Tell It To the Judge...

[Moozer]

The ordinance states "No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District" - as you were not _in_ the district, it does not apply to you. Definitely do keep us informed as to how this goes.

 

[Norb_DAIS]

The ordinance states "No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District" - as you were not _in_ the district, it does not apply to you. Definitely do keep us informed as to how this goes.

I will post updates up to, and including the hearing date.

 

[Mr. Salty]

And the lawmakers knew that, too. But here we are.

And the Supremacy Clause exists because local politicians frequently over step their bounds to pander to the constituency they need to vote for them. Local laws and ordinances are overturned all the time because of this.

 

[BlueBay]

Thanks for presenting these viewpoints. Each has its own merits. When I looked up the ordinance, it does state that you are prohibited from flying below 500' above District parklands. It does not address where the flight originates or terminates. But as we all know, flying above 400' AGL is illegal according the FAA so they are effectively closing off the airspace above the park, which we all seem to agree is not within their power to do so.

I'll be calling to try and speak to someone at the court for clarification. If they decide to throw it out, great! If not, I'll at least have their interpretation and decide what to do at that point.

That sounds very sensible and thank you for sharing your experience.

As you know, we will all benefit from this insight. I actually see the legal challenges being one of the most important threads in this entire forum.

The CAA in the UK clearly see the positive elements of flying a drone both as a hobby, professionally or for law enforcement or medical life-saving operations. Obviously, anyone flying recklessly will be dealt with appropriately. But a responsible pilot will always be treated with respect, especially if they possess the most basic flight planning information prior to the flight in addition to the post-flight logs etc. Plus there is an element of making the CAA more accessible so that they can educate and obviously gather information to regulate efficiently.

The scariest element for me is the lack of knowledge from people who assume they know the law. These are members of the public who approach pilots very aggressively, park rangers and even law enforcement officials who have not yet fully grasped the detail. We are all capable of understanding the complexities, but there needs to be more done by governments to educate the general public and officials in a positive manner. There's also a responsibility for the relevant landowners to offer clear information about the drone laws/requirements for any given location. Obviously, pilots will perform advanced research/planning, but what if no clear information exists, that's obviously not pilot the pilot's responsibility.

I'm actively trying to speak to as many officials as possible to test their understanding or attitude to drones in the UK. This is normally just a 5 minute discussion when I'm out and about with the family or a brief phone call. My primary question to most people is 'What would you do if you saw a drone flying overhead, landing or preparing to take off at this location or nearby?" I'll try to log the anonymous responses as I gather the insight.

To be continued ...

 

[Drone on]

This will be very interesting to see how the conflict between authorities (the FAA and anyone other than the FAA) turns out. Our presumed rights have been spelled out above, but theory versus reality may result in two different interpretations; one more easily enforceable by the state authorities, and your/ours with significantly more hardship. Please post a follow up.

You might engage the AMA.

In the meantime, suit (sp?) Airmap for the court ordered damages. It would appear that even class G airspace is not as open as believed.

Part of the ordinance denotes occasionally designated dates and times for area use. Can you determine if they have ever followed through with that. Into the future, I think that would be a fair compromise. However, it may be like opening day of any season, and the sheer volume of drones rendering the footage unattractive.

I think it's interesting that at these dates and times, the permission would allow proximity no closer than 500 foot height (my interpretation?), which puts the permission in conflict with the FAA drone rules without a waiver.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

 

[keith00]

I don't know why some of these posts have taken on the tone of a debate...I don't disagree that the law is wrong, nor do I disagree that this could be resolved in the OP's favor. But no one knows what WILL happen. And I've gone to great pains to make it clear that I am only stating what MIGHT happen. I have done this for the sole reason of giving the OP some issues to consider before he goes to court. As I have stated, I think he certainly could get this resolved in his favor. But when it comes to courts, nothing is certain until it's over.

And all we can do is wait and see.

 

[BlueBay]

I don't know why some of these posts have taken on the tone of a debate...I don't disagree that the law is wrong, nor do I disagree that this could be resolved in the OP's favor. But no one knows what WILL happen. And I've gone to great pains to make it clear that I am only stating what MIGHT happen. I have done this for the sole reason of giving the OP some issues to consider before he goes to court. As I have stated, I think he certainly could get this resolved in his favor. But when it comes to courts, nothing is certain until it's over.

And all we can do is wait and see.

What? Maybe take a look at the definition of 'Forum' then take a look at the definition of 'Court'. It's the same thing! We are obviously debating the topic, we are not offering qualified legal advice, the OP understands that.

For me, one of the most useful comments in this forum was to phone the court in advance for advice (if available).

 

[keith00]

What? Maybe take a look at the definition of 'Forum' then take a look at the definition of 'Court'. It's the same thing! We are obviously debating the topic, we are not offering qualified legal advice, the OP understands that.

Debate away, then.

 

[jeplane]

I always find interesting any discussions on flying over national parks, national preserve, etc... I must admit that I am dumbfounded when someone says "Hey, I took off from outside the boundary, so I am good to fly over".

See, my problem is I come from the manned aircraft world. If I fly over the Grand Canyon, or rather inside the canyon, I know I will be busted, because there are some altitudes that I must follow. Or some corridors that I must abide with. The National Park Service is controlling, and they tell the FAA of their terms. The FAA agrees, provide us with charts, and boom. Restrictions for us pilots.

If I take off from Las Vegas and go north, I know there is a bunch of airspace that I can't get into, because it belongs to the military, and they control the airspace. Me saying "hey, I took off from outside your boundaries, so I am good to go" is not going to cut it.

The list goes on and on, as far as where you can fly with a manned aircraft.

So imagine my surprise when I came to the drone world.
All of a sudden, I hear things about the FAA controlling the airspace, so they can tell the state parks to take a hike. That's not how it works in my world, so I will be following this type of threads closely, because I do not understand how the drone industry would get away with it.

 

[Mr. Salty]

I always find interesting any discussions on flying over national parks, national preserve, etc... I must admit that I am dumbfounded when someone says "Hey, I took off from outside the boundary, so I am good to fly over".

See, my problem is I come from the manned aircraft world. If I fly over the Grand Canyon, or rather inside the canyon, I know I will be busted, because there are some altitudes that I must follow. Or some corridors that I must abide with. The National Park Service is controlling, and they tell the FAA of their terms. The FAA agrees, provide us with charts, and boom. Restrictions for us pilots.

If I take off from Las Vegas and go north, I know there is a bunch of airspace that I can't get into, because it belongs to the military, and they control the airspace. Me saying "hey, I took off from outside your boundaries, so I am good to go" is not going to cut it.

The list goes on and on, as far as where you can fly with a manned aircraft.

So imagine my surprise when I came to the drone world.
All of a sudden, I hear things about the FAA controlling the airspace, so they can tell the state parks to take a hike. That's not how it works in my world, so I will be following this type of threads closely, because I do not understand how the drone industry would get away with it.

In this case, the FAA has not given a local park district the kinds of restrictions they've given to air space in your examples. This isn't the Grand Canyon or a military base. We can't fly our drones over those either.

 

[BlueBay]

In this case, the FAA has not given a local park district the kinds of restrictions they've given to air space in your examples. This isn't the Grand Canyon or a military base. We can't fly our drones over those either.

I agree, the example isn't relevant in this case. The M2P is restricted anyway when it comes to designated controlled airspace. You'd never be able to fly over a military area, the software will prevent it. We are talking about authorities suggesting they have control over the airspace, where in fact the FAA or CAA (UK in my case) do not recognise it as being controlled, therefore it's not.

 

[rob levine]

I went out earlier this morning to get some video of the windmills near my home. I've been looking at them every day on my commute and finally looked up a convenient launch area just off the highway.

When I finally got there, the sun was behind and to the right of my planned approach. I considered coming back later in the afternoon when the sun would be behind the shot, but decided to just fly anyway.

Long story short, the regional park ranger pulled up behind me and informed me that the (regional park) police was on the way and they would be asking me some questions.

Turns out the land on the other side of the freeway is a regional preserve and my drone flying over the space was prohibited. Therefore, I was issued a citation with a notice to appear in late November.

Just saw this - as others have said - it's all about where you take off and land from. You can fly wherever the FAA allows you to fly...I would definitely fight this

 

[Photo Booth]

I went out earlier this morning to get some video of the windmills near my home.

Why has the video been removed from YouTube?

Mark

 

[jimlips]

Are you referring to a federal or local precedent?

Here are the airspace restrictions straight from the FAA.

Airspace Restrictions

Thanks for posting! I've been looking for a short list I can carry with me in my car.

 

[theDRONEranger]

My understanding is that ONLY the FAA may designate a NFZ. IF, this is correct, then it is permissible to take off/land outside the preserve area (gosh, doesn't this sound just like the majority of US National Parks? (NOTE: US Airspace, for US NPS ( my understanding, is NFZ (with exceptions) to approximate 2000 feet AGL, which means you cannot go over 400 AGL anyway)), and fly over without penalty! Was the area posted!?! Most of the time, such posting is only accomplished at the vehicular/pedestrian entrance-ways. Usually, for legitimate NFZs, the NFZ shows on your airmap to alert you as to the presence, usually!. Also, just because it does not show on your map does not mean it is not NFZ. As pilots, we should all strive to ensure adherence to the applicable rules and regulations defined by the FAA, who governs our flight activity. Municipalities have tried (and lost) on the aspect of simply posting signs that say "NO TAKE OF/LANDING IN PARKS". So, take off/land outside the park as, once again, the FAA controls the airspace not the municipality. As others point out, correctly, the FAA controls the enforcement of US airspace, not the land owning entity. If they wish the airspace to be designated as NFZ, they must go through the FAA to complete such actions! Finally, do you have a picture of any clearly posted signage?

Some other interesting reading

https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-conte...itude-airspace-Daily-Journal-5-4-2017.pdf.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/17_phak_ch15.pdf

How to Fly a Drone Without Getting Arrested: State and Local Drone Laws

Frequently Asked Questions
Wildfires
B4UFLY Mobile App
No Drone Zone
Airspace Restrictions


If I am incorrect on any this info, and you are able to provide correct data, please do so.
I appreciate the opportunity to learn and live.

 

[ironxcross]

I haven't done my own research on your case, but if you were operating within the bounds of the law, then it's always best to fight these things in court. When the public loses these types of cases, or just admits guilt and pays some fine, the more precedent there is for future cases. Over time then, we are subject to more harassment and enforcement actions against us, or we lose some rights altogether.

I'm curious to see what happens, keep us updated.

 

[370Z2017]

I went out earlier this morning to get some video of the windmills near my home. I've been looking at them every day on my commute and finally looked up a convenient launch area just off the highway.

When I finally got there, the sun was behind and to the right of my planned approach. I considered coming back later in the afternoon when the sun would be behind the shot, but decided to just fly anyway.

Long story short, the regional park ranger pulled up behind me and informed me that the (regional park) police was on the way and they would be asking me some questions.

Turns out the land on the other side of the freeway is a regional preserve and my drone flying over the space was prohibited. Therefore, I was issued a citation with a notice to appear in late November.

If your talking about the windmills in Tracy I fly there all the time. I take off near one of the warehouses and fly over them alot. where did you take off from? Side road somewhere? Just curious

 

[mavicpro1000]

Is this the same country that allows it's citizens to freely carry loaded weapons!? Somethin' ain't right.

 

[Terranitup]

Fight it! it's not much but i'd throw down $20 on a lawyer. Get enough people together and pitch in. The more court rulings in our favor the better and easier it will be in the long run. Sorry but i have to say this guys, please stop calling them windmills... they are wind turbines, hope this info below helps to clarify... sorry to go off topic for a sec. Did something happen to the video? YT says the video is unavailable.

Windmills convert wind energy directly into mechanical energy for such tasks as milling grain--the source of the term--or pumping water.

A wind turbine converts wind energy into electricity, which can then be used to power electrical equipment, stored in batteries or transmitted over power lines.

 

[Terranitup]

Local lawmakers are easily paid off to make any law you want. Happens _every_ day. I suspect that they do know their laws won't hold up but the game goes like this... an illegal law is made. The police stop someone breaking this illegal law. They then tell the person to stop and tell them if they don't they will be cited. At this point many people will stop... thinking they face a fine. Basically they are bullied into obeying the illegal law. In some case the person will be cited and perhaps just pay the fine. The local government just made some easy money. Perhaps instead it goes to the prosecutor. If the person does not show up to court, easy money. If the person does show up either the prosecutor drops the charges or the judge throws out the charges. That information is difficult for most people to know. In the end, the local government has _nothing_ to lose and has a lot to gain. If the law is found to be illegal, no one is held accountable.

In Utah a local dealership (with millions of dollars) paid to have a law passed that dealer could not be open on both Sat and Sun. This is an actual law. Is it really the government's place to tell a dealership when and when they cannot sell cars? In this case, this dealership did not want to be forced to be open on Sunday. They also did not want to lose business to other dealerships. So they paid off some lawmaker to make this law.

So no dealerships are open on the weekend?! crazy I would imagine most people buy vehicles and motorcycles on the weekend.