Jennifer Curtis

Discussion in regards to USA only:

In assuming authority over flying
models by asserting that they fly
in National Air Space, the FAA has
preempted all local laws regarding
use of airspace by models, drones
and other uavs.

It will no longer be required to
obtain permission to fly over
anyone's property, since it is
NATIONAL airspace. Just as airplanes
don't need permission and are allowed
to fly over peoples property and
even at low altitudes in places
where it is required (like near
airports), models will be allowed
to fly over other peoples property
at low altitudes because it is
also required to stay low.

Local laws may control what people
can do on the ground, but that may
mean only as much as where they
may stand while their model occupies
the national airspace. So, someone can
stand in his own yard and fly his model
in the national airspace over his
neighbors fields, or over a park
or any other unoccupied land.

Any further thoughts anyone?


Jenny

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

[h=3]From the FAA website Q&A section.....
Which governs the airspace over my property – FAA regulations or local/state laws about unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)?[/h]Under 49 United States Code 40103, the United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States and the FAA has the authority to prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft, including UAS. Whether Federal law preempts state or local requirements for UAS depends on the precise nature of those requirements. The Department of Transportation evaluates these laws or requirements on a case-by-case basis to make sure they don't conflict with FAA's authority to provide safe and efficient use of U.S. airspace.

Not much help, but at least it looks like they don't want to be overbearing if they don't have to be.

opjose

This is very well covered in the dronelawjournal.com web site.

Quoting the very bottom:

State and local government drone law.
State and local governments have passed legislation that purports to regulate drone flight, but if challenged in court, any such laws would be considered preempted by the federal government’s intent to “occupy the field,” and therefore be invalid. By federal statute, “[t]he United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States” (49 U.S. Code § 40103(a)(1)). The passage of the FMRA confirms the federal government’s intent to continue to “occupy the field” of flight, thereby invalidating (through preemption) any state or local laws that purport to regulate it.
State and local governments may, however, regulate two things related to flight:

• They may regulate their own agencies‘ drone flight operations; and
• They may regulate the locations on the ground from which drones may be launched, landed or operated.

That’s it. State and local governments cannot regulate drones in any other manner. They can of course use laws of general applicability (such as voyeurism, reckless endangerment, nuisance, etc.) to prohibit certain acts, which would apply to a drone pilot, if a drone happened to be the object used to perform the prohibited act. They could also pass unnecessary and duplicative criminal statutes specific to drones, but they’d be essentially meaningless since existing criminal statutes would already cover those crimes regardless of whether they were committed with a drone.