Drone Legislation: Should we get involved?

Thanks, Colin.
Is the author's name really Dorsey Plunk? Hmmm.

Andy.

 

Thanks for posting that link, Howard. The additional details are pretty unambiguous. 1,800 feet. Wow. Most other reports are saying 1,500 feet -- not that it makes a huge difference other than to question the veracity of the reporting.

Washington Times: "'black drone' that hovered 200 feet from his jet."
See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/drone-sighting-jfk-leaves-witnesses-puzzled-worrie/
(Image of Seattle police officer holding a drone : Seattle's mayor banned their use so the police department allegedly returned the drones to Draganfly).
Interesting that they didn't post any image of a copter just the control tower at JFK...

A Google search for: JFK drone
shows that the web is buzzing with essentially the same story being repeated, some with additional errors. Sigh.

Sadly no stories about safe "drone" flights being completed without incident, so if I were a legislator and unaware of the facts relating to copters, it would be hard not to react to the JFK story inappropriately.

Andy.

 

Ummm. "Our" side?

Andy.

 

And the author of the article may not have read SB-71. Flying a Parrot isn't a misdemeanor -- failing to register the Parrot with the Oregon Department of Aviation, and then flying it, is a misdemeanor! Big difference.

Andy.

 

Actually, this Bill seems quite rational (sorry about the weird line breaks but they're in the original PDF file).


‘‘§ 3119f. Private use of unmanned aircraft systems
‘‘It shall be unlawful to intentionally operate a pri-
vate unmanned aircraft system to capture, in a manner
that is highly offensive to a reasonable person, any type
of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impres-
sion of a individual engaging in a personal or familial ac-
tivity under circumstances in which the individual had a
reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a vis-
ual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether
there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording,
or other physical impression could not have been achieved
without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing
device was used.

Andy.

 

I'm concerned that the folks on camera may not have read SB-71. It does not make it a misdemeanor to own a "drone." It makes it a requirement that you have to register it with the Oregon Dept of Aviation ("ODOA") and seek permission to fly it. If you don't, then it is a misdemeanor:

SECTION 2. (1) A person may not possess or control a drone unless permitted to do so
by the federal government or by the Oregon Department of Aviation under section 7 of this
2013 Act.

SECTION 7. The Oregon Department of Aviation may issue licenses to persons to operate
drones in the airspace of Oregon for the purpose of implementing section 2 of this 2013 Act.

I read Section 2.(1) as saying you have to register your drones with the ODOA. Other paras. of section 2 then indicate that it's a misdemeanor to operate a drone if you do not.

I read Section 7 as saying the the ODOA may set up a licensing system, or it may not. I do not read it as ODA may, on a whim, issue individuals a license or it may not.

Personally, I'm more concerned with this kind of language:

SECTION 3. (1) A person who operates a drone in the airspace of Oregon without permission
from the Oregon Department of Aviation, or from the person with the right to possession
of the land below the airspace, is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

And then, of course, there is the definition of "drone."

SECTION 1. As used in sections 1 to 7 of this 2013 Act:
(1) “Airspace of Oregon” means the space above the ground that is not part of airspace
governed by federal law.
(2) “Drone” means an unmanned flying machine that is capable of:
(a) Capturing images of objects or people on the ground or in the air;
(b) Intercepting communications on the ground or in the air; or
(c) Firing a bullet or other projectile.
(3) “Public body” has the meaning given in ORS 174.109.

As defined, this means registering with the ODOA everything from a kite with a camera, to an MQ1-B Predator.

Oh, and the FAA governs all Class G airspace, so there can be no Airspace of Oregon.

Andy.

 

I just received an email from Oregon Senator Floyd Prozanski. He wrote that the Original Bill SB-71 was just a "placeholder." It has been amended as shown in the attached SB 71-4. I've just speed read it and it seems orders of magnitude better than the original Bill.

Some initial comments:

<disclaimer>
As I have said before: I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on the Internet or TV. But I do try to understand the Bill for my own purposes so what I'm saying below is my understanding, not advice to you as to what it means. You should read the document yourself and form your own conclusions and/or consult an attorney.
</disclaimer>

Section 1. The original definition of Airspace of Oregon has been deleted.
The definition of Drone still seems very broad and encompasses kites, model aircraft, copters, and MQ1-B Predators, but given the other dramatic changes to the Bill I am not sure it matters that much.

Section 2. There are numerous references to ORS (Oregon Statutes), so I have looked them up
ORS 165.540 : Obtaining contents of communications.
ORS 164.245 : Trespass with a motor vehicle.
ORS 163.732 : Stalking

There is no longer any requirement for an individual to register their "drones" with the Oregon Department of Aviation ("ODOA").
Nor is it a misdemeanor for an individual to operate a drone.

But the most interesting thing are the dramatic changes to Section 7.

SECTION 7. (1) Any person who owns or lawfully occupies real​

property in this state may bring an action against any person who​

operates a drone that is flown at a height of less than 400 feet over the​

property unless:​

“(a) The drone is lawfully in the flight path of an airport, airfield​

or runway; and​

“(b) The drone is in the process of taking off or landing.​

“(2) A plaintiff may recover treble damages for any injury to the​

person or the property by reason of a trespass by a drone as described​

in this section, and may be awarded injunctive relief in the action.​

“(3) A court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing​

plaintiff in an action under this section.​

So, my reading of this is that, while it is not a crime/misdemeanor to operate the "drone" at lower than 400 feet, the property owner can file suit if you do. It appears that you cannot traverse someone's property either -- to do so means going above 400 feet and that would put you in violation of the 400 foot limit imposed by the Academy of Model Aeronautics and the FAA regs. (such as they are).

As a side note: your GPX file could prove to be interesting evidence in a case if you are sued!

Bottom line, it appears that this version of the Bill makes a lot more sense and really doesn't raise any major issues for private individuals flying childrens' toys or even Cinestars.

If anyone else has comments, I'd appreciate knowing them.
Andy.