Welcome, Commercial Drone Pilots!
Join our growing community today!
Sign up

Only Commercial drone pilots allowed

R.Perry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
1,937
Reaction score
1,532
Age
75
Location
Coulterville, CA
One of the cities in my area now has a city ordnance that only certified 107 pilots are allowed to fly within the city limits and only for the purpose of commercial work.

This is interesting and I'm wondering if more cities will adopted restrictions such as these.
 
Before Part 107 became available our local city required a Section 333 Exemption to fly from city property but that went out the window when P107 became widespread and other companies were complaining they were "losing work" when they were legal to fly as well. It was a good time for our company though LOL! For a short while we were the only 333 in North Carolina.... we made BANK! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDSimpson
Before Part 107 became available our local city required a Section 333 Exemption to fly from city property but that went out the window when P107 became widespread and other companies were complaining they were "losing work" when they were legal to fly as well. It was a good time for our company though LOL! For a short while we were the only 333 in North Carolina.... we made BANK! :)

Yes, when you are the only one with the solution you can write your own ticket. I suppose I should explain. I was filming roadway in the Ceres area when the local police showed up. Asked for my 107 license and why was I flying there. That's when I was informed of their city ordinance.
 
Yes, when you are the only one with the solution you can write your own ticket. I suppose I should explain. I was filming roadway in the Ceres area when the local police showed up. Asked for my 107 license and why was I flying there. That's when I was informed of their city ordinance.
I guess as long as you're on city owned/managed property the city has that right but that's quite a reach IMHO.
 
Your correct, but I have a habit of not arguing with cops, most are have their own authority egos going on. I've also found that getting straight answers out of city, and state officials is also normally useless.
You once said that we are in the wild west as drone operations and legalities go and you are correct. People don't like change, or feel threatened by it. Politicians seem to respond to the discomfort of the masses, let's face it, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I bet you can't imagine how many complaints I heard about when I was crop dusting years ago, some people hated us, mainly the tree huggers, (Sierra club).
I do think commercial drone operation's are going to increase and as regs get well established I think it could become a lucrative field. We will just to wait and see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
It sounds like the officer may have had bad info. Municode Library
Oh wow some of these are real goofy:
No person shall operate any drone within 500 feet of any other privately-owned drone. No person shall operate any drone within 1,500 feet of any other publicly owned drone.
This isn't even really plausible to follow until Remote ID rolls out. Even then you might be out of range.

Also the City Manager can declare "No Fly" proclamations lol. Thanks Mr. Manager!
 
There is a proposed bill making the rounds in D.C. right now which discusses this very topic. It has to do with privacy somewhat, but more about how much airspace authority to grant to municipalities re: airspace/altitudes. It smells like, long term, some people are proposing to get the FAA out of the airspace management business below 400 feet and slowly pass that responsibility along to private industry and local government. This draft bill is rife with issues/concerns and my organization drafted a letter opposing this bill. Local/Critical Infrastructure, Remote ID, delivery UAS operating over critical infrastructure, and on, and on.

Right now, the only thing municipalities legally have control over is launch and recovery areas (safety, revenue stream, recreation vs. commercial, etc.). Ownership of the airspace above will be a sticky topic, but more prevalent, for the next 3 years at least. Privacy and airspace ownership...get your popcorn ready.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dougcjohn
Several cities have created their own... and when challenged tend to have no weight. Not that I'm suggesting an attitude to challenge and encourage legal or political arguments. I'd tend to "work with, not against" til no wiggle room in corner.

This City Reg started out basically duplicating FAA PT107 guidelines, almost same verbiage. Till the limitations, exceptions & fee sections.

The 500 ft Horz distance from a list of structures... some duplicating FAA & reconized, some enacted by city management that I would think likely not enforceable if challenged in Court. As mentioned above @KLAX , LZ yes, airspace questionable.

I'm not sure where the LEO got the PT107 only, only specific section for PT107 - Commercial, was pertaining to the "Business License" and need to purchase possibly multiple times or zones within City. That's a new one for me, hadn't seen per-city drone operations license fees. At first I took that as a City Pass to operate Commercial ops... a 1 Fee Lic to carry within City. But later got impression may be 1 per instance... which is concerning for those doing roof inspections, reality projects, etc.

My City currently has minimal sUAV articles within City ordinances & regs... but it's evident this will increase in both State & Federal. Hope it doesn't restrict so much it kills the industry below big enterprise shops.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
4,277
Messages
37,605
Members
5,969
Latest member
KC5JIM