(1) A helicopter may be operated at a speed less than the minimum requirements prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided that each person operating the helicopter follows the routes or altitudes prescribed by the FAA specifically for helicopters. All assurances regarding the law in this blog are provided for educational purposes only, as well as to give you general information and understanding of the law. not providing specific legal advice. By using this blog site, you understand that there is no solicitation relationship between you and the blog editor. The blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. The reauthorization also addresses the issue of state and federal responsibilities with respect to drones in Section 373, which requires the Comptroller General (head of the Government Accountability Office) to investigate the regulation of small low-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle operations and the corresponding roles and responsibilities of the federal government. state, local, and tribal in regulating such activities, and report thereon to Congress. report. The report must address several issues, including “the scope of different jurisdictions, the gaps between them, and the level of regulatory consistency required to promote a financially viable unmanned aviation industry.” The GAO has not yet released the final version of the report. Property rights are governed almost exclusively by national and local laws. Arizona law professor Troy Rule, one of the first researchers to analyze drone-related property rights, notes, “Like the opaque legal rules governing low-level airspace, laws that delineate property rights on the surface could hardly be clearer.” 33 The land, Professor Rule explains, is property and these owners have the right to exclude intruders and other intruders. “However, the commons regime, which regulates high-altitude airspace, is in many ways the antithesis of the private property regime that applies to surface land: no one owns high-altitude space, and everyone is welcome to use it if they follow certain rules.” 34 Between terrestrial and high-altitude airspace lies an opaque and largely undefined area.
State and local governments can act to clarify landowners` rights in the area between land and high-altitude airspace.35 Enables federally compliant UAS operations. The law states that critical infrastructure owners or operators may apply to the FAA to prohibit or restrict the operation of UAS in the vicinity of critical infrastructure. Using a UAS in a way that endangers the lives or property of others is a disorderly person. It is a fourth-degree crime for a person to “knowingly or intentionally create or maintain a situation that endangers the security of a correctional facility by using an unmanned aerial vehicle system on or in the immediate vicinity of that facility.” Using a UAS to monitor a correctional facility is a third-degree felony. It also makes it a criminal offence to operate a UAS in a manner that interferes with a first responder who is actively involved in the response and to use a UAS to collect wildlife. Operating a UAS under the influence of drugs or with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% is a personal administrative offence. The Act also applies the application of the UAS to the restrictions contained in the injunctions and states that convictions under the Act are distinct from other convictions such as harassment, criminal harassment and invasion of privacy. The Bill prevents municipalities from regulating the UAS in a manner inconsistent with the UAS.
Compare with the regulations contained in an exception: imagine, for example, that the police receive a tip about growing marijuana in the backyard of 123 Main Street. They sent a helicopter to collect aerial photographs of the property at 123 Main Street at an altitude of 700 feet. As police photographed 123 Main Street, they looked down and saw a woman sunbathing on the property adjacent to 125 Main Street. While the woman`s accidental observation at 125 Main Street does not violate her Fourth Amendment rights, in her view, it can still be considered an offensive intrusion that violates her personal expectation of privacy (even if it is not what society deems reasonable according to the courts). Imagine the same collection scenario, this time done by a drone or camera on a manned helicopter with software programmed to protect privacy.
0