It will be interesting to see how this bill fares given that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just ruled that the FAA was in violation of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform act by requiring sUAS pilots to register. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...20585258125004FBC13/$file/15-1495-1675918.pdf If the FAA cannot promulgate new regulations, what chance to the individual States have? Andy Forensic Software & sUAV / Drone Analyst : Photographer : Videographer : Pilot (Portland, Oregon, USA): Trees=2, Ground=1, Props=11. The Ground Is The Limit™ ---------- Forensic Drone Analyst : Forensic sUAV Analyst : Forensic Unmanned Aircraft Analyst : Forensic Drone Expert
I suppose if this bill becomes law it takes the some of the scope of authority out of the FAA's realm and gives it to the states. It seems like it would have the affect that intends to. The FAA would not be making those rules now, it would got to states, counties, municipalities and tribal governments to add further rules. The question I have is would the 200 foot stand off be challenged in court for the 107 rules. This would be the first time a flight restriction would be a hard fast law outside the scope of the FAA's Ch 14 of the CFR's. If that provision passes it will essentially will shut off a bunch of operations. The FAA loosened up a tight restriction under the old 333 where we had to get permission within 500 feet of any property owner to fly by someone of legal authority. I am not sure how the guys who do the nickel and dime real estate gigs who will run up a Phantom for about 5 minutes ever practically complied with that. They took that out of the 107 as they realized that was burdensome to future operations. If the 200 foot rule goes in than we are sort of back to square one. If this passes it will cause havoc to flying operations as it has the potential to cause more burdensome regulations and fragmented laws which may contradict each other at all levels. This bill says its ok to fly over a property over 200 feet. Well the FAA may say your waiver for X is only good to 150 feet. Basically the conflict between the two will essence atop the flight because you are know in a position to violate either your waiver or violate this law. I believe congress's motivation is pure fiscal. It is being done because they do not want to give the FAA the further resources to properly regulate and enforce the FAR's. So their answer is let the states do it. In some respects the local jurisdictions already have a loophole. They have the ability just ground the flights all together by preventing the takeoff and landing of the sUA in their jurisdiction. Although this law would allow them to make further rules. This will be more damaging than good. I am going to write my two senators and I think everyone should do the same if they think they maybe effected by this.
The bill also raises the question as to what exactly the Nation Airspace System (NAS) really is? Does it now only exist above 200 feet AGL? What about the surface to 200 feet AGL within class D airspace? Who regulates that? Seems to me that this still "needs work" as a Bill. Andy Forensic Software & sUAV / Drone Analyst : Photographer : Videographer : Pilot (Portland, Oregon, USA): Trees=2, Ground=1, Props=11. The Ground Is The Limit™ ---------- Forensic Drone Analyst : Forensic sUAV Analyst : Forensic Unmanned Aircraft Analyst : Forensic Drone Expert
I suppose this will be up for debate, as we reach new challenges to laws and precedents that were established 70 years ago. I know a lot of people use the NAS as their bassis to do what they want over peoples properties. They kind of want their cake and ea it too. I have heard the airspace starts as soon as the airraft is no longer physically on the ground. Then there is some debate that navigable airspace starts past 400 feet. Then there is the Causby case where its either above 83 feet or above the reaches of the tallest structures. Interesting times indeed.
Given that the NAS is surface to 60,000 feet, yes, unless it's indoors, it's the FAA's bailiwick and not the local government's to mess with....and mess it will be! Andy Forensic Software & sUAV / Drone Analyst : Photographer : Videographer : Pilot (Portland, Oregon, USA): Trees=2, Ground=1, Props=11. The Ground Is The Limit™ ---------- Forensic Drone Analyst : Forensic sUAV Analyst : Forensic Unmanned Aircraft Analyst : Forensic Drone Expert
True, I think its something we should consider writing senators for, because if we don't I have a bad feeling this will pass. Its a bipartisan issue. Its an issue that probably really does not matter to the senate in the big scheme of things. Its something they will probably pass just to pass it. I have a feeling unless we express our concerns at least get it on their radar, the senate will probably pass it in a New York minute without putting any discussion or thought into it. As much as we droners think being in our bubble are the centers of our universe. Our picture of the world is only visible at 400 feet so to speak.