Local City banning hobby drones to their own backyard.

ecolumbia999 · Jun 7, 2017

The city of Garfield banned flying drones under hobby rules to folks' own property - basically their own yards. I think more cities will continue down this path.

Here's the link to the article: City basically bans drones beyond backyard

For some reason the newspaper reported it was only ok to fly drones above 400' and not under.

I think more communities will go down this route and restrict flying under the hobby rules so it will not be allowed to fly over towns and cities.

WV. Rootman · Jun 7, 2017

Only in Jersey. The city Bans you to your yard and make you pay $70 to do that. Sorry, there IS NO WAY I WOULD EVER LIVE IN THAT STATE. TOO many harsh, weird laws.Frank Sinatra was born in NJ. But sang New York New York because he wanted out of Jersey.

mrtibbs · Jun 7, 2017

This article reads bogus ...400 and above?..who wrote this a 8 year old? ...did they not read the FAA regulations? ...and $70 for a local registration??...I see this getting tossed out in a lawsuit

tcope · Jun 7, 2017

There is no link to the actual law. I consider this to be piss poor news reporting. At face value the news report appears to be incorrect. Not that the law in NJ would be legal, the news article states that the law requires a person to fly no less than 400' over their own property. How do you get to 400' unless you first fly lower than that. I suspect the news report is incorrect.

Mr. Salty · Jun 7, 2017

tcope said:
There is no link to the actual law. I consider this to be piss poor news reporting. At face value the news report appears to be incorrect. Not that the law in NJ would be legal, the news article states that the law requires a person to fly no less than 400' over their own property. How do you get to 400' unless you first fly lower than that. I suspect the news report is incorrect.

Well, aren't airplanes supposed to stay above 500 feet? But they still have to take off and land.

I suspect in this case, neither the city councilman who wrote the law nor the reporter covering the city council know what they're talking about when it comes to drones.

Older_Man · Jun 7, 2017

I didn't leave anything in jersey,havn't been there and have no desire to go to that cesspool !.

Rocktopper · Jun 7, 2017

New Jersey has some good points. It has roads leading out of it. It also sucks so hard it keeps California from falling in the ocean.

Older_Man · Jun 7, 2017

^ I like the way you think.

WV. Rootman · Jun 7, 2017

Older_Man said:
I didn't leave anything in jersey,havn't been there and have no desire to go to that cesspool !.

First, I know some wonderful people from Jersey. They have to visit me, because if I entered that state they would arrest me for what I carry on me. One of those things isn't even considered a weapon in W.V.
As for Tx. and N.J. they are farther apart in ideology than in miles!

tcope · Jun 7, 2017

Mr. Salty said:
Well, aren't airplanes supposed to stay above 500 feet? But they still have to take off and land.

I suspect in this case, neither the city councilman who wrote the law nor the reporter covering the city council know what they're talking about when it comes to drones.

In my experience that 400' comes from the _thought_ that the FAA has a rule against flying higher than 400'. Put this together with the second mistake, that local communities are allowed to make any laws that don't trump FAA regs and you get what this city is doing. That is, they _think_ they have the means to regulate airspace as long as it does not interfere with FAA regulations. This probably comes from some idiot in their ranks that read about other cities doing this same thing so they think that they can do the same thing. Meanwhile... no actual thought or research goes into the law.

The result is an illegal law that the city can now use to harass people into not flying drones. Most likely it will never actually be enforced, they will just allow the police to threaten people with the law and whatever money they can line their coffer with in the meantime can be used to buy pizza on Friday for their meetings.

Duchunter · Jun 7, 2017

They can make all the rules they want but they arent enforceable. No municipality can make a law that trumps federal law. If federal law says you have the right to flying that airspace then there is absolutely nothing new jersey or anyone else can do about it. You may have to launch from your property but they have no jurisdiction over the airspace above their city. Suppose some city decides they don't want airliners flying above them so they make a law saying airliners can't fly here. They would get laughed out of federal court and the same applies here.

Duchunter · Jun 7, 2017

They posted this saying that'd this gives them the authority to regulate airspace:
AA regulations allow municipalities to set their own codes for recreational flyers or hobbyists. In the FAA regulations it states operators must abide by "a community-based set of safety guidelines" if set locally.

First off "community based safety guidlines" means the AMA or the the model aviation community. In no way does that mean some city in new jersey can ban hobby aviation. Second,From what I understand this is a proposed bill that has not and likely won't be passed. This has in no way gone into effect and even if it did all you gotta do is get a 107 license and any hobby laws won't apply to you.

Mr. Salty · Jun 7, 2017

Duchunter said:
From what I understand this is a proposed bill that has not and likely won't be passed. This has in no way gone into effect and even if it did all you gotta do is get a 107 license and any hobby laws won't apply to you.

According to the story it has passed and is now a city ordinance.

Duchunter · Jun 7, 2017

Mr. Salty said:
According to the story it has passed and is now a city ordinance.

I was referring to Feinstein's bill giving states the authority to govern hobby aviation. The faa is pissed that they can't make laws concerning hobby aviation so they want to tell the states what laws to create so they make the laws without actually making the laws. If states can't make laws concerning hobby aviation then I have no idea why some city in nj thinks they have some authority that states don't even have at this point. Their ordinance isn't worth the paper its printed on and God help them if they try to enforce it. Their entire argument is based on their interpretation of the faa' hobby aviation safety guidelines. They think the faa has given them the green light to create "community based safety guidelines" when that is not even remotely close to what the faa was referring to. Their $70 registration fee is even more of a joke. I'm sure wears all familiar with no taxation without representation. I think this falls into that category.

Duchunter · Jun 7, 2017

They are about to spend some serious money defending their unlawful ordinance and they can not win this fight.

WV. Rootman · Jun 7, 2017

Would it have been better if we were still under faa registration requirements? We wouldn't have every little town making it's own rules. I thought is was kinda cool showing my license and saying I am regulated by the Faa. I am under their jurisdiction.

microlinux · Jun 7, 2017

Duchunter said:
They are about to spend some serious money defending their unlawful ordinance and they can not win this fight.

They aren't going to spend any money defending the ordinance unless a private citizen spends serious money to bring it to court, unfortunately.

I don't know that the FAA would really have any objection to this since it doesn't seem to affect safety of the NAS. Not that I think the ordinance is good or logical, but the FAA doesn't care about our "rights" to fly a drone - the only thing it cares about is safety.

Duchunter · Jun 7, 2017

microlinux said:
They aren't going to spend any money defending the ordinance unless a private citizen spends serious money to bring it to court, unfortunately.

I don't know that the FAA would really have any objection to this since it doesn't seem to affect safety of the NAS. Not that I think the ordinance is good or logical, but the FAA doesn't care about our "rights" to fly a drone - the only thing it cares about is safety.

OK but if the faa can't make hobby aviation laws then how can they give someone else the authority to do so? They can not and this city's argument is that the faa gave them the authority to make these rules and that's just not possible.

microlinux · Jun 7, 2017

Duchunter said:
OK but if the faa can't make hobby aviation laws then how can they give someone else the authority to do so?[

My understanding is that the FAA can't make hobby laws because congress specifically forbade them from doing so. AFAIK, that only applies to the FAA. Regardless, the only thing they care about is safety.

Duchunter · Jun 7, 2017

My argument is that we all have the right to use the airspace ANYWHERE except for nfz's or tfr's and the faa is the only governing body to issue such flight restrictions. Some podunk city can't just decide that you can't use the airspace above their city. They absolutely can not. They can not tax you for flying in that airspace either. They have no authority to do so. They are trying to make a law that governs space that they have no authority to govern, PERIOD!