“On December 19,2016, Newton’s city council enacted Section 20-64 of the City
of Newton Ordinances, entitled Pilotless Aircraft Operation (the “Ordinance”). The Ordinance relates to small unmanned aircraft and their use in the national airspace system,'” says the complaint. “This is an action …seeking declaratory judgment that the Ordinance is preempted by federal law, violates Plaintiffs statutory rights of navigation, and violates Plaintiffs rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Massachusetts Privacy Act, M.G.L. C. 214 §1B.”
The ordinance that Singer refers to is certainly prohibitive to drone flight. It is in parts redundant with existing federal regulations, requiring that drone operators not fly beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) or interfere with manned and emergency aircraft. However, the city went much further than needlessly restating federal requirements. Among other restrictions, the ordinance requires that all drone operators register with the City Clerk for a $10 fee; not fly over homes at an altitude lower than 400 feet without express permission of the homeowner; and not fly over any city property or sporting event without prior permission from the city. In addition to all of the above, the ordinance lists 3 different types of permits that may be required (individual, educational, or event) to fly in the city’s green space.
The Plaintiff in the case, Dr. Michael Singer, has issued a statement on the suit: “On January 17th I filed a federal lawsuit challenging a City of Newton ordinance against unmanned aircraft. As a physician and inventor, I believe that commercial unmanned aircraft will provide transformative benefits in people’s lives, and that this technology deserves appropriate freedom to develop within the bounds of a civilized society,” says the statement. “I believe that our nation’s aviation experts at the FAA are more qualified than local politicians to regulate unmanned aircraft. The skies over Newton, only miles outside of Boston’s Logan Airport, include some of the busiest and most complex airspace in the country. For Newton to claim control over some of this airspace sets a dangerous precedent.”
Singer also says that the ordinance appears to be written so as to have unintended consequences, pointing out the absurdity that in its current form the law “appears to require children with rubber band-powered model airplanes to register with the FAA, register with the City Clerk,and pay the city a $10 fee. Children have played with toys such as these for over 90 years, and our community has never had a problem with them.”
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
TWITTER:@spaldingbarker
Subscribe to DroneLife here.
The situation with drones and various government entities is getting absurd. I am enclosing a letter that I sent to the FAA about a drone request that I filed (sent in December 2016) to fly along the NC shore. As of this date, I have not gotten any response from DC. The Newton situation involving Dr. Michael Singer is unparalleled in unwarranted restriction and I totally support his suit! I am now considering reversing this scenario and filing formal complaints against pilots who fly their small private planes over residential area under 1000 feet, and there are many (showing off!)!
January 11, 2017
Mr. Reggie Govan
FAA Chief Counsel
Office of the Chief Counsel
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591
(202) 267-3222 Telephone
(202) 267-3227 Fax
Re: Waiver addendum, FAA website errors and legal questions
Dear Mr. Govan:
On December 10 and 13 2016, I tried repeatedly to send a follow-up document to the FAA but the FAA would not accept the same due to my “computer not being registered” but I have a registration number. Moreover, my registered email and password are no longer being accepted by the FAA. Why?
My name is John W. and on December 8, 2016, I submitted to you a “Request a Waiver/Airspace Authorization” form to fly my drone in a specific coastal area of NC. In regards to the same, the following needs to be brought to your attention:
1- I applied as non-commercial and was directed by the FAA to adhere to PL 112-95, Section 336, but when I did, the web site took me right back to the original request form. Consequently, I filled out the standard “Request” form for a waiver;
2- Under section “Regulations subject to waiver” I checked “107.41 Operation in certain airspace,” but the FAA web site would not allow the same to hold and shifted my regulation subject to “operation over people.” I will be operating (in NC) over water and woodland not people and the FAA needs to correct this in their programming;
3- The FAA originally directed me to submit my waiver to the local/regional “Flight Standard District Office” which I did, i.e. Greensboro NC. Said office, and Mr. Tim C who was very helpful and gracious, advised me by telephone (and letter) that all waivers have to go through the main FAA office. I put together an unnecessary packet of 60 pages and recommend that your directions be clarified on this matter;
4- The status of the airport (“Class of airspace”) is in question. I think “P. R.” would be classified as a “D” but when I contacted them for help on this waiver they denied having a “class” and emphasized “we are private;”
5- In the cases of airspace being “Private,” should the FAA be involved in such waiver matters?
6- Upon initially (summer/fall of 2015) discussing with P.R. my desire to fly my drone and given open permission to do so, I learned that said residences around the airport fly their drones (non-commercial) right off the runway. Doesn’t such action preclude FAA involvement and the need for a waiver? And
7- Since flying drones in different locations and states (NY, PA and NC) I have become more cognizant of altitude and the breaching of altitude parameters by pilots that have been set by the FAA. Military planes fly over my one home along the coast and I quickly am aware of them being less than a 1000’ above my roof top. My question is – When I observe small aircraft being flown over residential areas at altitudes below 1000 feet, am I responsible for reporting the same? The other day I was flying my drone at 350’ southwest of my PA residence and a small plane flew over and came close to hitting my Autel drone. In addition, I have observed small planes flying 200 to 300 feet above mountain tops in PA (McKean County) and NY (Allegany County) a scenario that I consider worrisome.
Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you!
John
Flying for Hobby sake still requires a 10.00 permit and special permission to use public land each time?
A city does not have the authority to regulate air space period!
File a complaint with the FAA as well.
And don’t go throwing baseballs around in the parks either kid! People have been known to have been hurt when hit by one.
We have burned people to the stake in this state for far less reasons than a discussed here pal!