Local City banning hobby drones to their own backyard.

It makes me want to go they're and fly over city hall and dare them to do something about it.
 
The airspace above the city appears to be Class D and within 5 miles of KTEB. Who's flying there anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: N017RW
It makes me want to go they're and fly over city hall and dare them to do something about it.
Tough talk and reckless.
Even if you 'win' there's still a price to pay.
 
First off "community based safety guidlines" means the AMA or the the model aviation community. In no way does that mean some city in new jersey can ban hobby aviation.
It does not mean it in that way. The AMA put out information to let people think this meant much more then it did... I'm sure to grow it's membership. What the section _really_ means is that Congress is not taking, already established, rights away from local areas. For example, the AMA might have an RC racing event. They are allowed to set rules that state that a person cannot fly higher than 100' or faster than 40mph. Things like that. Congress is basically saying, they are free to do things like this. However, US Code also clearly states that airspace can only be regulated by the FAA. What the AMA would be doing is not creating regulations... such as what the city would be doing.

That part of Section 336 is horribly written.

Second,From what I understand this is a proposed bill that has not and likely won't be passed. This has in no way gone into effect and even if it did all you gotta do is get a 107 license and any hobby laws won't apply to you.
According to that news report, it's already passed. I do mention that no one has provided a link to the bill or law so it's even unknown what it really states. Don't think cities have not passed laws _exactly_ like this... they have. Many cities and townships have.
 
Tough talk and reckless.
Even if you 'win' there's still a price to pay.

People have been paying that price throughout history. Independence from England, 13th Amendment, etc.

If I was in a location that did this I can _guarantee_ you that I'd find an attorney that would help be file suit against the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duchunter
It does not mean it in that way. The AMA put out information to let people think this meant much more then it did... I'm sure to grow it's membership. What the section _really_ means is that Congress is not taking, already established, rights away from local areas. For example, the AMA might have an RC racing event. They are allowed to set rules that state that a person cannot fly higher than 100' or faster than 40mph. Things like that. Congress is basically saying, they are free to do things like this. However, US Code also clearly states that airspace can only be regulated by the FAA. What the AMA would be doing is not creating regulations... such as what the city would be doing.

That part of Section 336 is horribly written.

According to that news report, it's already passed. I do mention that no one has provided a link to the bill or law so it's even unknown what it really states. Don't think cities have not passed laws _exactly_ like this... they have. Many cities and townships have.

Again, I was talking about the bill in the senate giving states the power to govern hobby aviation. Why would they need a bill to do something that they can already do? If the state can't do it how can a city do it?
 
Not really, as long as its not a nfz I'm good. Besides, I live in Alabama. I'm not going to nj anytime soon.
Yea. Like I said, Tough talk.
 
People have been paying that price throughout history. Independence from England, 13th Amendment, etc.

If I was in a location that did this I can _guarantee_ you that I'd find an attorney that would help be file suit against the law.
Yea, IF!
 
First off "community based safety guidlines" means the AMA or the the model aviation community.

errrm, no it doesn't. It means exactly what it says 'community based'. Whilst it may include the AMA it also leaves a great big grey areas for local regulations such as not taking off/operating from parks, city owned/managed land etc etc etc.

You may have a right to the airspace above you but if you don't have the right to access that air space your 'rights' to use it mean nothing.
 
Last edited:
errrm, no it doesn't. It means exactly what it says 'community based'. Whilst it may include the AMA it also leaves a great big grey areas for local regulations such as not taking off/operating from parks, city owned/managed land etc etc etc.

You may have a right to the airspace above you but if you don't have the right to access that air space your 'rights' to use it mean nothing.
And just what do you know about American law? Airspace starts where the grass ends. I'm sorry but I promise you what they are doing is illegal. They might can decide that you cant launch from city property but you most certainly can not be told that you can't enter public airspace from private property. They also can not tax you because you fly in said airspace. You have the right to use that airspace and the faa is the ONLY organization that can govern airspace PERIOD!
 
  • Like
Reactions: wmclements2003
there no reason to fly in that piece of crud town anyway. i live near there. it is also between 3 - 4 miles from teteboro. just some out of touch mayor trying to look like he's doing good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duchunter
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Let me say up-front that I like flying drones and I am against government intrusion. At the risk of being stoned, things have changed. Before drones, model aviation was not an issue because, by their very nature, model airplanes had to be flown (for the most part) from model airplane sites, usually provided by local governments. There was not a safety or nuisance problem to anyone who didn't wish to be a spectator. No one can argue that drones have changed those fundamental facts.

In the grand scheme of all things government, regulation and controls are a good thing that protect public safety and nuisance considerations. Local governments feel that they should be given the right to control the immediate airspace above their jurisdictions now because, except for kites at the local park and model airplane flying sites that they even provided, it was not necessary before.

The FAA wanted to control all model activities, including drones. Long before the legislation that restricted them, the FAA was planning on having all model aircraft be registered with N-numbers, pilot certification requirements, speed, type of motors, etc. The legislation stopped them from regulating "recreational" model activities. So the FAA designated what "commercial" sUAS activity was and regulated all activity in that category the exact way they intended to regulate ALL sUAS activity.

The safety aspects of "commercial" flying activities were originally intended to provide increase safety assurances to those paying someone to fly them from point A to point B. Do you really think those same "safety" considerations apply to individuals flying a drone to take a picture they will use in their non-aviation related business? Of course not. It is government over reach at its worse.

The FAA will form an 'axis of evil' for all recreational flyers through a Feinstein type bill to allow local communities to regulate their airspace below 400' so long as it does not conflict with the FAA rules; "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Coming to a town near you...sooner or latter I am afraid, starting, as usual, on the socialist East and West Coast.
 
I like how many time the world "trumps" had been used in this treads it's almost like every one subconsciously it's putting a new meaning and feeling to old age madness and enloquece but I refuse to use it with grandma even when she don't know where she is ....
 
I like how many time the world "trumps" had been used in this treads it's almost like every one subconsciously it's putting a new meaning and feeling to old age madness and enloquece but I refuse to use it with grandma even when she don't know where she is ....


?????
 
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Let me say up-front that I like flying drones and I am against government intrusion. At the risk of being stoned, things have changed. Before drones, model aviation was not an issue because, by their very nature, model airplanes had to be flown (for the most part) from model airplane sites, usually provided by local governments. There was not a safety or nuisance problem to anyone who didn't wish to be a spectator. No one can argue that drones have changed those fundamental facts.

In the grand scheme of all things government, regulation and controls are a good thing that protect public safety and nuisance considerations. Local governments feel that they should be given the right to control the immediate airspace above their jurisdictions now because, except for kites at the local park and model airplane flying sites that they even provided, it was not necessary before.

The FAA wanted to control all model activities, including drones. Long before the legislation that restricted them, the FAA was planning on having all model aircraft be registered with N-numbers, pilot certification requirements, speed, type of motors, etc. The legislation stopped them from regulating "recreational" model activities. So the FAA designated what "commercial" sUAS activity was and regulated all activity in that category the exact way they intended to regulate ALL sUAS activity.

The safety aspects of "commercial" flying activities were originally intended to provide increase safety assurances to those paying someone to fly them from point A to point B. Do you really think those same "safety" considerations apply to individuals flying a drone to take a picture they will use in their non-aviation related business? Of course not. It is government over reach at its worse.

The FAA will form an 'axis of evil' for all recreational flyers through a Feinstein type bill to allow local communities to regulate their airspace below 400' so long as it does not conflict with the FAA rules; "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Coming to a town near you...sooner or latter I am afraid, starting, as usual, on the socialist East and West Coast.
Thats exactly what I was saying. They might want to govern the airspace over their city but at present they can not. Feinstein's bill would make that a possibility but as it stands right now they can not. Most bills do not pass as I'm sure this one will not.
 
Unless YOU and I mean everyone reading this thread takes the time to write their Senator this bill MAY have a chance to pass. I took the time the other day to email EVERY senator in the US to let them know that I oppose this bill and that it will kill the drone business. (They don't care about your hobby, but will respond to killing businesses)
So don't be lazy, start writing.

About the bill and it's text:
Drone Federalism Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1272) - Drone Law Attorney Services - Rupprecht Law, PA

Find your Senator:
Elected Officials | USAGov

Get to work before you can't fly anywhere!
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,096
Messages
1,467,618
Members
104,981
Latest member
brianklenhart