Lets Help Oregon!!

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Duane Bradley, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. Duane Bradley

    Duane Bradley Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    26
  2. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    It's Oregon Senate Bill 71.
    Josh Lambert PM'd me earlier to day.

    You can find the original text of this "emergency" Bill at: http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/sb0001.dir/sb0071.intro.pdf

    The provisions of this Bill appear to be (and I use the word "model aircraft" to embrace multi-rotor copters just for linguistic convenience -- whether they are model aircraft is a separate debate):

    1. Any model or unmanned aircraft with a camera capable of capturing images of people and objects on the ground (e.g. first person view camera, or payload camera) is defined as a "drone."

    2. All such aircraft must be registered with the Oregon Department of Aviation. (See Section 2.(1)).

    3. The Oregon Department of Aviation may issue licenses for the operation of such aircraft. (See Section 7.)

    4. It will be a Class B misdemeanor not to register any such aircraft you possess or control with the Oregon Department of Aviation. (See Section 2.(2)).

    5. It will be a Class A misdemeanor if you do not register any such aircraft you possess or control with the Oregon Department of Aviation if you use that aircraft to capture an image of any person or object on the ground. (See Section 2.(3)

    6. It will be a Class C misdemeanor if a model aircraft with a camera overflies property without the permission of the Oregon Department of Aviation or the permission of the property owner. (See Section 3.(1)). (Note that this is "or" so presumably you have to have permission from one or the other, but not both.)

    There are additional provisions for public agencies and hunters etc. but they do not appear to embrace model aircraft.

    Apart from the apparent impact on model and unmanned aviation, an interesting question arises from the wording of this Bill -- it purports to apply to the "Airspace of Oregon" that is "the space above ground that is not part of the airspace governed by federal law." (See Section 1. (1)).

    Is there indeed any such airspace? Class G airspace (the least restrictive of all airspace away from populated areas), which goes from the surface to 700 feet above ground or 1,200 feet above ground (depending on the airspace above it), may be uncontrolled airspace but is not UNGOVERNED by federal law.

    Andy.
     
  3. Howard Dapp

    Howard Dapp Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    111
    "A bill has been introduced into the Oregon State Senate that would criminalize FPV flying"

    I understand the bill is referring to all model aircraft fitted with cameras which also includes FPV, I'm not surprised especially with *ickheads out there doing idiotic things like this.

    If the bill's only focus was towards "first person view" flight I wouldn't be mad at all. You're flying an RC toy weighing at least 5lbs with spinning ginsu blades beyond your sight and over public areas...WTF! We all know the potential for something catastrophic if that model fails over a speeding highway. We need guys like Tabb publicly voicing his view on this sort of thing and shops like Quadrocopter to not sell kits like TBS Discovery! Just my thoughts.

    Howard
     
  4. Brad Meier

    Brad Meier Active Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    66
    I don't think they can enforce a law in airspace they don't own. It's all national airspace...
     
  5. Marc BRACELET

    Marc BRACELET Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    27
    They also came in France and made some pranks...(i hope it's the good word...) they did something completely stupid and the problem is that in France, to fly as a pro, the laws are now quite strictest for our activity and is strictly regulated by the "Directorate General of Civil Aviation." (DGAC) We have a lot of trouble getting the omologations for our UAV and must be beyond reproach in terms of steering and security. When I see such stupidities, I think that all the work we are trying to do, to do our job in good conditions will be destoyed, among other things, by this band of idiots ...! :mad:

    This is a very bad exemple for the young...And as i said in the Brazil Stadium crash post, a tragedy coming soon...:mad::mad:

     
  6. Marc BRACELET

    Marc BRACELET Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    27
    I can assure you that in France it is already done, the civil aviation control our business, we are obliged, for example, to pass the theory of pilot's license for light aircraft ... must also complete technical documents that we have huge write up detailing any screw of the machine...:eek:
    It takes several weeks of work to do all this, and sometimes the flight authorization is not given and insurance does not cover you in case of a disaster ...
     
  7. Howard Dapp

    Howard Dapp Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    111
    I have no words...
    I'd love to be lucky enough to catch these guys in the US:mad:
     
  8. Steve Maller

    Steve Maller UAV Grief Counselor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    807
    The Oregon initiative is interesting, and may not amount to anything. But as a person whose intention it is to turn this art into a business, I'd support a sane licensing process that results in more opportunity for those of us who do have a professional approach. I'm very aware of the risks and the public distrust of some of this stuff, especially ln light of the hysteria surrounding drone strikes overseas. The TBS knuckleheads are sort of the Harlem Globetrotters in a sense, as they're actually very highly skilled and more aware of the risks of what they're doing than many of us. But I would also agree that they're not making things easier for us wannabe/pro shooters.

    So we'll see where this all ends up. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
     
  9. Marc BRACELET

    Marc BRACELET Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    27
    I totally agree with you Steeve but the problem did not just TBS themselves because they are all excellent pilots and have mastered their machine to perfection but rather the number of kids (seing their videos) who will now want s to purchase for example Phantom DJI or other FPV machine without any experience and do the same thing as them in city area, knowing the risks involved, it must be really oblivious to let such things.
    Just my two cents...:eek:
     
  10. Gary Haynes

    Gary Haynes Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,211
    Likes Received:
    460
    The type of flights shown was one of the reasons I stopped following one of the FPV forums. To many vids of flying in/above clouds, over populated areas (did I mention Atlanta at 10,000 feet) and thinking how cool it was.

    The FAA will probably bring some common sense to Oregon should such a law get close to passing. Direct conflict as the Feds own all of the airspace. And they do protect their airspace. Much precedent in law for that position. And law enforcement has always, after many legal challenges, had the ability to fly a helicopter or airplane over any place they like and shoot pictures to their hearts content. How do you think they do the pot or meth busts when the grow/lab spot is in the middle of a 100 acres of corn?

    Believe I read that the ACLU primarily contributed the text of the bill.
     
  11. Howard Dapp

    Howard Dapp Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    111
    A bit surprised by some of the comments here. Who cares how skilled these idiots are, It doesn't matter how skilled you are, the hobby grade electronics we use will fail during flight eventually...we all know this. Not to mention they're at the mercy of a wireless video signal, that alone is a 50/50 chance of failure...no amount of flying skills will save you if you cannot see your model. I would be more concerned about failures or lost video due to circumstances out of my control than flying skills.

    What we DON'T see are the number of craft these idiots have lost during their FPV antics...we'll never see this side of it and they'll never make that side of it public.
     
  12. Sam Slape

    Sam Slape Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    8
    Marc, sounds like France has a similar process to Australia, that being put simply as Passing the theory for your pilots license and an operations manual and flight manual. I have not started on these yet. Have you? If so I'd be interested to see how similar they would be, although I suppose it is in French...
     
  13. Steve Maller

    Steve Maller UAV Grief Counselor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    807
    Funny, I'm sitting in a cafe here in Portland Oregon in between meetings and looking out at calm, clear blue skies and wishing I had my copters up here with me. Andy, I'm beginning to doubt your claims of constant gloomy weather here. It is beautiful today! ;)
     
  14. Josh Lambeth

    Josh Lambeth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,315
    Likes Received:
    216
    It's only gloomy where Andy is.. The weather is out to get him just like the trees are. ;)

    Josh
     
    Steve Maller likes this.
  15. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    You're in town and you didn't call, Steve? I owe you a beer, remember? :)


    I've reviewed the Bill and it's pretty flawed. It would have everyone register their "drones" (which they define in the Bill) with the Oregon Department of Aviation. No problem with that -- except you also have to register AR.Drone parrots as it's an aircraft with a camera capably of capturing images of people and objects on the ground. So we have register our kids' toys but not our guns? Hmmm.

    Also the Bill applies only to "Oregon airspace" that is not "governed by federal law." Last time I looked, Class G airspace was from the surface to 700 or 1200 feet agl (depending on the airspace above it). Class G may be uncontrolled, but it certainly is not ungoverned by Federal Law. Is there, therefore, any such thing as "Oregon airspace?"

    I have written to my State Senator (not one of the sponsors of the Bill) and offer to help her understand the problems with the way that the Bill is currently drafted. It doesn't make drones in Oregon illegal. It just means to have to register them. It does make certain things that one could do with drones illegal (hunting or stalking wildlife, trespassing by overflying, or using them to capture evidence in criminal cases).

    But it does mean you have to get the permission of a property owner to overfly their property. That could be quite hard to deal with. I can see GPX files being used to resolve the "you overflew my property" disputes.

    The bill is worth reading. http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/sb0001.dir/sb0071.intro.pdf

    It's short and quite clearly written (and also, sadly, quite clearly based on ignorance and fear rather than knowledge and wisdom, in my opinion). But it does give you an idea of the shape of things to come. I believe I saw that the state of Virginia was also considering something similar, but I've not researched that.

    I do not say "ignorance and fear" to be disparaging. The good thing about ignorance is that it can be fixed with knowledge. And the fear the Bill contains is the fear of the unknown regarding "drones," what they are, what they can do, who flies them, and what they will do with the imagery that they gather. So the fear can be handled by making the unknown, known.

    Bottom line: Some of the Bill is well intended, but the implementation "needs work."

    Andy.
     
  16. Gary Haynes

    Gary Haynes Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,211
    Likes Received:
    460
    Andy you missed the other gotcha.

    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.

    So with that language they are not required to issue any licenses at all. Easier for bureaucrats to say no if they aren't required to say a reluctant yes.
     
  17. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    I don't construe the language that way. I read it as "may" in the sense of the, the Oregon Department may decide to implement a licensing scheme or not. If they don't, all you need to is register. If there's a licensing system, then you'll to get a license (which, if rationally implemented might be no bad thing -- this tracks the UK's Basic National UAS Certificate (BNUC)). If there's no licensing system, then all you need to do is register.

    The determinant qualifier being "for the purpose of implementing section 2." Somehow I don't think an enabling sentence (may issue...) can quite be stretched to "we'll implement a licensing system, but never issue any licenses."

    However, stranger things have happened....

    Can any other pilots (Brad?) indicate whether there really is any of the National Airspace that is "left over" for specific states, or am I right that Class G mops up anything that isn't Class A-E? (I don't think there's an F).

    Andy.
     
  18. Nick Kolias

    Nick Kolias Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    24
    Andy, you are correct about class G airspace and I believe it is 0 to 600' AGL.

    This proposed bill in Oregon is troubling for many reasons but perhaps worst of all is that it sets a precedent for other states to attempt to enact similar law. Having a patchwork of different sUAS laws from state to state would really be an unfortunate situation.

    nick
     
  19. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Yeah. Speaking as dual citizen (USA/UK), we really ought to get the States to Unite. No. Wait. Oh. Sigh. Never mind. :)

    Andy.
     
  20. Marc BRACELET

    Marc BRACELET Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    27
    Yes Sam, i have my pilot license since June 2012 and made my operation and flight manual one month later...

    maxi-p-327-1.jpg

    So this is, in french, the rules from DGAC.

    We have three major options, which are scenarios

    - S1 for the country, in visual flight Altitude max (from landing point) 150 meters / Distance max (from pilot) 100 meters
    - S2 for the country in FPV Altitude max (from landing point) 50 mètres / Distance max (from pilot) 500 meters
    - S3 for the city, in visual flight Altitude max (from landing point) 150 mètres / Distance max (from pilot) 100 meters, for S3 operations you need also an official authorization...
     
    Steve Maller likes this.

Share This Page