Recourse against LA and WeHo Drone Ordinances

[snowghost]

I think the ordinances of Los Angeles and West Hollywood are overreaching and ridiculous.

Does anybody know of any organized opposition we can join to get this nonsense overturned?

 

[Pilot Wings]

Would help to post what you're referring to.

 

[ChrisA]

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2015/15-0927_misc_09-17-2015.pdf


i like the "certain federal aviation rules".

 

[dtviewer]

The only problem I see is that drones will only be able to be operated during daylight hours.
Unless I'm missing something it looks like the same rules and regulations as most other places.

Is there anything specific that you think is 'overreaching'?

 

[Jussaguy]

Was going to say the same thing, it's surprisingly light actually.

I thought because we treat celebrities like governmental dignitaries that there would be a ton of crazy rules (and their probably will be) but other than the no night flying, I see nothing other than a state version of the federal guidelines.

I was actually only once messed with by LAPD in all of my flying and I've done some in some places I shouldn't but I was once doing some recreational flying at mccambridge park which is exactly 4.6 miles away from Burbank Airport (which is a small national, not international) airport in the valley.

There was a sheriff's chopper flying around and I saw him scoping out the bird in the chopper and I said to the people who were watching me fly (and it was the Inspire so it's large) and eventually the sherrifs office chopper got on a speaker and told me to land it or they are sending a unit on the ground.

Got the hell out of there with Godspeed but I wonder now if it was because it was sort of sunset. I always thought it was because it wasn't exactly 5 miles from BUR. FWIW, the app didn't give the "no fly zone" warning either.

I have some beautiful shots from that day.

For night flying, just kill the LEDs. You need to anyway to get a good night shot with a long exposure or you'll get the red in the shot unless pointing straight down. And of course night video isn't good enough with the X3 to warrant jail. With the x5 or x8, yeah, risk jail.

 

[tcope]

You can do this. Contact the Mayors office and request to discuss.

The items are so dangerous that they need these restrictions... yet any government office can feel free to fly drones any way they want.

 

[snowghost]

The overreaching is jail time. Also the WeHo one requires you to get a permit with their city and a decal for the bird visible from the ground amongst other things.

 

[kandelin16]

The thing I find overreaching is the LOS requirement, not for the phantom, but for FPV racing.

 

[Jussaguy]

The thing I find overreaching is the LOS requirement, not for the phantom, but for FPV racing.

As a racer, that's something I never thought of.

It does, as a matter of course need an exemption.

If they understood the world of aerial photography drones and racing drones, they would realize that they are setting up a bunch of state crimes because racers will continue to race and fly through tunnels and areas that are emptied in stadiums and warehouses but it's perfectly safe as evidenced by years of racing with no injuries to speak of any real matter.

Who is lobbying on behalf of us, the business people, the hobbyists, etc? I know there will be some groups lobbying that just want to prevent government overreach but we need a lobby that knows all about drones.

I used to throw raves in the 90s in Florida (I went to the University of Florida GO GATORS!) and they introduced House Bill 1529 which was nicknamed the "rave bill" which made it so that a venue had to stop selling alcohol the moment it was no longer allowed to sell alcohol.

In the small town of Gainesville, FL where I lived I spear headed (at 19) the Gainesville Bar and Club Alliance and we as a group lobbied at the city council meetings and in Tallahassee (state capital where the bill was put together) and we managed to have Gainesville opt out of the bill.

My point is that lobbying and making your voice heard around these bills that are bills of passion can be talked down by the state and city and township level. The way it is supposed to work is the smaller the municipality, the stronger its ability to enact or opt out of state and federal laws (depending on what they are and how they are written).

That "Rave Bill" gave every city the option to opt out of it and some because it didn't want to put people on the street the second it was done selling alcohol, made a 1 hour space amendment while others like Miami just opted out of it because it's business is night life. It also had an exemption for parks who has attendance of over 20,000 visitors a day. I swear the lingo said that instead of just saying "not Disney".

I think we should form a lobby to go try and fix some of these issues.

You are right about the racing. People won't stop racing and every time we go through a tunnel or something, or around a corner where we can't see, LOS is gone. But isn't LOS already federal? Hmmm. Can't believe I never thought of that.

As a side note, after about a year of everyone in the central and northern part of the state starting throwing so many raves in Gainesville because we got them to opt out of it, on the next voting cycle (about a year) they gerrymandered the precincts to un-elect the council men that were basically for the transient student population and it was opted back in by the ultra-conservative static population.

 

[ianwood]

The Los Angeles ordinance passed the city council by a unanimous vote thus forcing the mayor's hand. That's a thing apparently. As for WeHo, they've got their heads so far up their own you know whats that they simply don't know what is what.

And in both cases, the legality is questionable as result of Federal preemption. Only the FAA has the authority to dictate how drones can be used in the National Airspace System. No state, city or local authority has the jurisdiction to do so.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf

 

[Jussaguy]

The Los Angeles ordinance passed the city council by a unanimous vote thus forcing the mayor's hand. That's a thing apparently. As for WeHo, they've got their heads so far up their own you know whats that they simply don't know what is what.

And in both cases, the legality is questionable as result of Federal preemption. Only the FAA has the authority to dictate how drones can be used in the National Airspace System. No state, city or local authority has the jurisdiction to do so.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf

I WUOLD LOVE to agree with you but I believe the state has the right to do what it wants with it's local air as long as it's not impending on the federal governments right to keep constitutionally mandated peace, life and liberty, etc.

I think the state could make a rule if they wanted to that banned all drones from ever flying and there is nothing that the we could do about it other than vote people out of office.

The state has more power than the federal government unless its constitutional. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work anyway.

I could be wrong on this and if I am, please show me where but I don't think the state is out of it's rights, even if it is out of it's mind.

 

[ianwood]

You're wrong. Only the FAA can regulate airspace.

 

[snowghost]

You're wrong. Only the FAA can regulate airspace.

I agree, but what about that guy who went to jail flying around a Naval Yard? Also 2 guys busted for night flying in LA. I think their court date is about now.

 

[Jussaguy]

You're wrong. Only the FAA can regulate airspace.

They control the airspace. Yes, that is an absolute truth but drones are not airspace.

What we can or can't do with a drone is not controlled by just the FAA. They will have their say for sure but above that, the state and local governments and municipalities can say "if you are over 80 you can't fly a plane", "if you wear glasses you can't fly a plane", "you can't fly drones if they are out of LOS".

That said, yes, indeed the FAA is the sole regulator of the air space but that's not the issue I don't believe.

 

[ianwood]

I agree, but what about that guy who went to jail flying around a Naval Yard? Also 2 guys busted for night flying in LA. I think their court date is about now.

Not saying the local laws won't be enforced. They will. They need to be appealed to higher courts.

the state and local governments and municipalities can say "if you are over 80 you can't fly a plane", "if you wear glasses you can't fly a plane", "you can't fly drones if they are out of LOS".

No. They cannot say this. They can try but they will be sued.

 

[Jussaguy]

Not saying the local laws won't be enforced. They will. They need to be appealed to higher courts.

That might be true but your assertion that the FAA is the only body that can tell us what to do with our aircrafts, be it drones, planes, choppers, or flying saucers, they control the airspace and in fact they only draw up laws to be enacted by the house and senate.

Then on the state level there are also laws that are drawn up like the one in the OP and they become law once they are enacted.

The FAA is the sole body that controls the AIRSPACE but not everything else that has to do with air.

I will ask my brother who is actually a constitutional lawyer. I am not 100% but I do know that the FAA does indeed control the air and nobody else, that is true, but I do believe that the state and local municipalities can enact laws too that don't impede on those laws.

They can't overwrite the law and make something the FAA says is not okay, okay but they can go further than the FAA. I THINK.

Not saying the local laws won't be enforced. They will. They need to be appealed to higher courts.



No. They cannot say this. They can try but they will be sued.

That's right. If a lower judge rules against the law or deems it unconstitutional, they can appeal it to the state superior court and then if it goes even higher to the Supreme Court (it won't in either regard by the way) then SC can decide if something is constitutional or not, that is their only job.

So to be clear. Laws are made by the state that MUST adhere to the constitution. If it is unconstitutional, than the higher courts will agree to hear it and make judgement and set precedent but there is really nothing here that has to do with constitutional law.

The state could ban drones completely if they wanted to and there is no constitutional right for us to have a drone. Attach a gun to it and you have a better shot of making it a constitutional issue.

By the way, the medical marijuana act here in California is a PERFECT example of a gray area. There is a body called the DEA which has decided that federally marijuana is illegal but the state and then some other states made it legal within the state to have weed and the government decided to not do anything about it. It was a gray area because of the DEA.

This is even less like that because the FAA hasn't made having a drone illegal and California is saying "yes it is".

If you're following my logic here the FAA=DEA and the FAA has made laws and CA has added on top of it. Like in Florida, up until just recently the penalty small possession of marijuana was exactly the same for having a small amount of cocaine or heroin which is farther reaching than the DEA and that was that way for a couple decades.

 

[ianwood]

Congress tells the FAA what to do and the FAA creates regulations to do it. It's pretty simple.

A city or state can prevent you from taking off or landing as that involves the ground and is within their jurisdiction. Once in the air, it is subject to FAA regulations. So all these local laws about flying near schools or VLOS or during the daytime are all subject to Federal preemption and subject to being thrown out in a higher court.

 

[Jussaguy]

Congress tells the FAA what to do and the FAA creates regulations to do it. It's pretty simple.

A city or state can prevent you from taking off or landing as that involves the ground and is within their jurisdiction. Once in the air, it is subject to FAA regulations. So all these local laws about flying near schools or VLOS or during the daytime are all subject to Federal preemption and subject to being thrown out in a higher court.

You may be right. I am not sure on this. I agree with you that the FAA is the sole governing body of the airspace. In fact, I am sure of that but I do believe that the state has the right to say what we can do with the things we put in the air. They can't close or open air space and stuff like that but they can say that you are not allowed to fly a drone UNLESS X or Y. I am not 100% sure but I think the DEA example is a good one.

Also, I think you have it backwards. I believe, again am not sure that it is in fact the FAA that tells congress to enact laws because that is what they do. I believe the FAA gives laws to be enacted or not to congress, not the other way around. Again, I think.

 

[snowghost]

It might well be that some of this could be thrown out by an appeal, but in the meantime you could 1) be arrested, 2) have your Phantom confiscated, 3) be fined. That's why it'd be nice if we had some way to collectively lobby without being test cases for the police and courts.

edit: Update to one of the busted guys

Man Charged With Violating LA Drone Law Was Making Safety Video, Attorney Says

 

[ianwood]

You may be right. I am not sure on this. I agree with you that the FAA is the sole governing body of the airspace. In fact, I am sure of that but I do believe that the state has the right to say what we can do with the things we put in the air. They can't close or open air space and stuff like that but they can say that you are not allowed to fly a drone UNLESS X or Y. I am not 100% sure but I think the DEA example is a good one.

Also, I think you have it backwards. I believe, again am not sure that it is in fact the FAA that tells congress to enact laws because that is what they do. I believe the FAA gives laws to be enacted or not to congress, not the other way around. Again, I think.

Again and for the last time, only the FAA can regulate something that is in the air despite any number of local laws that may suggest a city or state can do so. However, one can still be charged under local laws that overreach their authority and have to be challenged to be overturned.

And the FAA creates regulations based on the guidance of laws passed by Congress. Please see the FAA Modernization Act of 2012 and the AIRR bill currently in Congress.

Speculation is fine but please refrain from doing so excessively.