Please show your support our sport before it gets legislated out of existence.

Californians: Join DJI and @CEA in urging Governor Brown to veto anti-innovation Senate Bill 142. Here's how: http://www.innovationmovement.com/drones

Your support is appreciated.

You all should read this crap, to my understanding that if a person found trespassing the airspace 350 or below on top of the property would be considered liable for ANY damages, and cops could arrest for trespassing alone ....  blah blah blah, kiss your phantom goodbye....

An act to add Section 1708.83 to the Civil Code, and to amend Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to civil law.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 142, Jackson. Civil law: unmanned aerial vehicles.
Existing federal law, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015. Existing federal law requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and implement operational and certification requirements for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system by December 31, 2015.
Existing law deems the detriment caused by wrongful occupation of real property to be the value of the use of the property for the time of the wrongful occupation, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration of the property, and the costs of recovering the possession.
This bill would extend liability for wrongful occupation of real property and damages to a person who operates an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, as defined, less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying the real property, without the express permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access or without legal authority.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: no   Local Program: no  
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 1708.83 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
1708.83. (a) A person wrongfully occupies real property and is liable for damages pursuant to Section 3334 if, without express permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access or without legal authority, 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.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Unmanned aircraft” means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
(2) “Unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft, that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.
(c) This section shall not be construed to impair or limit any otherwise lawful activities of law enforcement personnel or employees of governmental agencies or other public or private entities that may have the right to enter land by operating an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system within the airspace overlaying the real property of another, including the right to use private lands acquired pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 1009.
(d) Nothing in this section is intended to limit the rights and defenses available at common law under a claim of liability for wrongful occupation of real property.
SEC. 2. Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:
21012. “Aircraft” means any manned contrivance used or designed for navigation of, or flight in, the air requiring certification and registration as prescribed by federal statute or regulation. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, manned lighter-than-air balloons and ultralight vehicles as defined in the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (14 C.F.R. Part 103), whether or not certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration, shall not be considered to be aircraft for purposes of this part. “Aircraft” shall not include an unmanned aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

Willie Wonka Posted at 2015-9-1 18:24
You all should read this crap, to my understanding that if a person found trespassing the airspace 3 ...

This is bullshit!! Bureaucratic Pricks!!

Sling Shot Posted at 2015-9-2 09:34
This is bullshit!! Bureaucratic Pricks!!

Tip of a dangerous iceberg.   Government getting out of control.

Wake up people.   Dangerous things ahead.   This is just another example.

From the DJI Fly Safe page...

"Fly in Open Areas
Always choose a wide open area for every flight, well away from
people and property. Never fly directly over people or animals."

Also, have a look at any Authorization Granted Via Section 333 Exemption...

"All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with
permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative.
Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be
obtained for each flight to be conducted."


IMHO, it seems there's nothing new in this legislation.
Looks straight forward to me. If you fly...er..."sport" your drone over private property and crash or harrass, California won't be named a co-defendant when you get sued for damages.

In my opinion it is CA taking over the roll of the FAA in CA.  They want to regulate the skys, that is not their roll in my opinion.  Yours may differ.

And people  were thinking i am CRYING WOLF, there you go people, keep it up and ....  oh never mind, the damage is already done and other states will follow suit JUST because the FAA was civil about it and was trying to educate BUT now its HAMMER time, arrests for drone operation anywhere will be enforced by local authorities and TIP lines were already established in CA.

The Begining of all this BULLSHIT started with trappy and we all should thank Trappy from team blacksheep for flying his air wing and discovery all over the freaking place and he goes being a hero about it, and since then our hobby got put under the microscope and kept on loosing things and we will keep loosing till we are confinded to a small airfield where we will go and fly in circles.


Wana know who trappy is and what stupid shit he did which made us loose the ability to fly solely on FPV:

The FAA regulations say that they are the only governing agency regarding airspace, and any legislation passed by any other governments is not valid.  The only rules state or local governments can validly regulate,  is regarding location of take-off and landing.  They may pass new laws, but certainly they will eventually be challenged.

Tahoe_Ed Posted at 2015-9-1 22:00
In my opinion it is CA taking over the roll of the FAA in CA.  They want to regulate the skys, that  ...

I think you're missing the "real property" part...
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos

In other words, fly in your own "heavens" and get my permission if you want to fly in mine.

mgsf@embarqmail Posted at 2015-9-1 22:25
I think you're missing the "real property" part...
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad ...

yeah in which it will be considered as trespassing !

Funny, I don't have control of the aircraft that fly over my home.  The FAA does.  I don't remember giving them permission.  This is getting silly.  In my opinion we no longer have any guarantee of privacy when outdoors.  Someone can take my picture on their cell phone, what difference is that from me flying a drone at 100 ft altitude?  

Tahoe_Ed Posted at 2015-9-2 10:00
In my opinion it is CA taking over the roll of the FAA in CA.  They want to regulate the skys, that  ...

This won't be an issue since all of our Phantom 3's will have fallen out of the sky due to cracked shells before this becomes law.  

Ed, Please quit ignoring the other thread(s) on this topic: the fact that Phantom 3 is defective to the point of warranting a recall.  After personally going through a dozen new in the box units and finding 10 with cracks before any flight time whatsoever, it became clear to me that if DJI does not voluntarily recall the Phantom 3, Consumer Product Safety Commission needs to be involved.  That would be bad for the UAS community, but it would be worse to see a P3 fall on a child's face because the company wasn't interested in acknowledging a manufacturing defect.   I'm tired of being treated like my money is flammable and the P3 has a 100 hour lifespan.  

Willie Wonka Posted at 2015-9-1 19:13
And people  were thinking i am CRYING WOLF, there you go people, keep it up and ....  oh never mind, ...

Agreed 100%

tbhone Posted at 2015-9-1 22:38
This won't be an issue since all of our Phantom 3's will have fallen out of the sky due to cracked ...

Interesting side of the story, i was always aware that DJI was treating my money like flammable paper, just like buying cigarettes.

richardmartin Posted at 2015-9-2 10:21
The FAA regulations say that they are the only governing agency regarding airspace, and any legislat ...

If this is true, we need the Supreme Court to step in.

mgsf@embarqmail Posted at 2015-9-2 10:25
I think you're missing the "real property" part...
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad ...

Since when does someone own the airspace above their property????   Any aircraft is allowed to fly in any airspace as long as they abide by FAA regulations.   Christ, we don't even own our LAND any more that is why you PAY for it and then you PAY for it every year in property taxes....

Tahoe_Ed Posted at 2015-9-2 10:31
Funny, I don't have control of the aircraft that fly over my home.  The FAA does.  I don't remember  ...

On this point I completely agree.  Nearly every cell phone (certainly every smart phone) even has video ability....I never hear anyone on a beach or a public park complaining about privacy when I guarantee they've been captured on someone's cell phone or even digital camera.

And  people ask me why I don't by quad related stock.... yep, they are fun while they last. Smoke 'em if you've got 'em as the saying goes. Once they are illegal, the 'fun' will be flying without getting caught. Faking your landing areas, etc. getting really good and landing quick, efficiently and getting out... being willing to land in predetermined hard-to-get-to safe spots, getting it later on, etc.

Tahoe_Ed Posted at 2015-9-2 10:31
Funny, I don't have control of the aircraft that fly over my home.  The FAA does.  I don't remember  ...

well, they better start suing google earth first, if they dont want their real state to appear in any videos taken from the skies by quads.

Awwww c'mon folks.....
We ALL know this has nothing to do with safety....
All this is just about politicians and the wealthy keeping all those lavish and swanky private events held behind tall fences and closed doors, all at taxpayer expense, from being exposed.

God forbid a drone flyover captures moonbeam and the wealthy / elitist / politicians living large on the taxpayers dime.   
What right do we have to know how they spend OUR money?!?

Now then, I'm visitng California next week and I need to know where I can get permission slips to use the bathroom and vouchers for the times, places and specific items I'm allowed to eat while there.

Cessna172 Posted at 2015-9-1 23:31
Awwww c'mon folks.....
We ALL know this has nothing to do with safety....
All this is just about pol ...

And don't forget the main initiation ceremonies that happen at the Bohemian Grove.

Flight Raptor Posted at 2015-9-1 19:53
Since when does someone own the airspace above their property????   Any aircraft is allowed to fly ...

Technically we own the airspace above our home and to the center of the earth unless someone else has reserved the mineral rights.  That being said, the FAA has authority granted by congress to regulate the airspace from 500' and above the ground.  400' and below was carved out to for RC flight via an exemption.  That is slowly being eroded away.  It is unfortunate.  

I really doubt Moonbeam will veto this.

Ed, the FAA actually has authority over ALL National Airspace from the ground up.
You may be thinking of controlled airspace vs uncontrolled airspace.
Traditionally, the FAA mandates that manned aircraft operate above 500 feet except in unpopulated areas or when landing at or departing runways (and over water in many cases).

That left 400 feet and below open for RC and other such uses.

Tahoe_Ed Posted at 2015-9-1 20:35
Technically we own the airspace above our home and to the center of the earth unless someone else  ...

Where do you find this info about the airspace above your home?

Will this apply to all of Mexico or just California?

tbhone Posted at 2015-9-1 19:38
This won't be an issue since all of our Phantom 3's will have fallen out of the sky due to cracked ...

This was acrually really funny. I feel your frustration/worry man.

I read that someone called the repair center directly in LA and spoke with a manager that stated they have changed the design of the shells and anyone who sends their unit in will get the new upgraded one.

My guess is that DJI is not publicly stating this because they will be flooded with 5 million RMAs that they dont have the capacity to handle, and may not even be necessary.

They are not really goverend by or held to safety standards like, for example the automobile industry is by the NTSB.

I guess most don't understand California.  It is what it is with no respect for any law unless they made it up.

Sorry but as I read this I can't help but breathe a sigh of relief that I am in Northern NH where for the most part we are left alone and allowed to live.

No Sales Tax (except on Tourism)
No State Income Tax
No Seat Belt Law
Concealed Carry is Still Legal
No Helmet Law
No Eminent Domain

I sincerely wish you luck in beating down this ridiculous Law.

A government of the people, by the people, for the people.... Where did we go so wrong??

NH sounds like a great place to live but I'd leave for warmer climate in the winter.  Looks like a nice area to fly your DJI3.

Just one question, how is Mr Average Joe Public going to be able to measure 350' above his property?, so how can he police and enforce it???/

Just wondering

Get out the fork, California is done, actually over done. You've got supposed stars that purchase huge tracks of land on the ocean front, then block access when they knew that the people own the beach and that they are blocking the path to access. There's been 7-8 years of litigation, and then finally there was a small path opened. Problem is , no parking anywhere close.

California forces their own blend of gasoline and vehicle emissions on the other 49 states.
California refuses to enforce immigration laws and instead allows for sanctuary cities. The tax payers pick up the bill. Ask the people living in NorCal if they live in the same state as the people that live in SoCal?
After screwing up a very beautiful scenic area, the same people that created the political climate in California get tired of the restrictions and move to Nevada, Utah, and repeat the same thing. Isn't that definition of mental illness. Repeating the same thing and expecting a different result.

Team Black Sheep has been represented by none other than DJI's own lawyer Brendan Schulman. People that flaunt the law are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame and will move onto other adventures. You on the other hand will be left behind. Yes court challenges will ensue, but unless politically connected, you lose.

What the hell is going on in the land of the free ..... ugg it's really f'd in the up direction...

buzzcbr@gmail.c Posted at 2015-9-2 08:39
Just one question, how is Mr Average Joe Public going to be able to measure 350' above his property? ...

He can't or won't have to, since you on the other hand have to prove otherwise.

Time to paint that phantom light blue and fly on the edges of those lush green landscapes.

Didn't one person take a photo from a drone of someone's property that had green grass while all of that area in Cali had drought conditions and that property belonged to a high profile person ?

gregg1r Posted at 2015-9-2 08:58
Get out the fork, California is done, actually over done. You've got supposed stars that purchase hu ...

What a shame, there is so much imbalance that the tipping point is so close, no wonder they want to push gun control so that when the revolution comes there would be no weapons to use.

Need to take pictures from 100 feet up over your own property and start actually showing that to the regulators.  The general public is use to seeing the "drones of TV" where they can zoom in and see every inch of detail to solve some crime.  So the public feels that a drone flying over can see into their windows and see them sticking their #1 finger in the air.  We can't...  

Willie Wonka Posted at 2015-9-2 09:12
What a shame, there is so much imbalance that the tipping point is so close, no wonder they want t ...

Totally agree on the firearms restrictions. It's hard to force an armed populace to conform.

I was being courted by a company in SoCal 15 plus years back. Flew me to the LA area for a dog and pony show and interview. They made a rather substantial offer, I said, I need some time to decide.

The closest affordable housing was 90 minutes away in a shaky neighborhood. I would have had to purchase two new vehicles as mine weren't California emissions certified. Firearms collection would have to be put into storage, and the tax rate was double of what I was paying. My side consultation business, which is an S corp would be taxed on California rates.

Thanks but no thanks.

I've also read the FAA regulations, and California doesn't have the authority to regulate air space. The problem is that the state enacts laws and for you to fight them, you're using your money to fight. Good luck getting a stay until a trial is held.

Companies like DJI are the ones that are going to have to fight this one, as you need lobbyists and economics people to show the impact of this law being enforced.

It's not flying, but I can purchase a helium tethered balloon and mount a stabilized camera and get extreme close ups if I wanted to spy on someone, all while thumbing my nose at this law.

buzzcbr@gmail.c Posted at 2015-9-2 08:39
Just one question, how is Mr Average Joe Public going to be able to measure 350' above his property? ...

If you're flying your Phantom, your flight info gives you the elevation that your unit is flying.

As for the police enforcing height restrictions, laser range finder. Just like the police being issued portable breathalyzers.

Not having read completely to California dribble, if they were to outlaw UAV's, will they be required to purchase the item back? Most laws that abolish private ownership also include a provision for reimbursement.

Like a gun...pry it from my cold dead fingers!! ha ha ha

SpunOne69 Posted at 2015-9-2 08:35
Like a gun...pry it from my cold dead fingers!! ha ha ha

Agreed hope it doesn't  have to come down too that