California drones to be limited by regulating airspace above private property

NoHeat

NoHeat

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
5,025
Location
Iowa City, IA
Display Name
Display name:
17
I'm wondering whether any state or local government has previously regulated airspace.

A law seems to be in the works in the California legislature to regulate drones flying below 400 AGL above private property.

news story from ieee.org

excerpt:
The new anti-trespassing law would take drone control a step further, defining trespassing to include “operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace overlaying the property”—even if the drone isn’t taking pictures.
​
the bill

excerpt:
A person wrongfully occupies real property and is liable for damages pursuant to Section 3334 if, without permission, he or she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace, as defined in paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 42102 of Title 49 of the United States Code, overlaying the real property.

​
I notice that it mentions "below the navigable airspace". So does the federal government not care how the airspace below that is used, leaving it up to states to decide?
 
Last edited:
Well, there was this olive tree grove one time in California...
 
NoHeat said:
I'm wondering whether any state or local government has previously regulated airspace.

A law seems to be in the works in the California legislature to regulate drones flying below 400 AGL above private property.

news story from ieee.org

excerpt:
The new anti-trespassing law would take drone control a step further, defining trespassing to include “operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace overlaying the property”—even if the drone isn’t taking pictures.
​
the bill

excerpt:
A person wrongfully occupies real property and is liable for damages pursuant to Section 3334 if, without permission, he or she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace, as defined in paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 42102 of Title 49 of the United States Code, overlaying the real property.

​
I notice that it mentions "below the navigable airspace". So does the federal government not care how the airspace below that is used, leaving it up to states to decide?
Click to expand...


Typical California thinking....:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
The "drone airspace" above my home is regulated by 12 ga.

Problem solved
 
Skyscraper said:
I don't get what your beef is with this, seems like they're protecting peoples personal privacy and property :dunno:
Click to expand...

It is a slippery slope....

Once the state succeeds in claiming airspace, then next is fees for planes crossing over the state...

For a state as broke as Calif is... They will try and suck every dollar out of any scam... IMHO....
 
N801BH said:
It is a slippery slope....

Once the state succeeds in claiming airspace, then next is fees for planes crossing over the state...

For a state as broke as Calif is... They will try and suck every dollar out of any scam... IMHO....
Click to expand...

Isn't that using a classic logical fallacy to make your point?

The states not claiming airspace, their protecting your privacy in the airspace over your property.
 
NoHeat said:
I'm wondering whether any state or local government has previously regulated airspace.

A law seems to be in the works in the California legislature to regulate drones flying below 400 AGL above private property.

news story from ieee.org

excerpt:
The new anti-trespassing law would take drone control a step further, defining trespassing to include “operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace overlaying the property”—even if the drone isn’t taking pictures.
​
the bill

excerpt:
A person wrongfully occupies real property and is liable for damages pursuant to Section 3334 if, without permission, he or she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable airspace, as defined in paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 42102 of Title 49 of the United States Code, overlaying the real property.

​
I notice that it mentions "below the navigable airspace". So does the federal government not care how the airspace below that is used, leaving it up to states to decide?
Click to expand...

I noticed that Subdivision (b) of the bill, which is the portion you quoted, gives the wrong US Code section for the definition of navigable airspace. Subdivision (a) has the correct one, which is 40102. I sent a note to the bill's author, informing him of the typo.

Here is the US Code section referred to:

"navigable airspace" means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft. ​

The article claims that the proposed legislation would take effect below 400 feet, but under the regulations referred to in the definition, the dividing line would vary depending on whether it was a congested, uncongested, or sparsely populated area, whether aircraft were in cruise, taking off, or landing, whether it was a helicopter or fixed wing, etc., so using that definition would make it difficult to determine whether the law was being violated or not.
 
That's an interesting point, Richard. If it is complicated to determine the upper limit of the airspace regulated by the state because it depends on lots of stuff, then I'd guess that there's no hope that a police officer or sheriff's deputy could possibly figure out whether somebody has trespassed. A judge in a civil case, maybe, but it wouldn't be easy.
 
Palmpilot said:
The article claims that the proposed legislation would take effect below 400 feet, but under the regulations referred to in the definition, the dividing line would vary depending on whether it was a congested, uncongested, or sparsely populated area, whether aircraft were in cruise, taking off, or landing, whether it was a helicopter or fixed wing, etc., so using that definition would make it difficult to determine whether the law was being violated or not.
Click to expand...
If that were valid, the FAA couldn't regulate flight operations below 400 feet, and I don't think that would work. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead, 272 F. Supp. 226 (E.D.N.Y. 1967) and 398 F.2d 369 (1968), and the earlier basis Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Village of Cedarhurst, 238 F.2d 812 (2 Cir. 1956). Since the regulations for helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft allow operation below the normal minimum altitudes, including below 400 feet, I think that 400-foot line could be viewed as attempting to prohibit operations not prohibited by the FAA but within the FAA's purview - and I think that would violate Federal supremacy.
 
It is a slippery slope....

Once the state succeeds in claiming airspace, then next is fees for planes crossing over the state...

For a state as broke as Calif is... They will try and suck every dollar out of any scam... IMHO....


> "Isn't that using a classic logical fallacy to make your point?"

Yes. It's typical Wyoming thinking.

*****************

I see recently the creation of programmed "no fly zones". Not all the drone manufacturers have signed up but two of the major ones have and the rest will/may follow. It's supposed to work as the national "do not call" database does. If an address is in the database, the drone software will not allow the drone to intrude into the airspace above that address. Good idea against casual intruders but doubt it will have any impact on those with specific intent.
 
Skyscraper said:
I don't get what your beef is with this, seems like they're protecting peoples personal privacy and property :dunno:
Click to expand...

If you're worried about that, the first thing you should do is address it at the county and state levels. Your house and property are routinely photographed by very expensive, high res cameras for tax and law enforcement purposes. I'm sure they have found some interesting things

As this relates to pilots, right now the only agency that controls any airspace is the FAA. This is great because we can fly anywhere in the USA and all the laws are the same.

Contrast that with gun laws. My right to own and transport guns is actually constitutionally protected. However if I want to put my rifle, a handgun and some ammo in my car and drive up to ohio to hunt with my cousins, I have to consult the gun laws for each state I travel through to make sure I am not carrying too much ammo, an illegal gun, illegal ammo, a magazine with too much capacity, and the guns and ammo are secured in the right fashion.

To make it more difficult, many gun laws in each state have grey areas and its super difficult to find the laws, few states publish them in an easy to find and read fashion. You have to scour the internet and hope what you are reading is correct. If you get this wrong, something that is perfectly legal and routine in one state could easily get you a felony conviction and years in prison in another.


DO you want flying to be like that!!
 
Last edited:
I often wonder why California doesn't secede from the Union. They seem to like doing things their own way, and I doubt anyone in the other 49 states would object very much.

By the way, I often wonder the same thing about New York...

Rich
 
dell30rb said:
If you're worried about that, the first thing you should do is address it at the county and state levels. Your house and property are routinely photographed by very expensive, high res cameras for tax and law enforcement purposes. I'm sure they have found some interesting things



As this relates to pilots, right now the only agency that controls any airspace is the FAA. This is great because we can fly anywhere in the USA and all the laws are the same.



Contrast that with gun laws. My right to own and transport guns is actually constitutionally protected. However if I want to put my rifle, a handgun and some ammo in my car and drive up to ohio to hunt with my cousins, I have to consult the gun laws for each state I travel through to make sure I am not carrying too much ammo, an illegal gun, illegal ammo, a magazine with too much capacity, and the guns and ammo are secured in the right fashion.



To make it more difficult, many gun laws in each state have grey areas and its super difficult to find the laws, few states publish them in an easy to find and read fashion. You have to scour the internet and hope what you are reading is correct. If you get this wrong, something that is perfectly legal and routine in one state could easily get you a felony conviction and years in prison in another.





DO you want flying to be like that!!
Click to expand...


I'm not worried about it, I applaud laws if they protect my privacy (as if there is such a thing these days).

I guess I'm confused on where you stand, federal laws as it applies to flying are good but state's laws as they apply to guns are bad?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
I often wonder why California doesn't secede from the Union. They seem to like doing things their own way, and I doubt anyone in the other 49 states would object very much.

By the way, I often wonder the same thing about New York...

Rich
Click to expand...


I wonder how that would affect the other 49 given how much Tech and Agriculture is sold to the rest of the country out of California (not even taking into consideration that we have 3 of the 5 largest ports bringing in imports). Something tells me that the state with the largest economy by far leaving the Union would have some pretty devastating effects on the rest of the country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Skyscraper said:
I wonder how that would affect the other 49 given how much Tech and Agriculture is sold to the rest of the country out of California (not even taking into consideration that we have 3 of the 5 largest ports bringing in imports). Something tells me that the state with the largest economy by far leaving the Union would have some pretty devastating effects on the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

Shhh! You're not supposed to let reality intrude on people's California-bashing! :lol:
 
Skyscraper said:
I wonder how that would affect the other 49 given how much Tech and Agriculture is sold to the rest of the country out of California (not even taking into consideration that we have 3 of the 5 largest ports bringing in imports). Something tells me that the state with the largest economy by far leaving the Union would have some pretty devastating effects on the rest of the country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh Geez......

We got that same BS with the financial meltdown and banks claiming
"to big to fail" crap........:mad2::mad2:....:(
 
California is now trying to have a Quad Copter user fee.... Interesting... all things in the sky below 400' are able to pay. Including kites!
 
N801BH said:
Oh Geez......

We got that same BS with the financial meltdown and banks claiming
"to big to fail" crap........:mad2::mad2:....:(
Click to expand...


Totally different situations and not even a logical comparison.

I can't help but laugh when I hear folks from all over crow that they'd love to watch my home state fall into the Pacific and think the rest of the 49 would be just fine. It really shows how little they understand about this little "Socialist hellhole". A vast majority of everything people buy in this country either come from or come through California.

But I'm not bitter about all the bashing of the Golden State, I'm here for a more perfect union...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Skyscraper said:
Totally different situations and not even a logical comparison.

I can't help but laugh when I hear folks from all over crow that they'd love to watch my home state fall into the Pacific and think the rest of the 49 would be just fine. It really shows how little they understand about this little "Socialist hellhole". A vast majority of everything people buy in this country either come from or come through California.

But I'm not bitter about all the bashing of the Golden State, I'm here for a more perfect union...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


It is a socialist hellhole, with the cost of living to match! If someone wanted me to move to CA, they'd better be prepared to double my salary, or I ain't going. I continue to wonder why companies base themselves there when it means they have to pay their employees so much more than they would elsewhere.

There are a lot of good things that come out of CA. Laws and regulations are not part of them....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
dans2992 said:
It is a socialist hellhole, with the cost of living to match! If someone wanted me to move to CA, they'd better be prepared to double my salary, or I ain't going. I continue to wonder why companies base themselves there when it means they have to pay their employees so much more than they would elsewhere.

There are a lot of good things that come out of CA. Laws and regulations are not part of them....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Silicon Valley, where I live, is a bastion of capitalism if ever I saw one. Salaries here do tend to be higher than in other parts of the country, due to the cost of living. A lot of that is due to real estate prices, because so many people want to live here.

But you're right: It's AWFUL here! Better stay away! :rofl:

(P.S. - Like you, I access the forum using equipment that was designed in California.)


Sent from my Hewlett Packard desktop computer, using Internet Explorer
 
Palmpilot said:
Silicon Valley, where I live, is a bastion of capitalism if ever I saw one. Salaries here do tend to be higher than in other parts of the country, due to the cost of living. A lot of that is due to real estate prices, because so many people want to live here.



But you're right: It's AWFUL here! Better stay away! :rofl:



(P.S. - Like you, I access the forum using equipment that was designed in California.)





Sent from my Hewlett Packard desktop computer, using Internet Explorer
Click to expand...


Quite! They think we're all hippies or liberal Hollywood A-listers.

Don't ruin the fun...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Palmpilot said:
Silicon Valley, where I live, is a bastion of capitalism if ever I saw one. Salaries here do tend to be higher than in other parts of the country, due to the cost of living. A lot of that is due to real estate prices, because so many people want to live here.

But you're right: It's AWFUL here! Better stay away! :rofl:

(P.S. - Like you, I access the forum using equipment that was designed in California.)


Sent from my Hewlett Packard desktop computer, using Internet Explorer
Click to expand...

Any many of these companies are moving much of the operations OUT OF CALIFORNIA to escape the anti business climate. The net loss of good jobs is staggering, so laugh while you can.

No, we know your not "Hollywood A listers" but just a misguided as them, and used by the powers that be.
 
This is just another stupid law to add to all the others in CA.

Is this actually going to stop some kid from flying his RC around, no
Id this actually going to stop some paparazzi from filming a celeb, nope

Just making laws to make laws, gotta love CA.
 
Anthony said:
Any many of these companies are moving much of the operations OUT OF CALIFORNIA to escape the anti business climate. The net loss of good jobs is staggering, so laugh while you can.
Click to expand...

I believe businesses should be free to locate their operations wherever they consider it advantageous to do so.

No, we know your not "Hollywood A listers" but just a misguided as them, and used by the powers that be.
Click to expand...

You're the one who's misguided.
 
James331 said:
This is just another stupid law to add to all the others in CA.

Is this actually going to stop some kid from flying his RC around, no
Id this actually going to stop some paparazzi from filming a celeb, nope
Click to expand...

It's only a proposed law at this point. I agree that if it passes, it probably will be difficult or impossible to enforce. And it may run into federal preemption issues, as others have pointed out.

Just making laws to make laws, gotta love CA.
Click to expand...

Politicians don't propose bad laws in your state?
 
Acrodustertoo said:
The "drone airspace" above my home is regulated by 12 ga.

Problem solved
Click to expand...

The only problem is that blasting your 12 ga. is illegal if you live somewhere a drone is likely to be. If you live in the middle of God's country i don't think you'll find many drones spying on you.
 
N801BH said:
Oh Geez......

We got that same BS with the financial meltdown and banks claiming
"to big to fail" crap........:mad2::mad2:....:(
Click to expand...

Contrary to what happened with the big banks, in California we voted to tax ourselves, and we solved the problem without a federal bailout.
 
N801BH said:
It is a slippery slope....

Once the state succeeds in claiming airspace, then next is fees for planes crossing over the state...

For a state as broke as Calif is... They will try and suck every dollar out of any scam... IMHO....
Click to expand...

Are there a lot of operators clamoring to buy "up to 400AGL" transit rights?

As one who lives in a class B SFC/100 airspace, I assume my flying a drone would actually be federally actionable as a Class B incursion. :D
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Texans might want to learn what their own state is up to:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-p...ty-much-opposite-every-other-states-drone-law
Click to expand...

From TFA:
"Nearly every state in the union has considered drone legislation in recent years—only Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin have not"
But let's not let that get in the way of the California bashing.

Temps are supposed to be in the 80's this weekend. Can't decide if we should go to the beach this weekend or up to Big Bear to play in the snow.
 
MikeS said:
I see recently the creation of programmed "no fly zones". Not all the drone manufacturers have signed up but two of the major ones have and the rest will/may follow. It's supposed to work as the national "do not call" database does...
Click to expand...

The national Do Not Call list doesn't work.
 
Palmpilot said:
Silicon Valley, where I live, is a bastion of capitalism if ever I saw one. Salaries here do tend to be higher than in other parts of the country, due to the cost of living. A lot of that is due to real estate prices, because so many people want to live here.



But you're right: It's AWFUL here! Better stay away! :rofl:



(P.S. - Like you, I access the forum using equipment that was designed in California.)





Sent from my Hewlett Packard desktop computer, using Internet Explorer
Click to expand...


I didn't say CA was all bad! I do like some things.

What I don't like:

1. Excessive regulations (for example attempting to ban sale of 100LL in the state)
2. Liberal politics
3. High taxes (property and state income tax)
4. Real estate that's literally 4-5x more expensive than where I live (Phoenix).

What I do like:

1. Silicon Valley, the products that come out of there, and the ridiculous $$$ they tend to pay in salaries/stock options.
2. The weather is decent, but so is the weather in AZ.
3. The landscape, but I think AZ actually has a better landscape.
 
I wouldn't mind living in northern Arizona. As for the liberal politics, I prefer living in states like that, although neither side of the political spectrum represents me on all issues. California has too many initiatives on the ballot, and I think being able to amend the state constitution on a simple majority is a huge mistake. The legislature does seem to listen to the general aviation lobby to some extent.
 
dans2992 said:
3. High taxes (property and state income tax)
Click to expand...

Property taxes aren't high, especially once you own, because your real estate will appreciate much faster than Prop 13 allows increases.

Of course, Prop 13 also allows corporate-held property to transfer without prop tax increases, so long as you sell the corporation, not the property. (Put your property in an LLC to take advantage of that loophole.)
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Property taxes aren't high, especially once you own, because your real estate will appreciate much faster than Prop 13 allows increases.

Of course, Prop 13 also allows corporate-held property to transfer without prop tax increases, so long as you sell the corporation, not the property. (Put your property in an LLC to take advantage of that loophole.)
Click to expand...

What incentive would there be to do that? If you sell the property, it's the buyer, not the seller, who will have to pay based on the increased valuation. Also, would the valuation go up to market value when you transfer it to the LLC?
 
Palmpilot said:
Contrary to what happened with the big banks, in California we voted to tax ourselves, and we solved the problem without a federal bailout.
Click to expand...

WOW....

Congrats, I didn't know California had paid off their 46 BILLION debt and addressed the pending 75+ BILLION unfunded liabilities like the Cal Pension fiasco......:eek:
 
Palmpilot said:
Also, would the valuation go up to market value when you transfer it to the LLC?
Click to expand...

No, you're selling an LLC, not a property. No change in value.

Same as selling an LLC, or a share in an LLC that owns an airplane. No change in ownership of the asset, so no tax hit.

The incentive of this structure is it makes the property more valuable because the taxes are kept (artificially) low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top