“While the FAA has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the airspace above 500 feet, states can also regulate the airspace at lower altitudes.”
This is flat out wrong. The 500 ft threshold you mention in the article is urban myth.
State and local governments have considered legislation that purports to regulate drone flight, but if challenged in court, any such laws would be considered preempted by the federal government’s intent to “occupy the field,” and therefore be invalid. By federal statute, “[t]he United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States” (49 U.S. Code § 40103(a)(1)). The passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, (Senate Bill, Section 607(g)) confirms the federal government’s intent to continue to “occupy the field” of flight, thereby invalidating (through preemption) any state or local laws that purport to regulate it. [Dronelaw.com].
Paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 40102 of Title 49 of the United States Code gives the FAA exclusive responsibility for the National Airspace System which, according to the FAA starts as soon as the aircraft is airborne.
State and local governments may, however, regulate two things related to flight: They may regulate their own agencies’ drone flight operations; and; They may regulate the locations from which drones may be launched or landed.
That’s it. State and local governments cannot regulate drones in any other manner. They can of course use laws of general applicability (such as voyeurism or nuisance) that would apply equally to a drone if a drone happened to be the object used to violate that law, but they would be essentially meaningless since existing statutes would already cover those crimes regardless of whether they were committed with a drone. And by exclusion, such laws could inadvertently make the activity legal by other means.
It is well-settled that agencies do not possess inherent powers, but instead derive authority only as delegated by Congress. See Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986). It is therefore a fallacy to suggest that the FAA controls what people are permitted to do in every cubic inch of airspace above American soil simply by virtue of being the nation’s federal “aviation” agency. The fundamental airspace distinction identified in Causby continues to be reflected in the language of the current Federal Aviation Act. In the Federal Aviation Act, the section relating to Safety Considerations in Public Interest indicates that the FAA is authorized to “control[] the use of the navigable airspace and regulat[e] civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of
both of those operations.” 49 U.S.C. § 40101(d)(4) (emphasis added). The statute also provides that with respect to “Use of Airspace[,] The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1). (emphasis added). As the administrator acknowledged in the full briefing on this issue before Judge Geraghty, navigable airspace generally begins 500 feet above ground level, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(32) and prescribed in 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. Thus, even if Congress could authorize FAA regulation of activity in airspace below 500 feet without violating the principles in Causby, it has not done so. Rather, the FAA’s organic statue empowers the agency to regulate only the activity in “navigable airspace.” A broader grant of statutory authority to the FAA would require the nation to revisit the property rights demarcation addressed in the 1926 Air Commerce Act and Causby. You have admitted in your comment that state and local governments can regulate airspace lower than 500 feet, but merely suggest that this right is limited. We are in agreement there. They may regulate their own agencies’ drone flight operations; and; They may regulate the locations from which drones may be launched or landed. I sit on the board of a local municipality situated less than 400 yards from an airport. We have ultralight, drone, and small aircraft issues and proposed legislation/ordinances before us on a regular basis.
If there is an urban myth here, it is that the FAA doesn’t control airspace below 400 feet. Regulation 14 C.F.R. § 91.119 requires that aircraft used in commerce stay at 500 or more feet in altitude above rural areas and 1,000 feet above urban areas. The FAA takes the position that “there are no shades of gray in FAA regulations,” and, thus, anyone who wants to fly, manned or unmanned in the United States airspace needs some level of FAA approval.” Time will tell.
Looks like someone did some quick googling while writing for this …
“although smaller ones with tiny Photron FASTCAM viewer (FPV) cameras might be able to manage as much as 30 minutes.”
FPV stands for “First Person View”, not a random companies camera viewing software – Photrons PFV (Photron FASTCAM Viewer)
Wonder what else will be erroneous as I read down?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
“While the FAA has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the airspace above 500 feet, states can also regulate the airspace at lower altitudes.”
This is flat out wrong. The 500 ft threshold you mention in the article is urban myth.
State and local governments have considered legislation that purports to regulate drone flight, but if challenged in court, any such laws would be considered preempted by the federal government’s intent to “occupy the field,” and therefore be invalid. By federal statute, “[t]he United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States” (49 U.S. Code § 40103(a)(1)). The passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, (Senate Bill, Section 607(g)) confirms the federal government’s intent to continue to “occupy the field” of flight, thereby invalidating (through preemption) any state or local laws that purport to regulate it. [Dronelaw.com].
Paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of Section 40102 of Title 49 of the United States Code gives the FAA exclusive responsibility for the National Airspace System which, according to the FAA starts as soon as the aircraft is airborne.
State and local governments may, however, regulate two things related to flight: They may regulate their own agencies’ drone flight operations; and; They may regulate the locations from which drones may be launched or landed.
That’s it. State and local governments cannot regulate drones in any other manner. They can of course use laws of general applicability (such as voyeurism or nuisance) that would apply equally to a drone if a drone happened to be the object used to violate that law, but they would be essentially meaningless since existing statutes would already cover those crimes regardless of whether they were committed with a drone. And by exclusion, such laws could inadvertently make the activity legal by other means.
It is well-settled that agencies do not possess inherent powers, but instead derive authority only as delegated by Congress. See Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986). It is therefore a fallacy to suggest that the FAA controls what people are permitted to do in every cubic inch of airspace above American soil simply by virtue of being the nation’s federal “aviation” agency. The fundamental airspace distinction identified in Causby continues to be reflected in the language of the current Federal Aviation Act. In the Federal Aviation Act, the section relating to Safety Considerations in Public Interest indicates that the FAA is authorized to “control[] the use of the navigable airspace and regulat[e] civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of
both of those operations.” 49 U.S.C. § 40101(d)(4) (emphasis added). The statute also provides that with respect to “Use of Airspace[,] The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1). (emphasis added). As the administrator acknowledged in the full briefing on this issue before Judge Geraghty, navigable airspace generally begins 500 feet above ground level, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(32) and prescribed in 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. Thus, even if Congress could authorize FAA regulation of activity in airspace below 500 feet without violating the principles in Causby, it has not done so. Rather, the FAA’s organic statue empowers the agency to regulate only the activity in “navigable airspace.” A broader grant of statutory authority to the FAA would require the nation to revisit the property rights demarcation addressed in the 1926 Air Commerce Act and Causby. You have admitted in your comment that state and local governments can regulate airspace lower than 500 feet, but merely suggest that this right is limited. We are in agreement there. They may regulate their own agencies’ drone flight operations; and; They may regulate the locations from which drones may be launched or landed. I sit on the board of a local municipality situated less than 400 yards from an airport. We have ultralight, drone, and small aircraft issues and proposed legislation/ordinances before us on a regular basis.
If there is an urban myth here, it is that the FAA doesn’t control airspace below 400 feet. Regulation 14 C.F.R. § 91.119 requires that aircraft used in commerce stay at 500 or more feet in altitude above rural areas and 1,000 feet above urban areas. The FAA takes the position that “there are no shades of gray in FAA regulations,” and, thus, anyone who wants to fly, manned or unmanned in the United States airspace needs some level of FAA approval.” Time will tell.
Looks like someone did some quick googling while writing for this …
“although smaller ones with tiny Photron FASTCAM viewer (FPV) cameras might be able to manage as much as 30 minutes.”
FPV stands for “First Person View”, not a random companies camera viewing software – Photrons PFV (Photron FASTCAM Viewer)
Wonder what else will be erroneous as I read down?