Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime Government Privacy Technology Politics

Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC 68

Posted by timothy from the man-vs-the-state dept.
A reader passes on this excerpt from an Ars Technica article: On Wednesday Councilman Dan Garodnick introduced a bill to the New York City council seeking to ban all use of drones except those operated by police officers who obtain warrants. A second, parallel bill introduced by councilman Paul Vallone would place more stringent restrictions on drone use but stop short of banning drones for hobbyists and companies altogether. Both bills have been passed to the city's committee on public safety. An all-out ban on drones within the metropolis would be a quite wide-reaching step, especially as the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) seems poised to adopt more permissive rules, with respect to commercial interests in particular. Earlier this year, the FAA formally granted six Hollywood companies exemptions to drone ban rules. A couple of months later, the FAA granted similar exemptions for construction site monitoring and oil rig flare stack inspections. The article explains that Vallone's bill is less restrictive, and rather than propose an outright ban "lists 10 instances where operating a UAV would be illegal, including at night, out of the operator's eyesight, or above 400 ft high. Outside of those conditions, hobbyists and commercial interests would be free to fly drones."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC More

Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC

Comments Filter:

  • I'm so glad our benevolent overlords are here to keep us safe!
    Banning things like UAVs, guns, and large sodas is definitely the best way to keep citizens (who are all too stupid to make their own decisions) healthy.
    But thank goodness cops can still use guns and UAVs; they never abuse their power, and are always fully trained, so we know nothing could possibly go wrong!

    Never mind educating and empowering them to make their own decisions, who has time for that?! No, we citizens want to be spoon fed. And as

    • Banning things like UAVs, guns, and large sodas is definitely the best way to keep citizens (who are all too stupid to make their own decisions) healthy.

      UAVs and guns have pretty obvious externalities. Why wouldn't you want to regulate them?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Ah yes, "externality", the magic word employed by the nanny state. It has the most effect when used incorrectly.

        Pollution from coal plants or vehicle emissions is an externality. The crap you list above is not an externality.

      • Regulations aren't the best solution for every problem. That said, I don't necessarily think some basic rules on drones are a bad idea. This action is going way too far though. It's like gun regulations, requiring that someone pass a gun safety class is sensible, telling them they can't have their gun with them anywhere except in their home is not.

        • Regulations aren't the best solution for every problem.

          Never said they were. I do think they are (a part of) the best solution for these problems.

          This action is going way too far though

          The outright ban may be, but the ban on going to high, flying out of sight or flying at night?

          Look, either the city needs to license drones and/or drone pilots, or they need to limit the damage that can be done.

    • And when you die in a fiery plane crash as an idiot UAV operator flew too close to a jet and got pulled into the engine during landing. Never mind that is illegal to operate there drone pilots can do it all.

      I saw a drone video from inside a firework display and al I could think of does that idiot realize he is flying through a flak field and if just one firework hits the drone that drone is free falling back to the ground. Sure fireworks are poor flak by shooting cardboard, but Murphy is a tough bastard.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      oh please.
      stow your insanity for a moment.

      differing classes of rules based on size and type make sense.
      and standard "congested area" rules are just common sense.
      licenses or other certs in specific circumstances also make sense.

      unregulated use by an unlicensed individual in a city like NYC means eventually someone will fly a 100+lb drone down Park Avenue and have it crash on someones head.
      or worse two of them due to collision.

      public safety/endangerment rules always in place would largely cover a lot of it, b

  • Outside of those conditions, hobbyists and commercial interests would be free to fly drones."

    I hope he meant "inside" or possibly "under" those conditions. I'm normally not that hung up on grammar but this is the opposite of what was probably meant.

    • I think the construction is correct. The proposed legislation lists conditions under which UAV flight is banned, rather than allowed. So, you need to be outside those conditions to be OK.

  • Most people take the drones to parks to play with them anyway. So letting people use them inside official parks, like Central Park, and Prospect Park would be a simple, fair compromise.

    • just like those designated "free speech areas" the government likes to set up, right?

      • No, like those concrete path thingies that people follow with their fantastical "horseless carriages"

      • Free speech is a constitutional right and has no business being restricted in any way. Similarly, flying aircraft - manned or unmanned is constitutionally totally unmentioned.

        Which means that it is totally reasonable to restrict drones, but not at all reasonable to restrict speech.

        What's next - you gonna bring up hitler?

    • Oh good grief people read the article,

      No person may avigate a UAV within the limits of the city except:
      1. The police department in accordance with section 14-133.1.
      2. A person avigating such UAV pursuant to and within the limits of an express authorization by the federal aviation administration.

      basically a grandstanding city Councilman introduced a statute making it illegal to operate a UAV anywhere it is all ready illegal to operate a UAV!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by suutar ( 1860506 )

        depends on the definition of "express authorization". Is "It's not against FAA regs if you avoid these situations" an express authorization, or does it take a piece of paper signed by the FAA saying "you are allowed to fly drones"?

  • Never mind drones (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Where is the Slashdot poll?

  • Seems legit (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Frank this seems to be one of the more reasonable approaches to regulating UAV usage (The permissive bill that is). It makes sense that as a hobbyist you wouldn't want to fly a drone at night/out of sight/above 400 feet. Visibility of a drone's surroundings is already difficult, let alone in tougher situations.

  • FAA has sole jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gavron ( 1300111 ) on Thursday December 18, 2014 @09:58AM (#48625353)

    In the United States the Federal Aviation Administration is the entity with jurisdiction over all airspace SURFACE to SPACE*

    This has been discussed on slashdot so many times in the last year wrt drones and FAA authority that it's beating a dead horse.

    NY Councilmen can posture and mumble and pass laws all day long but they have no authority over the air.

    E

    * Note that this includes surface to 400ft which some people believe is magically exempt from regulation... except the FAA has recently shown it's not.

  • Did anyone else think "Urban Assault Vehicle" at first?

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close