CA Bill: No flying below 350' without permission.

Oso

Premium Pilot
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
4,962
Reaction score
4,125
Location
Western US
A California bill moved closer to becoming law. The bill passed in the state Senate today by a vote of 21-10. The new law would create a “no-fly” zone for drones, forbidding them from flying below 350 feet without express permission of the property owners under the drone.

I think this will open a Pandora's box of issues. Every home owner around a park will claim that a drone was flying directly overhead even if it wasn't close to breaking the plane of their property line. Plus, they won't know if it's 200' or 400' anyway. Isn't it true that the FAA controls airspace above homes?

What do my P3 brethren think?
 
Last edited:
No problem......

Now who, what, how, is used to establish 350'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oso
I try hard to not fly low above homes anyway, so if it passes the law itself won't really bother me much. What I'm very worried about is the huge potential for erroneous calls to police and the hardship that will create for drone pilots. I don't think it would be too far fetched to think that every time I fly in a city park that some nearby homeowner will call the police and I will need to deal with it even when I'm not in violation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyhighdiver
It's time to Call our Member Lawyers Into Action!
batman.jpg

Sorry could only find the Batman Call......
 
I try hard to not fly low above homes anyway, so if it passes the law itself won't really bother me much. What I'm very worried about is the huge potential for erroneous calls to police and the hardship that will create for drone pilots. I don't think it would be too far fetched to think that every time I fly in a city park that some nearby homeowner will call the police and I will need to deal with it even when I'm not in violation.
Yet another looney tunes law coming out of the sue me state
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joao Carlos
flying below 350 feet... Hmmm So they want us in the same airspace with planes/helicopters then.
I thought this was more towards Paparazzi harassment.
Someone needs to get to Jerry Brown and take him for some flying fun.
He just mite buy one for himself, then VETO the bill.
 
While I can see how enforcement could be difficult, and a law like that may not stand up in court as the FAA is in charge of all the airspace, I think 350 feet is reasonable. When I fly over my neighbors I am almost always between 300 and 400 feet and I never hover. People have the right to privacy and the potential for abuse is real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oso
flying below 350 feet... Hmmm So they want us in the same airspace with planes/helicopters then.
I thought this was more towards Paparazzi harassment.
Someone needs to get to Jerry Brown and take him for some flying fun.
He just mite buy one for himself, then VETO the bill.
There's still that 400 foot recommendation, so you do have that wide open 350-400' lane.
 
All of this is a bit confusing. Aren't we calling 350' the height from the takeoff point ? What if we are above or below where we are flying. I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains, and getting 350' above my neighbors home will put me at least 650' above my takeoff point. Additionally, I have commercial aircraft that are checking in at 6000' on flight radar and can't be more than 2000' above my head. So, are they using sea level for altitude while we use the terrain underneath us ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlmostTan
Posted in the wrong section. And it is already covered in another thread. Please search. And please post in the right areas. Danke.

On topic, this bill will do nothing but create confusion. It's pointless. Your neighbor can't tell the difference between 150ft and 350ft. That's assuming he knows about the law. Which he won't.

And I'm sure the FAA loves the idea of drones flying at 375ft with all the GA traffic.
 
All of this is a bit confusing. Aren't we calling 350' the height from the takeoff point ? What if we are above or below where we are flying. I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains, and getting 350' above my neighbors home will put me at least 650' above my takeoff point. Additionally, I have commercial aircraft that are checking in at 6000' on flight radar and can't be more than 2000' above my head. So, are they using sea level for altitude while we use the terrain underneath us ?

Well you really have no worries now do you? Blue Ridge Mountains won't be affected.... Jerry Brown Stopped the Bill that would have prevented Police from using drones, I bet he does the same for this mockery too.
 
Posted in the wrong section. And it is already covered in another thread. Please search. And please post in the right areas. Danke.

On topic, this bill will do nothing but create confusion. It's pointless. Your neighbor can't tell the difference between 150ft and 350ft. That's assuming he knows about the law. Which he won't.

And I'm sure the FAA loves the idea of drones flying at 375ft with all the GA traffic.
Ian - just go ahead and delete the thread. I am only interested in thoughts from the people in the section I posted in. Moving it effectively makes it invisible to those guys.

Thanks sir.
 
We seem to have gotten busted by the MODS! Opps!
View attachment 28797
Definitely one of the more frustrating things about this otherwise very nice forum. We are not permitted to have a discussion of this type with the set of people we chat with daily. It will invariably be moved and then it's effectively gone. Discussion over.
 
Ian - just go ahead and delete the thread. I am only interested in thoughts from the people in the thread I posted in. Moving it effectively makes it invisible to those guys.

Thanks sir.

Definitely one of the more frustrating things about this otherwise very nice forum. We are not permitted to have a discussion of this type with the set of people we chat with daily. It will invariably be moved and then it's effectively gone. Discussion over.

First, I suggest you read the community rules, specifically paragraph 9.

Second, we get plenty of complaints about non-P3 topics posted in the P3 forum.

Third, this site is for all Phantom users and is set up the way it is for a reason. The sticky at the top of the P3 section explains it in plain English. Anything posted in the P3 section that is not specific to the P3 will be moved. Please follow the rules.

PSA: Read Before Posting in the P3 Forum | DJI Phantom Quadcopter Forum

Here endeth the moderation. Back on topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
For a 'free' service, there sure is a lot of complaining around here. Thanks for a doing a great job of taking care of it @ianwood

FTR, I read many sections, even ones that don't pertain to me. Never rule out learning something!

On topic: I think California is a crazy place to live. Laws are not rooted in common sense, and yes, I know most places this can apply, but there is so much craziness going on there I couldn't live with it. Federal law ALWAYS trumps state law. Let's hope this bill dies before it even gets a real vote.
 
While I can see how enforcement could be difficult, and a law like that may not stand up in court as the FAA is in charge of all the airspace, I think 350 feet is reasonable. When I fly over my neighbors I am almost always between 300 and 400 feet and I never hover. People have the right to privacy and the potential for abuse is real.
Here is the issue though, there are already legal laws in CA that could be used to do what you mention and this new law would be illegal. Lastly, this illegal law will be used to harrass flyers into not flying legally.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic