A case were local laws have been preempted and thrown out, is the FAA sitting on their hands in not challenging these very restrictive drone laws, maybe this case will have the effect in waking them up.

https://jrupprechtlaw.com/michael-singer-v-city-newton

Only a matter of time before congress steps in.  The incident in NY  in which a Blackhawk and drone collided will probably speed up the process.

Drone laws will be hard to police why because people will find ways to break them and do dumb stuff, Now i am for no fly zones around airports ports, that can endanger people.

ALABAMA Posted at 2017-9-25 06:50
Only a matter of time before congress steps in.  The incident in NY  in which a Blackhawk and drone collided will probably speed up the process.

Although I’m not in the US what the FAA do will always have a ripple effect on other parts of the world. My thinking is the more we can keep the politicians out of making rules for drones the better off we all will be.
But yes idiots may well have the effect in getting the bureaucrats involved and we can see article above what a mess they can make.

This is a good read. I hope other cities/states take note.

In the USA I believe Federal law overrides local or State law of any type. So Federal law is what you need to comply with.

SPIKE_151 Posted at 2017-9-26 02:36
In the USA I believe Federal law overrides local or State law of any type. So Federal law is what you need to comply with.

Mostly this is the case, However it doesn't stop states, county's and local governments from passing restrictive ordinances, then it takes individuals or organizations to go to court to challenge the law. Such was the case with City of Newton (city ordinance) or the one to stop registering hobby sUAS (federal).
We already have things like we cannot takeoff or land in National Parks and many State Parks, However you can takeoff and fly over the park as long as you do so from outside the boundaries of the park. Sometimes laws are passed by uninformed or lack of common sense legislators that only have a persecution of some overblown news stories. Etc Ect.......

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-9-25 07:00
Although I’m not in the US what the FAA do will always have a ripple effect on other parts of the world. My thinking is the more we can keep the politicians out of making rules for drones the better off we all will be.
But yes idiots may well have the effect in getting the bureaucrats involved and we can see article above what a mess they can make.

I used to think that FAA regulations were overkill, but I've started to see the benefit.
Studying for my part 107 cert has made me a bit more observant and particular about things like checklists and pre-planning.
Also, I've seen an increase in IOFDs(idiots out flying drones). The difficulty of mastering flight used to serve as a barrier to entry for hobbyists. Overcoming that learning curve tended to weed out the impulsive.
The ease of flight with these new machines has dropped that barrier.

Donald Doss Posted at 2017-9-27 07:50
I used to think that FAA regulations were overkill, but I've started to see the benefit.
Studying for my part 107 cert has made me a bit more observant and particular about things like checklists and pre-planning.
Also, I've seen an increase in IOFDs(idiots out flying drones). The difficulty of mastering flight used to serve as a barrier to entry for hobbyists. Overcoming that learning curve tended to weed out the impulsive.

Some people are very quick to knock restrictions, if only they would take the time to try understand why the need for restrictions and also how much space there is out there to fly .

The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”

Good luck with your 107, I know when I done it I found it very informative and a really good learning experience and good fun.

I believe it is good to have this discussion, it helps raise awareness and educates folks on the rules, the agencies involved, and the process that binds it all together.  
As I see this, the system worked just liked it is intended too.  Some misguided, and apparently misinformed, town government in a panicked reaction to idiots flying drones decided, rather arbitrarily, to shut the whole thing down in toto.  However, regardless of FAA action, inaction, or deciding to wait and see, at least one part of that town's law was moot from the start.  It is, and has been for a long time now, established law, that US airspace is solely the purview of the US Government and that is done through the FAA.  Basically, airspace starts at the top of that blade of grass, the lay person definition, and extends to the scientifically defined atmosphere boundary with space.  This cannot be abridged by state or local law and has been upheld many a time.  However, there has also been many a ruling against aircraft pilots for causing problems on the surface, the most common here in the states is the issue of low flying aircraft causing the death of poultry (seems chickens & turkeys will loose their minds to the sound of low flying aircraft).  
As always, there is plenty of room for additional guidance/laws to ensure better safety and control with this new technology, as long as it is done smartly and from a position of being informed.  The problem is ensuring the freedom of UAV owners with that of the surface dwellers and finding that appropriate balance.  The real dilemma state and federal governments have, really has nothing to do with hobbyists, unfortunately, but has everything to do with the realization of increased commerce, improved economy, and jobs with this emerging market.  They need to ensure they don't shut that down in the process.  
All in all, I completely agree with hallmark007, the more and longer we can keep politicians out of this the better off we will all be.  I believe our constitution, freedom, liberty, free enterprise, and capitalism can rule out here and should.  However, I'm no fool either, sooner or later, likely sooner the FAA will likely make additional rules for this area, but hopefully later or never.  Lastly, I sincerely hope this ridiculous NP restriction goes away soon, or rules are made to permit their use in all Nat'l Parks.  As in most cases it is absurd to have a blanket ban, I do recognize that some national treasures are susceptible to damage from these things especially when operated by morons.  However, far more land and areas can suffer no more ill effect from drone overflight/use than that of a regular aircraft.
Everyone out there flying must be smart about it, considerate, respectful, and law/rule abiding while getting the most out of their hobby/business that is possible.

RMJovo Posted at 2017-9-27 06:37
Mostly this is the case, However it doesn't stop states, county's and local governments from passing restrictive ordinances, then it takes individuals or organizations to go to court to challenge the law. Such was the case with City of Newton (city ordinance) or the one to stop registering hobby sUAS (federal).
We already have things like we cannot takeoff or land in National Parks and many State Parks, However you can takeoff and fly over the park as long as you do so from outside the boundaries of the park. Sometimes laws are passed by uninformed or lack of common sense legislators that only have a persecution of some overblown news stories. Etc Ect.......

All laws are open to interpretation, or lawyers would be out of a job. There is the law verbatim and the spirit of the law, both can be argued. If one lived in a no fly zone for aircraft of any type larger than model aircraft, then there can be no danger in flying your drone there, in respect of crashing into other aircraft. If you were flying down a 1 km tunnel inside , there can be no danger, so complying with the regs like a robot is not necessary in all situations. Given the very small amount of cases brought to trial, and the very large amount of flights on youtube that obviously do not comply with the regs, the FAA and the Police would seem to agree with me.

SPIKE_151 Posted at 2017-9-29 04:53
All laws are open to interpretation, or lawyers would be out of a job. There is the law verbatim and the spirit of the law, both can be argued. If one lived in a no fly zone for aircraft of any type larger than model aircraft, then there can be no danger in flying your drone there, in respect of crashing into other aircraft. If you were flying down a 1 km tunnel inside , there can be no danger, so complying with the regs like a robot is not necessary in all situations. Given the very small amount of cases brought to trial, and the very large amount of flights on youtube that obviously do not comply with the regs, the FAA and the Police would seem to agree with me.

I agree to a point. However, company's and hobbies have to help ensure the FAA has the say regulating our country's air space and not local or state governments, passing preemptive laws limiting rights to fly in our countries airspace as regulated by congress and the FAA.  We all ready have a few small towns in our state that have passed laws based on nothing more then perception of oh this might happen in the future if we allow drones to fly in our town.

RMJovo Posted at 2017-9-29 12:50
I agree to a point. However, company's and hobbies have to help ensure the FAA has the say regulating our country's air space and not local or state governments, passing preemptive laws limiting rights to fly in our countries airspace as regulated by congress and the FAA.  We all ready have a few small towns in our state that have passed laws based on nothing more then perception of oh this might happen in the future if we allow drones to fly in our town.

My two cents worth:
If you want to influence regulators, just show them how their regulations reduces tourist dollars or drives us to travel and spend our disposable income (money), somewhere out of their tax revenue footprint. They should understand that there is a penalty to their community if we travel to fly in communities with a more reasonable regulations. Tell them in person and in writing. Form a UAV group and send a representative to their meetings. Anyone can sign in a get a minute or three to deliver the message but it should probably be someone who is good at public speaking.

   

fans787bfa1c Posted at 2017-10-25 20:11
My two cents worth:
If you want to influence regulators, just show them how their regulations reduces tourist dollars or drives us to travel and spend our disposable income (money), somewhere out of their tax revenue footprint. They should understand that there is a penalty to their community if we travel to fly in communities with a more reasonable regulations. Tell them in person and in writing. Form a UAV group and send a representative to their meetings. Anyone can sign in a get a minute or three to deliver the message but it should probably be someone who is good at public speaking.

Aloha fans787, Genghis, 007, Spike, DD, Jovo, ALABAMA, Sam, Bago et alia,

     This thread has covered most of the issues and moved in a responsible direction.  The only point not made that is usually why these towns and cities table their legislation is someone from the FAA or lobbyist or just knowledgeable about laws and ordinances shows how the towns and cities already have all the defenses thay need to control the improper use of UAVs.  Most urban centers have privacy laws that protect citizens from neighbors using binoculars or cameras, etc to  violate their privacy.  Most, if not all, those regulations, ordinances and statutes are written to handle all available technology, even technology not currently available when the legislation was written.

     All the legislators need to have pointed out for them is they are already protected.  No need to reinvent the wheel.  Their laws cover UAVs already.  The FAA has the airspace covered.  As far as the National Parks is concerned, prohibiting drone flight requires all fliers to get permits to fly inside the parks.  That way, the Parks have better control over visitor safety.  Funny thing is that very few fliers even try to get a permit.

Aloha and Drone On!