A Call to Action

[Earnest Ward]

Many of you already know that (here in the U.S.) the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has twice this year introduced drafts of a Tort Law Related to Drones Act that would transfer authority for low altitude (200' AGL and below) airspace to state and local government and law enforcement agencies. (The first draft was quietly withdrawn when the FAA publicly rebuked the attempted power grab. But a revised proposal has now been put forth.)

And, you may be aware that the drone management software company, AirMap (among others), has voiced support for such a scheme. (In a LinkedIn posting earlier today AirMap stated, "Together, Azure - Microsoft's Cloud Computing Platform and AirMaps airspace management platform, hope to 'create technology that will allow state and local authorities to authorize drone flights and enforce local rules and restrictions' to help scale drone adoption within enterprises."

Privatization of the first 200' AGL of the NAS may no doubt result in a "pay-to-play" system and create a very lucrative opportunity for companies like AirMap. However, the patchwork quilt of local rules, restrictions, and fees that this "power grab" would create would be a nightmare for sUAS operators (professional and hobbyists alike), and would certainly stifle enterprise.

I encourage all drone pilots to contact the advocacy office of their sUAS organizations (be that the AMA or AOPA), their local FSDO office, the office of the FAA administrator, and their representatives in congress and voice their strong opposition to this privatization attempt. We have the safest National Airspace System in the world, and a national drone community (hobbies & professional) that is booming. Don't let the unfettered greed of a few ruin that.

 

[Mike Nevins]

Once again, I am opposed to local law enforcement enforcing laws they don't and won't fully understand. This is just another way to generate additional revenue. The FAA just needs to suck it up and get LAANC fully up and running at ALL airports and inforce the laws already on the books.

 

[Darren Gahan]

I agree. There are far more death and injuries on a daily basis on the roads and highways in a single hour in the US then there have been in the world since drones were invented. Yes, there needs to be something done. Airports have to deal with bird populations, wind shear and other safety related things. They now have to deal with drone related safety, but technology is advancing that should handle that aspect. If you let any form of local government deal with things, it will just cause discrimination, power grabbing and theft of money based on fear and an abuse of power. I am in Canada, but maybe the US should do something about guns and not drones. Admittedly it has been a couple of days since the last mass shooting in the US, but if local enforcement can't do anything to stop gun deaths, then they shouldn't be allowed to deal with air space regulations. The FAA probably doesn't want to deal with it and would like to pawn it off. In Canada I saw reports where they were trying to put fees associated with drone operation, but the fees were unrealistic and had nothing to do with safety if you looked at it from a larger perspective. Drones don't kill people; Idiots who abuse drones (or guns, or cars, etc) kill people.

 

[Bob]

That's right people wanting to do evil break the laws, which mean absolutely nothing to them. no law is going to keep you safe from people bent on breaking the rules. More people are killed by Vehicles than buy any guns any day of the week and it happens every day. Guns just make the news because it's political. The lawmakers have done nothing to stop the criminals only to try to take weapons from law-abiding citizens that are guaranteed this right by our 2nd Amendment which separates us from the rest of the countries and demonstrates difference of being a subject or a citizen. The rest of the world needs to stay out of our politics. We are just fine.

 

[Earnest Ward]

Once again, I am opposed to local law enforcement enforcing laws they don't and won't fully understand. This is just another way to generate additional revenue. The FAA just needs to suck it up and get LAANC fully up and running at ALL airports and inforce the laws already on the books.

To clarify - this issue has nothing to do with the FAA "sucking it up." (In fact, they've been quite outspoken in their opposition to this proposal.) This is about local and state politicians, tort lawyers, private sector commercial interests, lobbyists, and their allies in congress trying to privatize the first 200' AGL for commercial gain.

Case in point - Boulder City, NV has expanded the boundary of the municipal airport to encompass the entire town - and imposed a $30 per drone per day fee for drone hobbyists ($100 per aircraft per day for Part 107 operators.)

And, of course, if this regulatory "patchwork quilt" becomes reality, of course, companies like AirMap will make a bundle serving as go-between for state & local authorities and drone operators alike.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Many of you already know that (here in the U.S.) the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has twice this year introduced drafts of a Tort Law Related to Drones Act that would transfer authority for low altitude (200' AGL and below) airspace to state and local government and law enforcement agencies. (The first draft was quietly withdrawn when the FAA publicly rebuked the attempted power grab. But a revised proposal has now been put forth.)

And, you may be aware that the drone management software company, AirMap (among others), has voiced support for such a scheme. (In a LinkedIn posting earlier today AirMap stated, "Together, Azure - Microsoft's Cloud Computing Platform and AirMaps airspace management platform, hope to 'create technology that will allow state and local authorities to authorize drone flights and enforce local rules and restrictions' to help scale drone adoption within enterprises."

Privatization of the first 200' AGL of the NAS may no doubt result in a "pay-to-play" system and create a very lucrative opportunity for companies like AirMap. However, the patchwork quilt of local rules, restrictions, and fees that this "power grab" would create would be a nightmare for sUAS operators (professional and hobbyists alike), and would certainly stifle enterprise.

I encourage all drone pilots to contact the advocacy office of their sUAS organizations (be that the AMA or AOPA), their local FSDO office, the office of the FAA administrator, and their representatives in congress and voice their strong opposition to this privatization attempt. We have the safest National Airspace System in the world, and a national drone community (hobbies & professional) that is booming. Don't let the unfettered greed of a few ruin that.

AirMap is not our friend.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

To clarify - this issue has nothing to do with the FAA "sucking it up." (In fact, they've been quite outspoken in their opposition to this proposal.) This is about local and state politicians, tort lawyers, private sector commercial interests, lobbyists, and their allies in congress trying to privatize the first 200' AGL for commercial gain.

Case in point - Boulder City, NV has expanded the boundary of the municipal airport to encompass the entire town - and imposed a $30 per drone per day fee for drone hobbyists ($100 per aircraft per day for Part 107 operators.)

And, of course, if this regulatory "patchwork quilt" becomes reality, of course, companies like AirMap will make a bundle serving as go-between for state & local authorities and drone operators alike.

"Case in point - Boulder City, NV has expanded the boundary of the municipal airport to encompass the entire town - and imposed a $30 per drone per day fee for drone hobbyists ($100 per aircraft per day for Part 107 operators.) "
WTF?? The class D airspace is established by the feds not the city. And the city still cannot legally legislate airspace (ground yes, but not airspace).

 

[R Martin]

"Case in point - Boulder City, NV has expanded the boundary of the municipal airport to encompass the entire town - and imposed a $30 per drone per day fee for drone hobbyists ($100 per aircraft per day for Part 107 operators.) "
WTF?? The class D airspace is established by the feds not the city. And the city still cannot legally legislate airspace (ground yes, but not airspace).

All the more reason to avoid living or working or for that matter, providing any income to the local establishments in Boulder City, NV. They clearly don't want us there. I definitely don't need to operate their. As if I needed another reason to avoid that dump.....

 

[Mike Nevins]

I will stand by my original comment about the FAA. If the LAANC system worked like they (FAA) proposed, we would not have most of these issues. The FAA put the cart before the horse, and now their paying for it, or should I say we are.

 

[R Martin]

I will stand by my original comment about the FAA. If the LAANC system worked like they (FAA) proposed, we would not have most of these issues. The FAA put the cart before the horse, and now their paying for it, or should I say we are.

Its a work in progress. for those who are under LAANC, it apparently works pretty well. The FCTs need to be included in the fold on the next round and the bugs ironed out and then we can get away from the paper trail that is currently required for those of us not under the LAANC umbrella.