Alan Perlman

CA Bill Introduced - Drone Registration/Omnibus Negligence-prevention Enactment (DRONE) Act of 2016

Recommended Posts

Typical political propaganda. I wonder how much the guy or gal is paid to dream up these acronyms? I wonder why the same registration and insurance requirement is not required for golf carts and 4-wheelers (in most states)? Probably because they cannot fly? I believe we do need to stay organized to fight some of this stuff. Am I alone?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit - I do see you POV, but golf-carts aren't allowed on public roads. Nor are 4-wheelers without a license plate.

I am pro-regulation, proper training, licensing (of both the pilots and the UAV's themselves), testing and implementation.
I am against this to be done in a manner where it becomes unrealistic and unaffordable - favouring few against many.

What is needed is first a clear definition of the carious categories of RC aircrafts (and while we are at it - do address the land and water as well) and more importantly their uses. So for example small lightweight RC plane / helicopter used for hobby in designated areas and clearly defined airspace must be fully exempt. But a 7 kg multirotor with 4K camera used for commercial work in crowded public space must be "airworthy" and be flow in a regulated manner by a properly trained and licensed professional.

Every time someone brings this up (and how "drones" are dangerous) - I bring up land vehicles (just as you did). Cars kill ridiculous amount of people every day. Do we stop using them? No, of course not. But we have clearly defined categories (which exempt recreational use like your example above) and law / regulations in place. If you want to drive "normal" car on public road - you must be licensed to do so and the car must be roadworthy. If you want to use specialised vehicle - you need a special license and training. And so does that equipment. Would this prevent all accident? Of course not. But juts as with the cars - we have a compulsory 3-rd party liability insurance to use them in public. We can't prevent accidents from happening. But we can make sure we are ready to address the consequences and compensate any innocent victims.

Folks that want to use UAV's for recreational purpose - they should be allowed to do so under clearly defined guidelines - and similarly be exempt from these regulatory requirements. But the moment you step out of the recreational zone - you enter a world where things needs be regulated. But as I have said before - in a manner that makes sense and can be realistically implemented...

Just my two yen... ;o)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused by this.  The California lawyer proposing this insane legislation claims that drones must be insured and registered with physical or electronic "license plates."  I'm not sure if he's been paying attention, but the FAA already requires registration, which means it is already tracked at the federal level and this would require you to register twice.  Didn't the FAA already make it clear that no lower regulatory authority would trump federal regulations?  I definitely disagree with the insurance thing if you are flying recreationally.  I could see it being optional for recreational flyers but not mandatory.  I think that local governing bodies are waking up to the popularity of drone use and are trying to find a way to cash in on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a follow up to the insurance on cars thing... not all of the 50 states have compulsory insurance laws, there are many where it is perfectly legal to drive whilst uninsured, or only insured partly. this is one of the main reasons you see lots of out of state plates in certain states with stricter insurance laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FAA reasserted their authority to regulate the national airspace in their recent re-authorization bill. These locals are wasting their time and deluding themselves into thinking they have legal jurisdiction over our airspace and anything that flies. As a 333 operation, I have no problems with regulations to ensure safety and competency. However, it is madness for any state or local government to believe UAS operators are going to be forced to comply with 50 different state laws and a myriad of local ordinances. Seems like every other town council with nothing better to do is introducing drone ordinances and the process is out of control.

California's law, and all others, will only stand until challenged in federal court by the feds. Of course, it'll take a UAS operation with a few bucks to do that. I fully expect the first federal case resolution will make all state/local laws null and void.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.