Interesting new Florida law.....

Ed Haywood said:
The new Florida law is a 25 page bill addressing those issues. The drone restriction was just a small section of that.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I read through it. The drone section is quite small indeed and doesn't give much of a rationale for their banning them around schools.

It seems like 80%+ of the bill is about establishing a program for an armed guard and otherwise strong-pointing the campuses with a hodgepodge of procedures. Not sure what special interest whispered in their ear that drones are a concern.
 
Baked Potato said:
I think he meant sectionals
Click to expand...

Sectionals are charts, not maps, but let’s set this to the side for a second.

What regulation requires a UAV operator to solely use a sectional (or any other aeronautical chart, for that matter) to plan and execute a flight?
 
TCABM said:
What regulation requires a UAV operator to solely use a sectional (or any other aeronautical chart, for that matter) to plan and execute a flight?
Click to expand...

Please don't give anyone ideas...
 
TCABM said:
What regulation requires a UAV operator to solely use a sectional (or any other aeronautical chart, for that matter) to plan and execute a flight?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that's a point that nobody ever made.
 
Baked Potato said:
Seems to me that's a point that nobody ever made.
Click to expand...

The why did you bring up sectionals?

The point is 1) schools are marked on maps of many kinds and ; 2) there are plenty of tools available that aren’t a map or chart that contain GIS information suitable for an operator to use to plan and operate routes that avoid laterally or vertically just about any man-made permanent structure.

It ain’t rocket surgery we’re talking about.
 
Speaking as someone with a background vaguely related to security, I'm not surprised drone provisions were included in a larger bill about school security. Drones are a big concern to those responsible for protecting sites and events. Drone countermeasures are scarce and often ineffective. Having flights banned allows security guys to shrink the problem, because now they can treat any drone as potentially nefarious, rather than trying to differentiate between friendly and hostile activity.
I'm not saying it makes sense or is well thought out. Just that if you put a bunch of security experts in a room and asked them to come up with rules to protect a fixed site, drone restrictions would probably be on that list.
 
TCABM said:
The why did you bring up sectionals?

The point is 1) schools are marked on maps of many kinds and ; 2) there are plenty of tools available that aren’t a map or chart that contain GIS information suitable for an operator to use to plan and operate routes that avoid laterally or vertically just about any man-made permanent structure.

It ain’t rocket surgery we’re talking about.
Click to expand...
How many sources do you expect one to consult to determine the legality of a planned flight?

Will one be alterted to these locations while requesting a standard briefing? If they're not on a sectional, and not under a NOTAM, TFR, or listed as a prohibited or restricted airspace, what else should a pilot do? I'm not going to rely on Google maps to determine that my flight is lawful and defensable.
 
TCABM said:
Sectionals are charts, not maps, but let’s set this to the side for a second.

What regulation requires a UAV operator to solely use a sectional (or any other aeronautical chart, for that matter) to plan and execute a flight?
Click to expand...

I would guess eventually we'll see some sort of catch-all like "Each pilot in command drone operator shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight."
 
Ed Haywood said:
Speaking as someone with a background vaguely related to security, I'm not surprised drone provisions were included in a larger bill about school security. Drones are a big concern to those responsible for protecting sites and events. Drone countermeasures are scarce and often ineffective. Having flights banned allows security guys to shrink the problem, because now they can treat any drone as potentially nefarious, rather than trying to differentiate between friendly and hostile activity.
I'm not saying it makes sense or is well thought out. Just that if you put a bunch of security experts in a room and asked them to come up with rules to protect a fixed site, drone restrictions would probably be on that list.
Click to expand...
This was fun.

 
What about school aviation programs or clubs? Seems like a schoolyard would be an ideal location for school age kids to learn to fly drones safely and get interested in aviation in particular and STEM in general, under the tutelage of responsible adults.
 
Baked Potato said:
How many sources do you expect one to consult to determine the legality of a planned flight?

Will one be alterted to these locations while requesting a standard briefing? If they're not on a sectional, and not under a NOTAM, TFR, or listed as a prohibited or restricted airspace, what else should a pilot do? I'm not going to rely on Google maps to determine that my flight is lawful and defensable.
Click to expand...

If you’re operating under part 107, you have to maintain line of sight, no charts or any kind are required. See a school, avoid it. Want to plan a route? That’s likely going to be done on a computer with something like djiflightplanner as a .kml file.

If you’re Amazon or Percepto operating under a BVLOS waiver/summary grant, your route planning is already going to require the use of both aeronautical information and other terrestrial information not found on aeronautical charts to accomplish the mission.

Don’t overthink it.
 
TCABM said:
Huh?
ac910d0d81f2759e2ff0595c436fa451.jpg
Click to expand...
depending on the state you’re in, a homeschool home is considered a school, so there could be dozens more in that same area.
 
MauleSkinner said:
depending on the state you’re in, a homeschool home is considered a school, so there could be dozens more in that same area.
Click to expand...
That's the dumbest consideration ever. Change that. :D

That's like calling my house a hospital because I dispense medications a couple times a day.
 
172andyou said:
That's the dumbest consideration ever. Change that. :D

That's like calling my house a hospital because I dispense medications a couple times a day.
Click to expand...
No, it would be like calling your house a hospital if you were registered with the state as one.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, it would be like calling your house a hospital if you were registered with the state as one.
Click to expand...
Allowing homes to be registered as schools is the dumb consideration I was referring to.
 
Some states provide tax exemptions or supply funding for home schools, and some home schools avail themselves of public school resources like online courses, bands and chorales, athletics, etc. Often theses things require that the home school be registered.
 
Rheo said:
My kids attend a STEM-focused school, that includes classes that teach about drones and how to fly them, etc. We're not in FL, thank goodness, but would this mean that those sort of classes there would now have to go elsewhere to actually fly? There doesn't seem to be any carve-out for the students/school itself flying the drones... stupid!
Click to expand...
As someone who is going to start teaching aeronautical science classes at a Fl high school this year I checked into that and there is definitely a carve-out to allow that.
IMG_2323.jpeg
 
MauleSkinner said:
depending on the state you’re in, a homeschool home is considered a school, so there could be dozens more in that same area.
Click to expand...
The law states that no one may knowingly or willfully fly a drone over a school. I would think that if we are talking about the elementary school down the street that has a sign and a bunch of kids getting dropped off everyday the law would assume that you knew it was a school. The law probably wouldn’t assume that you knew that Karen down the street was operating a homeschool.
 
Wheels said:
The law states that no one may knowingly or willfully fly a drone over a school. I would think that if we are talking about the elementary school down the street that has a sign and a bunch of kids getting dropped off everyday the law would assume that you knew it was a school. The law probably wouldn’t assume that you knew that Karen down the street was operating a homeschool.
Click to expand...
Laws don’t generally assume anything…they either say it or they don’t. If they want to exclude certain schools, they would need to so state.

But the “knowingly and willfully” phrase means they can get away with it until they find out it’s a school.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Florida.
They also recently discontinued all continuing education requirements for professionals.
Click to expand...
I just heard about that today. It sucks.
My wife just renewed her veterinary license with the full complement of required CE. Then the law changed.
I'm told (not verified) that the reason is most people just signed up for the classes, signed in, then went off to see the sights. For staff, it was a paid vacation.
But if people are not meeting the standards, the solution is NOT to lower the standards, even if that is the current way things are done all over.
 
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper and simpler to just get rid of public schools there? Then no violence, no bullying, no peer pressure, no controversial subject matter, etc. The only thing you need to learn in primary education used to be math and reading, and these days that's not really a requirement anyway...or doesn't seem to be.
 
JOhnH said:
But if people are not meeting the standards, the solution is NOT to lower the standards, even if that is the current way things are done all over.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.

Other states don't have this problem. CE docs given out as you exit the room, other ways too.
I hate lowering the bar. Not good for the public and they are clueless about this fact.
 
JOhnH said:
But if people are not meeting the standards, the solution is NOT to lower the standards, even if that is the current way things are done all over.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the current continuing training does nothing to ensure, or even promote, practices in accordance with standards. If we want to enforce conformance to standards we'll need periodic requalification testing, and that's very different from what we have now.

But, is there really a pervasive problem with flagrant poor performance? Not that I've seen. If the present solution isn't doing any good, why not eliminate it? And if there isn't a problem, why replace it?
 
Half Fast said:
But, is there really a pervasive problem with flagrant poor performance?
Click to expand...
There is, HF. We see it and hear about it all the time.
It can be difficult to keep up with the fast pace of some professions where there are significant science advances almost weekly.
And some of us need to have regular exposure to what is new and better; or what is meeting the current standard of care.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
There is, HF. We see it and hear about it all the time.
It can be difficult to keep up with the fast pace of some professions where there are significant science advances almost weekly.
And some of us need to have regular exposure to what is new and better; or what is meeting the current standard of care.
Click to expand...

But these courses seldom do that, and while the technology advances must be learned for competitiveness, they’re rarely a matter of public safety. And as I showed above, engineers and many others are not relieved of the CE requirements anyway (post 13), so I think your argument is moot.

Furthermore, the science argument is inapplicable for many on the list such as barbers and cosmetologists, and only slightly applicable for others such as teachers.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Florida.
They also recently discontinued all continuing education requirements for professionals.
Click to expand...

This is really just a complete misstatement of fact.

First, it did not discontinue CE for all professions, only for some.

Second, it did not discontinue CE for all persons in those professions, only for those who have held a license for over 10 years with no disciplinary actions.

The main purpose of the bill was to require state licensing boards to allow distance learning for CE, replacing the current hodgepodge of policies. That seems like good government to me.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
And some of us need to have regular exposure to what is new and better; or what is meeting the current standard of care.
Click to expand...

The portion of the bill eliminating CE after 10 years does not apply to any medical profession.

Apparently Vets were included by mistake, but that will be amended in the next session.
 
Half Fast said:
.......
But, is there really a pervasive problem with flagrant poor performance? Not that I've seen. If the present solution isn't doing any good, why not eliminate it? And if there isn't a problem, why replace it?
Click to expand...
I wish I could click thumbs up three times!
the whole solution in search of a problem idea... and all of that​

I will say this though. I've seen a lot of examples throughout all sorts of trades of less-than-ideal something. Sometimes that something is knowledge, sometimes it's discipline, sometimes it's lack of caring, sometimes it's just the system not allowing enough "time" or whatever... Doctors certainly don't know everything and they don't seem to keep up with all the recent studies and papers, Sometimes doctors may know better but they are compelled by their employers or by the insurance companies to do or not do certain things, construction trades often cut corners, some hair stylists and barbers give just downright bad haircuts, etc...

The thing is though to your point... it's less than what I would call optimal results, but it's nearly always 'acceptable'...it's "ok" or good enough, AND I think you're spot on that in a lot of cases at least, the CE solution is not doing any good so why not simplify and eliminate it?
Hey, it might free these people up so that the ones that care can actually learn something on their own that is relevant to improve themselves!
 
The law would be a tool to be utilized with discretion. There are some security implications that I can think of in addition to the random stalker/ pedo type thought process.

Several years ago, we had a guy one neighborhood over who bought a drone and thought it would be cool to fly it into our neighborhood along our fences and into our back yards. This is well outside of "line of sight" and the first time it happened, people were kind of intrigued. He continued to do this for some time, which prompted a friendly visit from some of us to let him know this was an issue. He became aggressive and belligerent about it and increased his flights just to harass us. Since there were no laws on the books that could be enforced by local law enforcement regarding drone operations, we had to dig deeper into the laws. A video voyeurism type law was utilized to stop the repeated flights as the drone had a camera. Had we had some better regulation, it would have stopped earlier.

In Florida, you can't park within 30 feet of a rural mailbox between the hours of 0800-1800 but you don't see cars getting tickets and towed unless there is an issue. I presume that this new drone regulation allows for some discretion as well.
 
Last edited:
chemgeek said:
What about school aviation programs or clubs? Seems like a schoolyard would be an ideal location for school age kids to learn to fly drones safely and get interested in aviation in particular and STEM in general, under the tutelage of responsible adults.
Click to expand...
Do you really expect logic to enter into any of these wacky laws?
 
never confuse government thinking with logic and reason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top