The NAS; The FAA makes a stand.

[dirkclod]

C&P from one of our other forums, not sure if this has been posted but dropping it here .

Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

 

[Qoncussion]

C&P from one of our other forums, not sure if this has been posted but dropping it here .

Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

So if I'm interpreting this correctly - all of those state and city parks that have been "locally" designated as no-drone-zones, are in fact open to drones, unless otherwise designated directly by the FAA...?

 

[dirkclod]

That I do not know. @BigAl07 can tell us more on this.
I’m not up on it. Just saw it posted and brought it here.

 

[beachcombing]

So if I'm interpreting this correctly - all of those state and city parks that have been "locally" designated as no-drone-zones, are in fact open to drones, unless otherwise designated directly by the FAA...?

The localities can still regulate landing and launching from their property, however.


"However, these powers are not the same as regulation of aircraft landing sites, which involves local control of land and zoning. Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.

Cities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft.
However, as indicated, they may generally determine the location of aircraft landing sites through their land use powers."

 

[Qoncussion]

The localities can still regulate landing and launching from their property, however.


"However, these powers are not the same as regulation of aircraft landing sites, which involves local control of land and zoning. Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.

Cities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft.
However, as indicated, they may generally determine the location of aircraft landing sites through their land use powers."

So, similar to national parks - if one were to launch and land outside of the property of say a no-drone-zone city park - the local authorities cannot govern our flights *over* that park...? I'm just trying to clarify, as nothing drives me more insane than a person rattling-off a list of violations, that I (we) haven't broken.

 

[BigAl07]

So, similar to national parks - if one were to launch and land outside of the property of say a no-drone-zone city park - the local authorities cannot govern our flights *over* that park...? I'm just trying to clarify, as nothing drives me more insane than a person rattling-off a list of violations, that I (we) haven't broken.

Locals can govern what you do "on land" only unless there are instances such as "sensitive infrastructure", confinement facilities or other things you simply should not be flying over/around.

Yes somewhat similar to the operations around a National Park area except you can also be "cited" for other things such as:

reckless behavior or trespassing and any number of other "local" ordinances that could already be on the books. Just because you feel like you CAN fly there doesn't mean that you should. Other people may not want our sUAS buzzing around over their heads.

 

[medic593]

So if I'm interpreting this correctly - all of those state and city parks that have been "locally" designated as no-drone-zones, are in fact open to drones, unless otherwise designated directly by the FAA...?

What I get out of it is, they can regulate where from you take off or land, but not much else. Barring privacy laws, etc.

 

[Qoncussion]

What I get out of it is, they can regulate where from you take off or land, but not much else. Barring privacy laws, etc.

That's how I'm interpreting it as well. I think that's a step forward for us.

 

[BigAl07]

What I get out of it is, they can regulate where from you take off or land, but not much else. Barring privacy laws, etc.

Other than areas of "Sensitive Infrastructure" or National Park Service land only the FAA can say what happens in the air. Land Use laws, privacy laws, and personal safety laws come into play almost anywhere which is pretty much what you're asking about.

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

C&P from one of our other forums, not sure if this has been posted but dropping it here .

Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

So if I'm interpreting this correctly - all of those state and city parks that have been "locally" designated as no-drone-zones, are in fact open to drones, unless otherwise designated directly by the FAA...?

You sir are 100% correct!

I am going to the State of California Superior Court on 8/2/2018 regarding this exact issue. The State of California Department of Park and Recreation has manipulated California state law by attaching an Inland Empire District Order # 950-16-001 to an existing state law that says absolutely nothing that allows the state to prohibiting UAS aircraft flight in the U.S.airspace above the Chino Hills State Park or anywhere else in the entire state of California. This unlawful action by the Department of Park and Recreation does not make their posted order into a state law. There is no California state law the gives the state permission from the F.A.A. to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft in the U.S. airspace. This F.A.A. statement includes UAS flight operations. Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

In this case, the State of California Department of Park and Recreation has violated federal regulations by suspending and prohibiting my UAS flight in the Chino Hills State Park on June 20, 2018. I was flying in Class G airspace and I also submitted a flight plan prior to my flight to the F.A.A. using the F.A.A. Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability system (L.A.A.N.C.) services through the AIRMAP app. My flight plan was approved by the F.A.A. to fly my Mavic Pro #4 aircraft in the U.S.airspace in the Chino Hills State Park for duration of one hour with a maximum altitude of 400 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) in the area designated in my flight plan. My approved flight plan started on May 25, 2018 at 8:54 AM and ended at 9:54 AM.

It is not necessary to submit a flight plan when flying a UAS in Class G airspace so why did I submit my flight plan to the F.A.A. on that day?

Very simple, to prove that my flight was 100% legally approved by the F.A.A. just in case any Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) were to come up and tell me that my flight was illegal!
Dropbox - IMG_3318.PNG
Dropbox - IMG_3226_Print Size.png


The LEO informed me that "my flight violated state law that prohibits drone flight in the Chino Hills State Park". The LEO also said, "that it was also illegal to fly any drone in any State Park in the United States!"

I immediately informed the LEO that his statements were totally untrue and that there was no California State law that allows the state to prohibit aircraft flight of any kind in the state.

I then asked the LEO to show me the state law that he verbally charged for violation in writing. The LEO would not show me the code of law simply because there is no state law that allows the state to prohibit UAS aircraft flight of any kind in the U.S. airspace.

In my case, the LEO had absolutely no idea that by prohibiting my UAS aircraft flight, the state would be in violation of Federal Regulations by prohibiting my aircraft flight.

This type of illegal situation can happen to any UAS pilot so I am recommending that all F.A.A. registered UAS pilots to submit a flight plan to the F.A.A. using the AIRMAP app to assure that their UAS flights are not only safe but also that their flights have been approved legally under F.A.A. regulations.

Please include a link that will support forum members who have an opposing opinion. Otherwise, we are all just blowing smoke here and wasting each others time!

Thank you.

 

[BigAl07]

The states ARE allowed to control where you stand to launch/land your aircraft and the FAA has reiterated that many times over. That is a LAND USE situation and outside of anything to do with flying.

Where did you get that we are required to "File a flight plan for Class G Airspace"? That's hogwash day in and day out. Class G requires nothing for hobby unless within 5 mile of an airport and nothing for Part 107 Operators.

Getting LAANC approval for Airspace does NOT override land use laws in place at local levels. That's comparing apples to a kayak.

 

[Qoncussion]

You sir are 100% correct!

I am going to the State of California Superior Court on 8/2/2018 regarding this exact issue. The State of California Department of Park and Recreation has manipulated California state law by attaching an Inland Empire District Order # 950-16-001 to an existing state law that says absolutely nothing that allows the state to prohibiting UAS aircraft flight in the U.S.airspace above the Chino Hills State Park or anywhere else in the entire state of California. This unlawful action by the Department of Park and Recreation does not make their posted order into a state law. There is no California state law the gives the state permission from the F.A.A. to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft in the U.S. airspace. This F.A.A. statement includes UAS flight operations. Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

In this case, the State of California Department of Park and Recreation has violated federal regulations by suspending and prohibiting my UAS flight in the Chino Hills State Park on June 20, 2018. I was flying in Class G airspace and I also submitted a flight plan prior to my flight to the F.A.A. using the F.A.A. Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability system (L.A.A.N.C.) services through the AIRMAP app. My flight plan was approved by the F.A.A. to fly my Mavic Pro #4 aircraft in the U.S.airspace in the Chino Hills State Park for duration of one hour with a maximum altitude of 400 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) in the area designated in my flight plan. My approved flight plan started on May 25, 2018 at 8:54 AM and ended at 9:54 AM.

It is not necessary to submit a flight plan when flying a UAS in Class G airspace so why did I submit my flight plan to the F.A.A. on that day?

Very simple, to prove that my flight was 100% legally approved by the F.A.A. just in case any Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) were to come up and tell me that my flight was illegal!
Dropbox - IMG_3318.PNG
Dropbox - IMG_3226_Print Size.png


The LEO informed me that "my flight violated state law that prohibits drone flight in the Chino Hills State Park". The LEO also said, "that it was also illegal to fly any drone in any State Park in the United States!"

I immediately informed the LEO that his statements were totally untrue and that there was no California State law that allows the state to prohibit aircraft flight of any kind in the state.

I then asked the LEO to show me the state law that he verbally charged for violation in writing. The LEO would not show me the code of law simply because there is no state law that allows the state to prohibit UAS aircraft flight of any kind in the U.S. airspace.

In my case, the LEO had absolutely no idea that by prohibiting my UAS aircraft flight, the state would be in violation of Federal Regulations by prohibiting my aircraft flight.

This type of illegal situation can happen to any UAS pilot so I am recommending that all F.A.A. registered UAS pilots to submit a flight plan to the F.A.A. using the AIRMAP app to assure that their UAS flights are not only safe but also that their flights have been approved legally under F.A.A. regulations.

Please include a link that will support forum members who have an opposing opinion. Otherwise, we are all just blowing smoke here and wasting each others time!

Thank you.

I read your original thread on this topic. While I wish you ALL THE BEST, I don't think you will be able to get around the issue of launching and landing in the park - over which they do have jurisdiction. Good luck, and let us know how it works out!

 

[BigAl07]

I read your original thread on this topic. While I wish you ALL THE BEST, I don't think you will be able to get around the issue of launching and landing in the park - over which they do have jurisdiction. Good luck, and let us know how it works out!

Very well said Kevin. You nailed it with that one statement.

 

[Wilbur&Garth]

The states ARE allowed to control where you stand to launch/land your aircraft and the FAA has reiterated that many times over. That is a LAND USE situation and outside of anything to do with flying.

Where did you get that we are required to "File a flight plan for Class G Airspace"? That's hogwash day in and day out. Class G requires nothing for hobby unless within 5 mile of an airport and nothing for Part 107 Operators.

Getting LAANC approval for Airspace does NOT override land use laws in place at local levels. That's comparing apples to a kayak.

This one made me lol.

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

The states ARE allowed to control where you stand to launch/land your aircraft and the FAA has reiterated that many times over. That is a LAND USE situation and outside of anything to do with flying.

Where did you get that we are required to "File a flight plan for Class G Airspace"? That's hogwash day in and day out. Class G requires nothing for hobby unless within 5 mile of an airport and nothing for Part 107 Operators.

Getting LAANC approval for Airspace does NOT override land use laws in place at local levels. That's comparing apples to a kayak.

Please take the time to carefully read my post. I was not charged for taking off or landing my UAS in the park. I was charged for flying in the park. There is a huge difference between land use and the U.S. airspace above the park. The park has no legal authority over the U.S. airspace over the park. The park management seems to believe that the state can control the U.S. airspace above the park and they simply do not have the permission from the F.A.A. to prohibit any kind of aircraft flight over the park. Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

I did not say that it is required to to file a flight plan in Class G airspace. My goodness, please read the post carefully a few times before replying. I said that it would be a good idea to submit a flight plan as a backup if any LEO says the your flight is illegal!

I did not say that a LAANC approval overrides state land use

I read your original thread on this topic. While I wish you ALL THE BEST, I don't think you will be able to get around the issue of launching and landing in the park - over which they do have jurisdiction. Good luck, and let us know how it works out!

Hey Kevin, thanks for your comment. I was not charged for taking off or landing in the park, I was charged for flying in the park. Since it is impossible to fly "IN" the park and only "IN" the U.S. airspace above the park of which the state has no legal authority or the permission from the F.A.A. to control according to the F.A.A. press release dated June 20, 2018. Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

 

[Qoncussion]

Please take the time to carefully read my post. I was not charged for taking off or landing my UAS in the park. I was charged for flying in the park. There is a huge difference between land use and the U.S. airspace above the park. The park has no legal authority over the U.S. airspace over the park. The park management seems to believe that the state can control the U.S. airspace above the park and they simply do not have the permission from the F.A.A. to prohibit any kind of aircraft flight over the park. Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

I did not say that it is required to to file a flight plan in Class G airspace. My goodness, please read the post carefully a few times before replying. I said that it would be a good idea to submit a flight plan as a backup if any LEO says the your flight is illegal!

I did not say that a LAANC approval overrides state land use


Hey Kevin, thanks for your comment. I was not charged for taking off or landing in the park, I was charged for flying in the park. Since it is impossible to fly "IN" the park and only "IN" the U.S. airspace above the park of which the state has no legal authority or the permission from the F.A.A. to control according to the F.A.A. press release dated June 20, 2018. Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

I'm not judging. I am just very interested in hearing how this works out for you. It could have greater meaning for all of us if you prevail.

 

[BigAl07]

Please take the time to carefully read my post. I was not charged for taking off or landing my UAS in the park. I was charged for flying in the park. There is a huge difference between land use and the U.S. airspace above the park. The park has no legal authority over the U.S. airspace over the park. The park management seems to believe that the state can control the U.S. airspace above the park and they simply do not have the permission from the F.A.A. to prohibit any kind of aircraft flight over the park. Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

I did not say that it is required to to file a flight plan in Class G airspace. My goodness, please read the post carefully a few times before replying. I said that it would be a good idea to submit a flight plan as a backup if any LEO says the your flight is illegal!

I did not say that a LAANC approval overrides state land use


Hey Kevin, thanks for your comment. I was not charged for taking off or landing in the park, I was charged for flying in the park. Since it is impossible to fly "IN" the park and only "IN" the U.S. airspace above the park of which the state has no legal authority or the permission from the F.A.A. to control according to the F.A.A. press release dated June 20, 2018. Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

I read your post (actually about 4 times to fully digest your thought process) and it still is a bit confusing. Even other members are reading it the same way I am.

If you were charged with "flying over the park from non-park land" you might have a case. But It sounds like you was physically standing on park property and charged as such. If, you were not standing on park property (or adjacent property managed by the park) then I stand corrected and I apologize. Until that time you're in the wrong.

 

[BigAl07]

I did not say that it is required to to file a flight plan in Class G airspace. My goodness, please read the post carefully a few times before replying. I said that it would be a good idea to submit a flight plan as a backup if any LEO says the your flight is illegal!

Well from what I read (4x) it appears you did.. .here is what I read and how I deducted what you said,

It is not necessary to submit a flight plan when flying a UAS in Class G airspace so why did I submit my flight plan to the F.A.A. on that day?

In answer to your question NO it is not necessary to file a flight plan for Class G airspace with a sUAS operation.

I was not charged for taking off or landing in the park, I was charged for flying in the park.

So did you take off and/or land from park land? Were you not standing on park property during the flight?

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

I'm not judging. I am just very interested in hearing how this works out for you. It could have greater meaning for all of us if you prevail.

Hey Kevin, thanks for your comment. I only wish that more forum member would carefully read a post before they make off topic comments.

I am standing up in court for the rights of all UAS pilots who have been illegally charged for violating a state or local government law that prohibits their flight.

Once an aircraft leaves the patch of land that it takes off from, that flight is then exclusively controlled by federal regulations of the F.A.A. The U.S. Congress gave that jurisdiction solely and exclusively to the F.A.A..

I certainly would think that more UAS pilots would in favor on this topic........

 

[BigAl07]

Hey Kevin, thanks for your comment. I only wish that more forum member would carefully read a post before they make off topic comments.

My comments were spot on and I even quoted YOUR comments. How is that even remotely off topic?

Once an aircraft leaves the patch of land that it takes off from, that flight is then exclusively controlled by federal regulations of the F.A.A. The U.S. Congress gave that jurisdiction solely and exclusively to the F.A.A..

So you were standing on park land at the time you launched your aircraft? A Flight includes takeoff and landing and if any portion of it violates the law then the "Flight" is in violation.

Had you taken off from non park controlled land and simply over flew the park land this conversation (and your ticket) would by null and void. If you launched from PARK LAND you are in violation of flying from park land.