State, County & City laws, ordinances or codes that restrict U.S. airspace legal?

[JSKCKNIT]

Many problems with this. State and National Parks are not there to support your hobby of UAV flight. State and National parks are formed to maintain those areas so that everyone can enjoy the beauty of the area. This includes the sound of nature. You may think your one drone does not bother people but it would be 10 or 20 drones. Sunrise to 10am are the most peaceful times in parks. Why would it be the time when 10 buzzing drones should be allowed (not that they should be allowed at all). Lastly, once a park allows drone, they open up the door for a lot of mistakes. People will then hear that drones are allowed and not bother to see what restrictions are in place. People will know that they are allowed but want to fly at 10:15, 10:30, 11:00, etc. After all, it's close to 10am. If drones are allowed until 10am people will then complain that they can't fly them outside of that time.

I respect your response however.....

• Many state and national parks allow the use of OHV (which I ride). Using noise as a reason to not allow sUAVs is a weak rebuttal when they allow vehicles that are much louder (though they are regulated for noise pollution).
• When I do ride my atv at state and national parks, I'm required to get a permit. They limit the number of people allowed to ride. There's no reason why they can't offer the same accommodations to licensed and insured sUAV pilots.
• I pay taxes just like others to fund these parks. In addition to the taxes and usage fees that I pay to fund these parks, I donate to the National Parks Conservation Association.
• I used Sunrise to 10am as an arbitrary time. I'd be open to any time allowed. I'm not saying it should be a free for all, but it also shouldn't be as complex as requesting waivers and the operators should be licensed and insured.
• "State and National parks are formed to maintain those areas so that everyone can enjoy the beauty of the area." Not to make this political, but Drill, Baby Drill! Some parks have oil and natural gas wells and pipelines zig zagging and dotted across the landscape. Those are not beautiful to look at.

 

[tcope]

I respect your response however.....

• Many state and national parks allow the use of OHV (which I ride). Using noise as a reason to not allow sUAVs is a weak rebuttal when they allow vehicles that are much louder (though they are regulated for noise pollution).
• When I do ride my atv at state and national parks, I'm required to get a permit. They limit the number of people allowed to ride. There's no reason why they can't offer the same accommodations to licensed and insured sUAV pilots.
• I pay taxes just like others to fund these parks. In addition to the taxes and usage fees that I pay to fund these parks, I donate to the National Parks Conservation Association.
• I used Sunrise to 10am as an arbitrary time. I'd be open to any time allowed. I'm not saying it should be a free for all, but it also shouldn't be as complex as requesting waivers and the operators should be licensed and insured.
• "State and National parks are formed to maintain those areas so that everyone can enjoy the beauty of the area." Not to make this political, but Drill, Baby Drill! Some parks have oil and natural gas wells and pipelines zig zagging and dotted across the landscape. Those are not beautiful to look at.

There is a difference between flying a drone and using a vehicle for transportation. Also, you are limited on where you can drive, once your drone is airborne you are not limited on where you can fly.

Lots of people pay taxes. You pay taxes to the NPS and give then the authority to make the rules. So, you pay them to make these rules. They are charged with preserving National Parks for the enjoyment of _everyone_. Not just one person who pays taxes.

I'm not taking sides in this thread. I'm just pointing out some issues.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

There is a difference between flying a drone and using a vehicle for transportation. Also, you are limited on where you can drive, once your drone is airborne you are not limited on where you can fly.

Lots of people pay taxes. You pay taxes to the NPS and give then the authority to make the rules. So, you pay them to make these rules. They are charged with preserving National Parks for the enjoyment of _everyone_. Not just one person who pays taxes.

I'm not taking sides in this thread. I'm just pointing out some issues.

We're currently limited in where we can fly! Hypothetically, if the park service allowed access and said do not fly in zone XYZ because that's where an endangered bird nest is located, a licensed and insured drone pilot will not fly there.

The current drone laws were hastily put in place with zero public input due to the increasing popularity of sUAVs. I'm not saying those laws are not warranted, just requesting equal access. I'm not the only person requesting this.

I'm not one to complain about an issue without offering a solution. I've written and spoken with the NPS, the NPCA, and my local representatives to get this addressed. I guarantee you that if you contact them and ask about the current laws, they will tell you they were put in place for public safety concerns....followed by privacy concerns. Unfortunately, bad news about drones dominates the headlines and it's a hard sell for a few individuals.

On a side note, it's not just drones. I get the same answer when I request access to the same open fields here to use my telescopes!

 

[ascension]

In my humble view, the FAA will gladly give "airspace" at an extremely low altitude, to local jurisdictions, where drone operators will be allowed to fly.

The FAA exists as a service to safely regulate and control participating, manned airplanes.

I don't think they want anything to do with non certified folks who can buy these things on the internet, have no certification process for either the operator or the drone, and no way to identify when one of these is around.
I'm guessing we'll see local municipalities get some kind of control over this, with the exception of approach and departure corridors around airports.

 

[Lapeer20m]

Michigan is one of a few stares that has drone preemption, where local municipalities are unable to regulate drone use. Only the state legislature or the feds can make rules regarding the operation or possessonnof drones here.

 

[tcope]

In my humble view, the FAA will gladly give "airspace" at an extremely low altitude, to local jurisdictions, where drone operators will be allowed to fly.

The FAA exists as a service to safely regulate and control participating, manned airplanes.

I don't think they want anything to do with non certified folks who can buy these things on the internet, have no certification process for either the operator or the drone, and no way to identify when one of these is around.
I'm guessing we'll see local municipalities get some kind of control over this, with the exception of approach and departure corridors around airports.

Per US Code, the FAA and only the FAA has 100% control of public airspace. They cannot "give" up the requirement to govern any airspace.

The FAA does not exist only to regulate manned aircraft. They have equally duty and responsibility to regulate unmanned aircraft as well (and they do).

The FAA would not mind having much more control over hobby use. Congress has limited their control and the FAA has over-stepped these limitations on several occasions.

You won't see local authorities be given control as US Code prevents this. However, you will (and have seen) local idiot law makers _think_ they can regulate airspace.

 

[Defiante]

Per US Code, the FAA and only the FAA has 100% control of public airspace. They cannot "give" up the requirement to govern any airspace.

The FAA does not exist only to regulate manned aircraft. They have equally duty and responsibility to regulate unmanned aircraft as well (and they do).

The FAA would not mind having much more control over hobby use. Congress has limited their control and the FAA has over-stepped these limitations on several occasions.

You won't see local authorities be given control as US Code prevents this. However, you will (and have seen) local idiot law makers _think_ they can regulate airspace.

Local government may not be able to regulate airspace, but they CAN control what you do on the ground.

They can regulate you standing on the ground operating the remote.

Example. Our county park system does not allow any drone flights. If I am standing in the park flying I am subject to a fine. If I stand on my friends property that borders the park then the park Ranger would have no authority over my flight as long as I am following all other FAA regulations

 

[Cimriver]

Many problems with this. State and National Parks are not there to support your hobby of UAV flight. State and National parks are formed to maintain those areas so that everyone can enjoy the beauty of the area. This includes the sound of nature. You may think your one drone does not bother people but it would be 10 or 20 drones. Sunrise to 10am are the most peaceful times in parks. Why would it be the time when 10 buzzing drones should be allowed (not that they should be allowed at all). Lastly, once a park allows drone, they open up the door for a lot of mistakes. People will then hear that drones are allowed and not bother to see what restrictions are in place. People will know that they are allowed but want to fly at 10:15, 10:30, 11:00, etc. After all, it's close to 10am. If drones are allowed until 10am people will then complain that they can't fly them outside of that time.

The problem I have with the restrictions on flying in State Parks and National Parks, is that they are totally arbitrary. Those rules have been implemented without any kind of investigation as to their impact on users of these facilities, both those who fly UAVs and those who might be negatively impacted by them. The Forest Service has taken a much more measured approach by generally allowing their use in National Forests, but restricting their use in areas where they may impact others or wildlife. As for noise impact, other noise producing activities are allowed, i.e. Snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park albeit with certain restrictions. The same type of thinking should be applied to UAV use in these facilities.

 

[tcope]

The problem I have with the restrictions on flying in State Parks and National Parks, is that they are totally arbitrary. Those rules have been implemented without any kind of investigation as to their impact on users of these facilities, both those who fly UAVs and those who might be negatively impacted by them. The Forest Service has taken a much more measured approach by generally allowing their use in National Forests, but restricting their use in areas where they may impact others or wildlife. As for noise impact, other noise producing activities are allowed, i.e. Snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park albeit with certain restrictions. The same type of thinking should be applied to UAV use in these facilities.

I can't say you don't have a point. I think I'd tend to agree with the ban but again, don't completely disagree with your statement.

The NPS and the US Forest Service have different responsibilities and charges. Also, there are 4 million visitors to Yellowstone and 3 million visitors each ear to Zions. Most are going to the same areas. This is very different from National Forests. But again, the main point is the different responsibilities of each agency.

When the rule was made against UAV's in National Parks I'd agree with it may have been done too quickly. However, over the years I would say that the rule has become more and more appropriate.

Snowmobiles, off road vehicles, passenger vehicles... all _very_ different from UAVs. You and I can enjoy National Parks just as well without the need to fly a UAV in one. Every sat next to Delicate Arch enjoying the few just to see someone fly their Mavic all around the arch? I have. Made me want to beat the person over his head with the Mavic.

 

[Cimriver]

I can't say you don't have a point. I think I'd tend to agree with the ban but again, don't completely disagree with your statement.

The NPS and the US Forest Service have different responsibilities and charges. Also, there are 4 million visitors to Yellowstone and 3 million visitors each ear to Zions. Most are going to the same areas. This is very different from National Forests. But again, the main point is the different responsibilities of each agency.

When the rule was made against UAV's in National Parks I'd agree with it may have been done too quickly. However, over the years I would say that the rule has become more and more appropriate.

Snowmobiles, off road vehicles, passenger vehicles... all _very_ different from UAVs. You and I can enjoy National Parks just as well without the need to fly a UAV in one. Every sat next to Delicate Arch enjoying the few just to see someone fly their Mavic all around the arch? I have. Made me want to beat the person over his head with the Mavic.

Indeed there are many visitors to these and other National Parks. I'm sure you would agree that the vast majority of those visitors never leave sight of a paved road or an improved trail around one of the many wonders these parks hold for visitors. Delicate Arch or Mesa Arch in Canyonlands would not be good locations for flying UAVs, but try taking the Storm Point Trail in Yellowstone and be rewarded with a beautiful overlook that screams perfect for flying UAVs. Seems to me a reasonable accommodation could be worked out.

 

[pftarch]

These are two areas that I am VERY interested in. (Local and private regulation and the National Park Ban)

If the Drone Federalization Bill passes, local governments will be able to regulate low altitude airspace. Brace yourself, it's coming. If not this time, then on another bill. My thoughts on a compromise are as follows:

One:
0 - 200 feet AGL not allowed over private property without landowners permission. However, 0 - 200 AGL on private property WITH landowners permission NO restrictions. You can fly FPV, you can fly at night, you can fly fast, you can fly BVLOS. You do NOT need a license to operate commercially below 200' on private property with landowners permission. Realtors, contractors, surveyors, farmers, etc. can use a drone as they see fit without a license below 200' with the landowners (not the FAA's and not the localities) permission. (And I'm OK with this even though I'm 107 certified.) It's "Private Airspace" and it it can be considered the same as flying inside. Helicopters are not allowed to fly lower than 200' AGL without property owners permission. (Planes can't anyways so no additional regulation required there.) This can be limited within 1 (not 5) miles of an airport.

Two:
0 - 200 feet AGL can be restricted on "public" property (including the National Park Service) PROVIDED it is not restricted greater than 10% of the entire land area of the entity. Restricted areas will establish within 1 year a reasonable, limited cost (under $20) waiver process for limited access to restricted areas, OR, if the waiver process is not established in 12 months the restriction is lifted. (I understand that you cant have 50 drones flying over Old Faithful, but it is out of line to to ban flights over ALL of the Cape Cod Seashore or the ENTIRE length of the Appalachian Trail, and these are only two examples. A non elected bureaucrat banned drone flight over THREE PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. That is insane. It was a "temporary" measure put in place THREE YEARS ago, and it's not going away.)

Three:
200 - 400 feet AGL under FAA control and rules presently in place, however, you can't "loiter" over private property without the landowners permission, even over 200' AGL. (We'll figure out a definition for loitering later) Helicopters shall not go below 400' unless they taking off, landing, or in an emergency capacity. Part two and three effectively minimize helicopter/UAS conflicts.

I know that the above is just pie in the sky thinking, but I sincerely think in a very short period of time I am going to be restricted to flying my Mavic Pro in my backyard only (after I call the airport), and there are only so many pictures that I can take of the roof of my own home. I also understand that we like to refer to the fact that the FAA controls the air over everyones lawn, but I think its unrealistic to think that it should be appropriate to fly 25' over a strangers pool while their kids are swimming in it. I would be upset if someone did it to me (despite the fact that it is technically "legal"), I won't do it to anyone else, and I could accept REASONABLE limitations to prevent it. (When I fly in my suburban neighborhood I typically go up to at least 300' before I putter around.) I DO NOT want local politicians coming up with new and creative restrictions, because they will follow the path of the Park Service and just ban them outright.

Wishful thinking on my part.......

 

[Deleted member 94307]

Bravo.. This is so true. I think the idea of not taking off and landing in parks is because people do it when their are people present. Hand launching doesn't fix that issue. WHAT SHOULD happen is that the pilot should immediately should get a citation for flying over people. It makes me angry how local government doesn't bother learning the Federal laws and creates more laws. Heck they could bring in more money by ticketing drone users who are breaking federal laws. There would be no need to ban State Parks in NJ (the most beautiful place to fly) and everyone would be safer.

Our town is working on a drone permit to fly in our local parks. The head of the rec. dept started talking about allowing drones in one park. I told him that would just lead to people flying from somewhere else to get pictures of what they want. He agreed.. He didn't understand the difference between racing drones and photo drones. For racing drones there needs to be a netted designated area.

Hopefully towns start realizing that laws already exist and don't continue to make EVERYONE less safe by banning drones from empty parks.

 

[Thomas B]

Bravo.. This is so true. I think the idea of not taking off and landing in parks is because people do it when their are people present. Hand launching doesn't fix that issue. WHAT SHOULD happen is that the pilot should immediately should get a citation for flying over people. It makes me angry how local government doesn't bother learning the Federal laws and creates more laws. Heck they could bring in more money by ticketing drone users who are breaking federal laws. There would be no need to ban State Parks in NJ (the most beautiful place to fly) and everyone would be safer.

Our town is working on a drone permit to fly in our local parks. The head of the rec. dept started talking about allowing drones in one park. I told him that would just lead to people flying from somewhere else to get pictures of what they want. He agreed.. He didn't understand the difference between racing drones and photo drones. For racing drones there needs to be a netted designated area.

Hopefully towns start realizing that laws already exist and don't continue to make EVERYONE less safe by banning drones from empty parks.

In Arizona, apparently to stop the proliferation of local and county statues, the state passed a law about 2 years ago that includes a section stating in so many words that only the state can make laws governing drones in Arizona. Problem is that it takes a lot of time and money to dispute the illegal laws...

 

[bushie]

How lucky am i to live where i do. I regularly visit National parks where drones are allowed provided they comply with CASA regs. I have never seen another drone. Maybe our relitave low population and vast open spaces helps.