Looks like we have new laws in Nevada not too happy.

http://www.onenewspage.com/video ... effect-Thursday.htm

Good luck to you and to fellow nevada new world order residents.

Sheesh, more knee-jerk legislation.

"violators can now be charged with a gross misdemeanor"  (what would you have to do to be charged with a cute misdemeanor?)

Could be a lot worse....

jjejfjf Posted at 2015-10-2 09:44
Which part of it dont you like?

I think the requirement to fly 250 feet above private property flies (no pun intended) in the face of the federal rules or law that you can fly down to but not to exceed the air that a homeowner can realistically use. This Nevada rule means you can't take off from your own property unless you throw it up in the air to 250 feet and then start the engines. Not practical nor is it the right of a state to usurp federal law. Just my opinion since you asked.

This will go on until someone takes one of these state laws into federal court:

"49 USC § 40103 - "Sovereignty and use of airspace":
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States."

Only the FAA can create a "no-fly" zone.
Only the FAA can regulate flight.

So glad I live in the UK.. We are more relaxed over here ( excluding Daily Mail readers ).. Fly like a nob and get caught you get punished - Fly responsibly and you are fine.. None of the crap other need to put up with..

Yeah we have "privacy" issues surrounding them but the law is reasonably clear and is covered under data protection. Unless you fly in someone face and put the pictures/video of "them" on-line or something, you are generally OK.. Apart from the Daily Mail, you rarely rad about it as an issue.

Which new law is making you unhappy? Law doesn't seem unreasonable. I usually fly about 250 feet high  to avoid tall trees and to not bother my neighbors.

I think it's great. We need legislation and rules to govern the safety and sanctity of private property and privacy etc. and as a UAV community this is a positive step toward clearing the ambiguity surrounding UAV operation and responsibility.

LICENSED PILOT Posted at 2015-10-2 13:18
This will go on until someone takes one of these state laws into federal court:

"49 USC § 40103 -  ...

I have talked to a lawyer about this issue. I was told that the local and state authority have the right to create statutes and ordinances restricting airspace usage. The FAA has a right to over turn those laws. Basically, a city can say you are not allowed to fly a drone in city limits until the FAA overturns the law. In my city you can not operate any RC boat, plane, or vehicle in city designated open space or city parks. You can only run RC equipment on private property. There is no statute that says I can't fly over neighborhoods, but they could restrict that if they wanted to, and it would hold up in a court of law.

I thought the FAA regulated the sky. The thing I don't like about this law is that it will create a patchwork of rules in different states, counties, towns, etc. I think that the FAA should make the rules just for consistency or those of us with drones can expect to be arrested at any time at any place for any reason some cop can imagine.

I'm based in the UK and we have rules & regs to comply with, but the thing that I cant get my head around with these privacy issues that is why do people think that by over flying a property that you are filming, watching or photographing either property or persons below.  We are simply going somewhere. I agree that you should be high enough as not to cause annoyance, but jeepers lets take a sensible approach to it all and we won't have issues.  Once again its the minority messing up the majority and the media fueling the fire, apart from the Daily Mail we don't generally get much hassle over here and maybe its because we don't have the same number of drones, UAVs or whatever term you like to use as other countries do.

rdc44444@hotmai Posted at 2015-10-2 07:17
Which new law is making you unhappy? Law doesn't seem unreasonable. I usually fly about 250 feet hig ...

Other than in the mountains, find me a tree in Nevada taller than a palm tree of maybe 75 feet tall?

We don't need no more stinking laws. Enforce what's on the books without violating our collective rights.

Hell, where I live in the Virginia foothills, a tall tree is 125 feet tall. The National Forest 10 miles away is so overgrown, trees don't get tall.

LICENSED PILOT Posted at 2015-10-1 22:18
This will go on until someone takes one of these state laws into federal court:

"49 USC § 40103 -  ...

You should read the FAAR's they state they regulate the "navigable" airpsace which is defined as 500'AGL and above. So states do have the ability to regulate below 500'.

Alan

erik.brossmanfa Posted at 2015-10-3 00:46
I have talked to a lawyer about this issue. I was told that the local and state authority have the ...

"...have the right to create statutes and ordinances restricting airspace usage."

Did the attorney tell you which legal authority that opinion is based on? Government has no power unless granted by statutes, laws, or precedent. No government agency can enforce a rule unless it has been properly enacted by law under their lawful jurisdiction, so we are back to USC 49 and is there an exemption for local governments?  I've read some archaic, old court decisions on the issue of local airspace and the summary of the article was that it is still unresolved by the Supreme Court (wish I'd saved the link).

This issue will be resolved in federal court eventually. Only the federal government can regulate the National Airspace System (NAS). Thus Congress created the FAA to prevent a patchwork of local laws to regulate the skies.

Local government cannot preempt the FAA. My city can regulate where I stand to launch and retrieve my bird.

apsphoto Posted at 2015-10-3 05:20
You should read the FAAR's they state they regulate the "navigable" airpsace which is defined as 5 ...

I have a commercial pilot license ;do know FARs. According to 49 USCS § 40102 (32), ‘navigable airspace’ means “airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part [49 USCS §§ 40101 et seq., 44101 et seq.], including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.” .

Last time I check that means down to -0-AGL for a chopper landing at a heliport.

From the FARs:
Navigable airspace means airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter, including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text ... 1.1_11&rgn=div8

LICENSED PILOT Posted at 2015-10-3 05:33
I have a commercial pilot license ;do know FARs. According to 49 USCS § 40102 (32), ‘navigable a ...

Let's take this a step further. I can't cite the case, but there is one that says that the air above private property is controlled by the homeowner, not the town, only to the extent of what the owner can use with reason. That means in my case if I get on my roof with a rake in the air, the end of the rake is the limit to which I can reasonably control. Anything above that is controlled by the FAA by statute.
So to have a town think it has the right to take over control of the FAA's airspace is ridiculous. The 250 foot level cited in one of these missives is also incorrect. The FAA states that commercial use begins at 500 feet, and they state that we model airplane flyers are to stay below 400 feet to give a reasonable level of separation between the two allowed users.
Thank goodness I am not a lawyer, it is too confusing a profession for my taste, but I do read, and there is plenty of material in the model airplane associations literature to peruse to keep us newbies informed.

arives@capecod. Posted at 2015-10-3 14:07
Let's take this a step further. I can't cite the case, but there is one that says that the air abo ...

In my humble opinion, the issue will end up in federal court when a local or state statute is enacted that affects a large UAV company (there are quite a few and more every day). At the moment I read that even the military is unhappy with current FAA restrictions  governing autonomous flight outside military test areas, along with the big boys at General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc, who have major $$  investments in the future of the UAV industry and are not about to permit some local podunk town council to restrict their operations.

The question of who has jurisdiction over the National Airspace System will eventually be resolved in a federal court once the right players are affected.

the war on drones marches on...

LICENSED PILOT Posted at 2015-10-4 01:57
In my humble opinion, the issue will end up in federal court when a local or state statute is enac ...

Not necessary to wait. Anyone who wants to overturn it, just take it to Federal Court, and boom it is gone. These matters are well established, and the local lawyer advising the town or city just made himself a wad of dough without telling the town that the laws the town were enacting were un-defendable in court.

arives@capecod. Posted at 2015-10-5 00:23
Not necessary to wait. Anyone who wants to overturn it, just take it to Federal Court, and boom it ...

Well, it is not about wanting to wait; it's about money. These court battles take wads of cash the average hobbyist does not have. That is why, in my opinion, it will take a large UAV corporation to fix it.

vicJ Posted at 2015-10-2 11:20
I think it's great. We need legislation and rules to govern the safety and sanctity of private prope ...

Agreed. Maybe it will put some of the more reckless numbskull flyers in a better frame of mind -- the ones that screw it up for the more careful folks among us.

That said, I believe 250 feet minimum is ill-advised. I believe 75 to 100 feet would be a lot more reasonable.

Keep in mind also that the burden is on the property owner because he/she can't complain if this is the 1st time someone has flown over the property, nor can they complain if they have not previously warned the operator not to fly over their property. Also, if we can EVER settle the regs for commercial sUAV operators, they will be exempted from this law IF they are simply on their way to or from a session or if the flight over the property is otherwise needed to fulfill some reasonable business objective.

Here is the text. Just go to Section 19.
https://goo.gl/0M7Yf1

LICENSED PILOT Posted at 2015-10-1 22:18
This will go on until someone takes one of these state laws into federal court:

"49 USC § 40103 -  ...

You are absolutely right...I'm a licensed pilot as well (Rotor) There is no way state legislation can enforce something like this....

LICENSED PILOT Posted at 2015-10-2 14:33
I have a commercial pilot license ;do know FARs. According to 49 USCS § 40102 (32), ‘navigable a ...

Again you are picking and choosing, yes around airports for a radius of 0-5 miles the airspace is limited. But look up the definition of airspaces at the FAA, class G is 700 feet and above, below 700 feet is not considered navigable airspace for aviation. Craft can operate below that with certain exceptions and making sure a distance from any people is maintained. But the courts and the SCOTUS have defined it as 500ft and above.

Alan

apsphoto Posted at 2015-10-6 21:45
Again you are picking and choosing, yes around airports for a radius of 0-5 miles the airspace is  ...

I guess helicopters don't fly below 700 feet.... IF you have a SCOTUS reference I seriously would like to read it.

LICENSED PILOT Posted at 2015-10-6 10:06
I guess helicopters don't fly below 700 feet.... IF you have a SCOTUS reference I seriously would  ...

I suggest you read this entire piece, it list the SCOTUS references as well as quoting the judges comments and intents. It also explains from what cases and what law and precedence is in place currently.
http://www.brookings.edu/researc ... aerial-surveillance

I am not trying to argue with you, I agree the law stinks and it is careless operators that are causing this problem, not the general drone pilot. But the states have the ability to regulate the airspace not covered by the FAA and what is considered personal property rights and privacy concerns. Please read through the entire document, there is a lot of legal references, case references and good explanations of how this all came into being.

Alan

apsphoto Posted at 2015-10-7 02:19
I suggest you read this entire piece, it list the SCOTUS references as well as quoting the judges  ...

Excellent reading. Thank you. I found the law enforcement sections most interesting (I'm a retired cop). Seems to me the 500 foot rule is not cast in stone, but is more of a suggestion.

Endnote:

" [24] While 500 feet is a useful rule of thumb for defining navigable versus non-navigable airspace, regulations governing navigable airspace are actually a bit more complex.  Helicopters for example are exempted from minimum altitude regulations “if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.” § 91.119(d). For fixed wing aircraft the rule is that over congested areas, the minimum altitude is 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2000 feet of the aircraft.  § 91.119(b).  For non-congested areas other than over open water or sparsely populated areas, the minimum is 500 feet. § 91.119(c). Over open water and sparsely populated areas, “the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.”  See 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(b)–(c) (2012).  Moreover, within certain distances of certain classes of airports and airspace altitude restrictions below 500 feet may also be in place. "
  
Based on my reading, the FAA still controls airspace, in many cases from the ground up, and I think we both agree the vagueness in the numerous court decisions will be resolved in federal court or even SCOTUS.
Cities and states must be prevented from enacting biased statutes against UAVs mostly based on emotions and not facts. And prohibited from getting into the airspace regulatory business. So we sort of agree...:-)

LICENSED PILOT Posted at 2015-10-6 12:13
Excellent reading. Thank you. I found the law enforcement sections most interesting (I'm a retired ...

The other take away that makes this in the realm of states to make laws that govern the lower airspaces:

"Property law is almost exclusively governed by state and local laws. Arizona State law professor Troy Rule—one of the first scholars to analyze property rights in the context of drones—- notes, “Unlike the murky set of legal rules governing low altitude airspace, the laws delineating property rights in the surface land could hardly be clearer.”[33]  The land, Professor Rule explains, is owned and those owners have rights to exclude trespassers and other intruders. However, “[t]he commons regime that governs high-altitude airspace is in many ways the antithesis of the private property regime that applies to surface land:  no one owns high-altitude space, and everyone is welcome to use it if they follow certain rules.”[34]  In between the land and high altitude airspace is an area that is murky, and largely undefined. State and local governments can act to clarify the rights of landowners in the zone between the land and high altitude airspace.[35]""

As California just tried to pass a law prohibiting drones over private property below 350', it was before the Nevada law but the governor vetoed it. I think it will be very difficult for anyone challenging the state laws. It will be just as hard for the property owner to seek enforcement. So it will get tied up and eat up lots of money in litigation.

Glad you found it useful.

Alan