DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Thoughts on NY state bill

Dmcvey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
137
Reactions
99
Age
60
Location
Tennessee
I got this from the NBAA: "Senate Bill S7493A would allow anyone to sue a pilot, flight department, line service personnel, or company employee for alleged rotorcraft noise pollution by a flight operation in the state of New York, even if the operation complied with federal law and regulations."

While it seems aimed at tourist helicopters in NYC part of the bill reads:

S7493A (ACTIVE) - SUMMARY​

Allows a person who has suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of private property or public parkland by a rotorcraft used in a manner that creates an unreasonable level of noise at ground level to have a right of action against a person who caused or contributed to the use of such rotorcraft in such manner; relates to the use of certain heliports in the city of New York.

"§ 11-108. COMPENSATION FOR NOISE POLLUTION BY ROTORCRAFT. 1. FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "ROTORCRAFT" MEANS AN AIRCRAFT WHOSE LIFT IS
DERIVED PRINCIPALLY FROM ROTATING AIRFOILS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
A HELICOPTER
."

Full bill:

Thoughts? The wording seems vague enough that it could rope in UAS easily.
 
<900g drones in urban environment can't be heard at all due to the background noise, so I don't think this will have any impact on the drone community.
 
I got this from the NBAA: "Senate Bill S7493A would allow anyone to sue a pilot, flight department, line service personnel, or company employee for alleged rotorcraft noise pollution by a flight operation in the state of New York, even if the operation complied with federal law and regulations."

While it seems aimed at tourist helicopters in NYC part of the bill reads:

S7493A (ACTIVE) - SUMMARY​

Allows a person who has suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of private property or public parkland by a rotorcraft used in a manner that creates an unreasonable level of noise at ground level to have a right of action against a person who caused or contributed to the use of such rotorcraft in such manner; relates to the use of certain heliports in the city of New York.

"§ 11-108. COMPENSATION FOR NOISE POLLUTION BY ROTORCRAFT. 1. FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "ROTORCRAFT" MEANS AN AIRCRAFT WHOSE LIFT IS
DERIVED PRINCIPALLY FROM ROTATING AIRFOILS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
A HELICOPTER."

Full bill:

Thoughts?
 
It will be interesting to see if the proposed legislation creates a remedy as in civil fines or specific liquidated damages. Otherwise, a plaintiff would be required to prove damages which could be extremely difficult in a drone related situation.
 
<900g drones in urban environment can't be heard at all due to the background noise, so I don't think this will have any impact on the drone community.
You can sue anyone for anything...especially when there is a law allowing it and does not define an "unreasonable level of noise". Even if they lose you still have to pay your lawyer.

Take for example the woman who is suing Kraft for $5 million because the directions on their microwaveable mac and cheese are misleading. She says the "ready in 3 1/2 min" statement doesn't include the time required to open the package, add water and stir.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Aerophile
You can sue anyone for anything...especially when there is a law allowing it and does not define an "unreasonable level of noise". Even if they lose you still have to pay your lawyer.

Take for example the woman who is suing Kraft for $5 million because the directions on their microwaveable mac and cheese are misleading. She says the "ready in 3 1/2 min" statement doesn't include the time required to open the package, add water and stir.

That was my first reaction, too. Why is a law needed to provide for something that already exists? (i.e., ability to sue)
 
I got this from the NBAA: "Senate Bill S7493A would allow anyone to sue a pilot, flight department, line service personnel, or company employee for alleged rotorcraft noise pollution by a flight operation in the state of New York, even if the operation complied with federal law and regulations."

While it seems aimed at tourist helicopters in NYC part of the bill reads:

S7493A (ACTIVE) - SUMMARY​

Allows a person who has suffered interference with the use and enjoyment of private property or public parkland by a rotorcraft used in a manner that creates an unreasonable level of noise at ground level to have a right of action against a person who caused or contributed to the use of such rotorcraft in such manner; relates to the use of certain heliports in the city of New York.

"§ 11-108. COMPENSATION FOR NOISE POLLUTION BY ROTORCRAFT. 1. FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "ROTORCRAFT" MEANS AN AIRCRAFT WHOSE LIFT IS
DERIVED PRINCIPALLY FROM ROTATING AIRFOILS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
A HELICOPTER."

Full bill:

Thoughts? The wording seems vague enough that it could rope in UAS easily.
This bill should be expanded to include leaf blowers and motorcycles. No one can hear a drone when there is a Harley or a leaf blower in the neighborhood.
 
Thoughts? The wording seems vague enough that it could rope in UAS easily.
Read the actual bill.
It's all about real, actual helicopter flights.
It's not going to affect anyone's drone flying.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,012
Messages
1,558,911
Members
159,995
Latest member
KenArlidge