Local County Park Unlawfully attempting to regulate drones

[jacuzzibusguy]

I"m a longtime Mavic Pilots member, but new here on PP.

Michigan has a UAS preemption law that prohibits local units of government from regulating the use or ownership of drones which reads in pertinent part:

...a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft....

A group of us have spent the past 5 months engaging in diplomatic options like email, phone calls, county meetings etc. At least one person was arrested and issued a citation for a completely lawful flight in the park, a citation that was thrown out by the prosecutor. The county refuses to back down and is continuing to thumb their nose at the Michigan Legislature.

We have scheduled a picnic/drone fly-in at one of these parks for next sunday, April 7th at 2pm. If you are local to Michigan, your presence is requested, even if you don't plan to fly.

 

[Just_nick]

Sue them in civil court for harassment, with the total amount attempting to be collected in the millions of dollars range. You have the law on your side and they're attempting to violate your rights.
What you're doing won't stop them, but emptying their pockets will very quickly end their nonsense.

 

[MotorCycle-Man]

IF........i was much closer..... You sure could Put my name on the list to be their...however im 700+ miles away.

 

[MapMaker53]

I'm curious. Can you provide a link to the entire law?

 

[Starz]

Post results please after the big event!!!!

 

[jacuzzibusguy]

I'm curious. Can you provide a link to the entire law?

MCL - Section 259.305 - Michigan Legislature

legislature.mi.gov

Sec. 5.
(1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
(2) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned aircraft systems by the political subdivision within the boundaries of the political subdivision.
(3) This act does not affect federal preemption of state law.
(4) If this act conflicts with section 40111c or 40112 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.40111c and 324.40112, those sections control.

 

[jacuzzibusguy]

here is the park rule:

Section P910615-Aircraftand DronesNo person shall, upon the property administered by the Commission:Make any ascent or descent,operate , or possess any balloon, airplane, parachute, drone,manned or unmanned aircraft onCommission properties or waters, except in designatedareas,without first obtaining written permission from the Commission or except as may be necessary in the event of an emergency.Violation of this Park Rule is a Misdemeanor.

 

[MapMaker53]

That's quite a broad pro-UAS law Michigan has there. Seems like the County is in fact overstepping state law. I'll be interested to know what the result is after the protest. I would recommend notifying the local and national news of the event to get some coverage. And also provide them highlighted copies of the law.

 

[jacuzzibusguy]

That's quite a broad pro-UAS law Michigan has there. Seems like the County is in fact overstepping state law. I'll be interested to know what the result is after the protest. I would recommend notifying the local and national news of the event to get some coverage. And also provide them highlighted copies of the law.

Michigan is a great state for uas! You can fly in any state or local park anywhere , as long as the flight is not prohibited by the FAA.

 

[MotorCycle-Man]

Sounds like a WHOLE BUNCH of couch tatters with calluses on their hand from holding the TV remote all day long and that have NOT got a thing to do but mess with those that love to be outdoors and FLY a Drone

 

[mdasbach]

I am in Oakland County and might be able to attend. Can you tell me what park, or send me a private email on the place and time? Thanks.

 

[jacuzzibusguy]

I am in Oakland County and might be able to attend. Can you tell me what park, or send me a private email on the place and time? Thanks.

 

[trcsmith]

IF........i was much closer..... You sure could Put my name on the list to be their...however im 700+ miles away.

Same here.

 

[Drestin Black]

Michigan is a great state for uas! You can fly in any state or local park anywhere , as long as the flight is not prohibited by the FAA.

Ok. Wait. Am I reading you right? I can fly anywhere in the state of MI not prohibited by the Federal AA?

Like, say, a metro park? As recently as two years ago I was told in no uncertain terms, cannot take off or land in a metro park (Stoney Creek, to be specific)

 

[ribjig]

Michigan is a great state for uas! You can fly in any state or local park anywhere , as long as the flight is not prohibited by the FAA.

Why did MI turn out to be non-restrictive for UAS?
What other states are non-restrictive to same degree?
Any easy path for turning restrictive states into non-restrictive states?

 

[jacuzzibusguy]

Ok. Wait. Am I reading you right? I can fly anywhere in the state of MI not prohibited by the Federal AA?

Like, say, a metro park? As recently as two years ago I was told in no uncertain terms, cannot take off or land in a metro park (Stoney Creek, to be specific)

It is my understanding that the metro parks have since changed their stance on drones and now allow them in all of the parks.

 

[xspwhite]

You cant just fly drones around the parks. Its dangerous.

 

[bhartwell]

I’m am glad to see some push back against unreasonable restrictions. To many people either don’t care, don’t want to make waves, actually agree that we should restrict drones from most public places or are to lackadaisical to do anything. Inertia has a great deal of power it seems.

What surprised me the most was how little support there is for appropriate, fair-use, fair-access drone regulation even on these forums, where I would assume the population would be generally biased towards fair-use advocacy and not unreasonable restrictions.

Yet, when posts come up either requesting help in pushing back, or highlighting groups that are pushing back, I see more support for the bans then for the groups advocating change. Even some of the moderators, i..e BigAl, seem more inclined to resist drone fair-use advocacy and equal access, and more likely to criticize attempts at changes in these areas.

Seems very odd.

 

[Zzyzx]

Why did MI turn out to be non-restrictive for UAS?
What other states are non-restrictive to same degree?
Any easy path for turning restrictive states into non-restrictive states?

Oregon (where I live) has pretty much exactly the same state statue:

" 837.385 Preemption of local laws regulating unmanned aircraft systems. Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft systems is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. Except as expressly authorized by state statute, a local government, as defined ORS 174.116, may not enact an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft systems or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft systems."

And yet, we also have the same problem with at least two local park & rec districts, and at least one city, enacting local regulations restricting drone operations.

I love the idea of the fly-in! Good luck, I can't wait to see what happens.

 

[Nelson1049]

Well, parks can be persuaded to change their regulations when given sufficient information and challenged as to why they restricted UAVs from the park. I previously tried to fly in a public park in Columbia, SC and was told that it was not allowed. This is a park that sells yearly passes to the park and requires you to sign an agreement that you will obey all posted rules. I asked where the rule was posted and nobody could tell me. It was not posted in the park, not posted on the web site, etc.

I suggested that an unposted rule was unenforceable since it was not really a rule and potentially left people wide open to discrimination. I started with the park manager, them went to the park supervisor's office, and said that I was ready to go to the Park Commission with the dispute. I also pointed out that the park assumed much more potential liability for other activities allowed in the park and asked if liability was their primary concern. I also suggested in writing how any potential liability could be mitigated.

I spent several weeks educating the park officials with current FAA regulations, drone operations, and provided a drone for them to actually see. I then got a request to meet with the park staff and work up some acceptable rules governing take off/landing in the park. I essentially wrote a general set of rules that were easy to understand as well as enforce and was told that they would be submitted to the Park Commission for action.

The entire process took close to three months, but I received a hone call last week telling me that I could now take off/land in the park at the site I initially suggested. I made my first legal flight last Saturday and nobody even challenged me even though the rules have not been officially posted.

Take offs/landings in a park can be accomplished if you are patient, have logic on your side, volunteer to help set location and rules. IMO, the effort was worth it and I can now fly in a very nice area near my home.

Nelson