moved to Colorado

 

[Mark Fleischhauer]

I too am born and raised in Cook Count, IL. The good thing about the northern part of this state is that law enforcement is pretty progressive, with many police departments now implementing and using drones on a regular basis. This just means that more and more law enforcement officers are becoming more familiar with drone usage and the laws, translating into fewer substantiated complaints and confrontations with drone pilots.

 

[buddb55]

Born and raised in Cook, Lived in Lake, matured in McHenry and then got the hell out of dodge and moved to Colorado

Excellent Choice!

 

[vindibona1]

Peoples Republic of Cook County!!!! I love it. We the people of Kendall County are waving to you. LOL.

The motto as far back as the reign of Richard J. Daley ? "If you want to get along you have to go along". It would be too easy to provide political commentary, but I'll refrain.