Proposed Drone Law in California
 

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201520160SB142

I've asked the American Multirotor Association (AMA) folks where they stand on this since I think it may open a whole can of worms for traditional RC in California. Just think, now neighbors can lodge legal trespassing charges against you rather than noise, etc. This proposed law lumps traditional RC models in with all other "unmanned aircraft systems".

While California DID spearhead the anti-leafblower movement several years ago, I think it's going to have an uphill battle in its claim that drones and traditional model aircraft are major sources of unwanted noise on other people's property. I'm thinking that California's primary target should be in quieting its noisy freeways first.

Harvey

Well thats a problem for those that choose to not follow AMA safety guidelines.

I think its just another law we don't need and CA is king of bad laws. OTH it looks like you would have to cause some type of damage in order be held liable for something but I could be wrong.

I agree. It is just more ammo for a lawyer to use.

How's that?? There is nothing in the AMA Safety Code that says anything about flying over other's property beyond the requirement not to fly over unprotected people, etc. So say at Whittier now, the shooting range can do more than just be annoyed and complain, now they can file trespassing charges against that individual. Same at OCMA if a guy flies over the campgrounds, it could result in an actual citation against the individual, not just a complaint to the club.

What about people who are not flying at a club field, but still within the programming of the AMA? This opens a great big door and formalizes the lumping of models in with all other drones, not a good thing in my mind.

What is the AMA's take on this? I've asked both Rich and Lawrence about it and so far no response??

You are talking about Commiefornia. The last sane legislators were driven out a long time ago.

If you try and apply common sense to what they do in Sacramento you will be sadly disappointed.

But we have GREAT weather ! :)

Not just California, happening everywhere. California is not even one of the first to try this.

I called AMA a while back and received a "brush-off". I was advised their PR firm was preparing a statement and position. This was at the time of the SoCal fires where the air tankers were grounded by drones flying in their way. So far no statement to my knowledge?
I feel that AMA should take a strong stance against the mis-use of these multi-rotor machines and their operators. The Public does not know the difference between those and my Escapade MX, they are all "DRONES". The politicians and rule makers
are for the most part are no better informed than the public.

AMA is a source of necessary insurance and little else in my humble opinion!

"... Without express permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access or without legal authority, [emphasis added] he or she operates an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying the real property"

Essentially means the model aircraft / drone operator is presumed to be wrongfully occupying unless they have prior permission. If successful, I will be curious to see how many other state follow this model.

California is hardly leading the way in this. Many other states have already passed, or have previously proposed, similar laws:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transpo...landscape.aspx

http://dronelife.com/2014/12/15/11-s...one-laws-2014/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/drone-ba...nes-1439251012

B. RADIO CONTROL (RC)
1. All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others.

This is pretty clear guideline to me. But hey, I guess it's not in the AMA Guidelines......

I didn't say I agree with the proposed bill. I think it is pretty ridiculous and damaging to people whom fly for the enjoyment of flying.

Here is an underlying problem with this law, states DO NOT have the right to control what is flying. That is a (federal) FAA issue. I am willing to bet that once the FAA gets wind of these rules the states have or are trying to pass, there will be lawsuits to stop them.

I don't know, Tim. While it is true that the FAA has traditionally ruled over everything from the ground up, its focus has predominately been on man-carrying aircraft. Due to budget cuts over the years AND the FAA recently being saddled with regulating UAVs, the FAA no longer has the manpower to police everything that flies and I wouldn't be surprised if it decided that municipalities would be better suited at controlling toys and model airplanes under 400ft. If that happens, we're really going to be knee-deep in do-do as the municipalities (1) scramble to enact new laws to control us and (2) come up with ways to tax us! Worst of all, the model airplane laws of no two cities would be alike so what is legal in one city could get you sent to Modeler's Hell in another.

* * * * * * * * *

The place: A courtroom in Orange County, CA

The Judge speaks: "Mister Uglybutt, due to today's conviction and your lengthy record of prior convictions, the court has determined that you are an unrepentant mattress tag violator and I sentence you to life in the county jail. Bailiff, take him away. Next case..."

Judge: "TimJ, as a result of yesterday's search of your house, it has been determined that you were in possession of an unlicensed and untaxed model airplane building board with balsa residue indicating that recent crimes have been committed. How do you plead?"

TimJ: "Your Honor, I was teaching Cub Scouts how to build models instead of doing drugs."

Judge: "That's very admirable so I'm only going to sentence you to five years in the county jail."

Bailiff: "Pardon me your honor but the jail is now full."

Judge: "The court hereby pardon's Mr. Uglybutt."

Harvey

Tell that to every public park in a 15 mile radius of me.

Municipalities traditionally have full control of what activities are allowed in their parks, and someone on City Council has undoubtedly determined that model airplanes (and probably model cars and boats) are a nuisance and hazard to other park users.

That's a;; swell Tim, but it has nothing to do with this proposed law. California will soon make it illegal to fly over the property of another person under 350 feet agl without their express permission. The law also fails to differentiate between the unaffiliated multirotor camera-copter and more traditional model aircraft. I guess we see things differently, I an not in favor of any law that further restricts model aircraft that is actually intended to control the cowboys with drones.

But they can control where you fly from and they are extending the interpretation of airspace rights above private property.

As a californian, I'm so glad Model Aviation is filled with UAS ads....well done AMA.

From the AMA:

The California State Senate followed the State Assembly’s lead in passing California SB 142. AMA spoke out in opposition to this bill in a letter to the Senate and the bill’s sponsors, and testified further before the Joint Legislative Committee on Emergency Management and the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 18th. Despite these efforts the California legislature passed SB 142, legislation that may pose a significant threat to recreational model aviation.
While originally intended to address privacy concerns the bill was amended in late June and, as such, now potentially subjects model aviation enthusiasts to possible law suits and civil sanctions for even an inadvertent excursion over the property of a neighbor that borders their flying field, schoolyard, park, or even their backyard.
This bill currently is sitting on Governor Brown’s desk waiting for his action. Time is short. The governor has until September 12, 2015 to either sign or veto this proposed legislation.
Please act now and let Governor Brown know that, as a recreational aeromodeler, you believe that this bill is too broad and overreaching and can only have a negative impact on model aviation.
Thanks for your help on this important issue.
http://amagov.modelaircraft.org/18534/californiasb142/

June?! Why are we only hearing about it now when its on J Browns desk to be signed? This should have been amended before it made it this far. I thought this is what the AMA was spending so much money on. I support the AMA's legislative efforts whole heartedly, but this late in the game is a fail.

Now that's an understatement. This is a monumental failure. Governor Brown will sign the bill...no political reason not to.

Unfortunately, I have forecaster this for over two years, trying to get everyone around me motivated to push AMA to change its direction.
I think you know that I have actively posted and discussed the very wrong direction our AMA leaders have been taking our organization for a while now. They have been spending a lot of money we ( the aeromodelers) have paid in via our membership dues, advocating for drone operators who for the most part have not, and will not join. This is an open invitation for the law maker to lump Drones and aeromodeling together, and the law makers are now happy to oblige.
That AMA has been failing us when it comes to their main mission of representing Model Aviators, and protecting our interest.
The AMA instead needs to invest in educating the public, the media and law makers on the fact (it is a fact!) that model aviation with AMA has been practiced safely for 78 years; it is also a fact that in the very few years of their existence (popularized only in the last 2, 3, or 4 years?), drones flying has created more issues and attracted negative press than Model Aviation has in 78 years.
We are now seeing the inevitable regulations due to drones, and the AMA's greed trying to attract Drone membership has led to this situation where we are all lumped together, and will all be impacted!

Time to seriously look at our VP's and other AMA reps, getting involved and using our votes to change this direction as soon as possible.

Before simply voting the bums out, each person needs to look at the actual record of their District VP and his voting. For instance, the vote to fund this multicopter program was a 6-6 tie with the President breaking the tie. So it is incorrect to paint the entire EC with the same broad brush.

I first mentioned this potential bill nearly a year ago. Nobody seemed to care at the time. It is the brainchild of the Rep from Santa Barbara who is clutching her pearls in terror over all the "peeping drones" out there. Classic ill informed over reaction of a Legiscritter.