Yesterday the FAA issued a Fact Sheet regarding federal regulations on drone use and the need for states and localities to make sure that any legislation consider to be consistent with that.
The FAA noted in their introduction that increasingly state and local government are looking at regulations for UAS with 45 states considering restrictions. They also note that public comments received by the FAA express “concern about the possible impact of state and local laws on UAS operations.”
The document cites its “authority to regulate the areas of airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise at its source.” The operative word is “authority” and the FAA make clear they have it and explain why any state or municipal UAS laws need to follow the FAA.
They conclude:
Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the operation or flight of aircraft . If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating UAS in the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling the airspace and flight patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow. A navigable airspace free from inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system.
Frank Schroth is editor in chief of DroneLife, the authoritative source for news and analysis on the drone industry: it’s people, products, trends, and events.
Email Frank
TWITTER:@fschroth
One commercial drone question continues to burn in my above average-aged brain with regards to acceptable flying space. I live in a city being serviced by a somewhat large air-freight company
so I can understand the 5-mile rule in effect here. Nobody wants to see Billy Bob or Shaqueena trying out their Christmas drones anywhere near a runway..
My problem arises when the FAA feels the need to control everything above ground level eveywhere within the 5 mile radius of the airport. Does this rule prohibit me from making an aireal survey (for profit) in Bravo or Charlie airspace at an altitude of 300 feet in order to photograph the home for sale? As I understand it, the answer is YES. I just want to be able to take photos outside 2 or 3 miles of the airport center at below 300 feet.
By contrast, amatuer flyers can do whatever they want as long as they are below 400 feet, (around here anyways). And furthermore, as an FAA Commerically Licenced Remote UAS Pilot, I’m required to give FAA Tower 72 hours advanced notice, apply for a waiver, and wait for approval before performing such a flight. Perhaps we should also charge addmission to see this exceptionally-dangerous and death-defying feat of photography below a normal
treeline say, at 100 or 200 feet.
I may be a 59 year-old idiot, or the rule is uncool. Please weight in and say I’m unreasonable! We need a little more common equity in this matter. Are people with 5 miles of the airport not allowed to market their home as effectively as the owners of homes two blocks further away? FAA – PLEASE make some reasonable altitude adjustments in the case of low-altitude flying of drones. There is a high risk of cranial-
rectal-iversion issues here. Wouldn’t you agree?