Pending CA Legislation


kloner

kloner

Aerial DP
monty, send me a copy and i'll send em off the same. This is moving in the wrong direction and fast.
 

jcmonty

jcmonty

Member
Will do. You may have to edit it a bit since I made it a bit personal - i.e. work in the aerospace industry etc
 

jcmonty

jcmonty

Member
Here it is. Cut and paste as necessary:

"Hello Sen. Padilla,

I am concerned about the "drone" bill recently proposed. As an avid hobbyist and aerospace engineer, I appreciate and enjoy this technology. I currently use my R/Cs to film and photograph landscapes and scenery - legally - always respecting both the privacy and safety of others.

Beyond being used by hobbyists, this technology supports a budding industry that is positively impacting the economy and communities. Many filmmakers use this technology to achieve shots not previously possible. Firefighters, police, and search and rescue groups can be greatly aided with portable and inexpensive UAVs. These are just a few examples for a segment that really has no limits if protected.

There has been a recent trend of linking hobbyists and those interested in commercial avenues with anti-privacy and killing machines. The media has generally portrayed UAVs (or "drones") as a largely scary unknown. The reality is vastly different. While I do agree that well-crafted legislation can be a benefit, wide-sweeping restrictions will have a negative impact and destroy an ever-growing segment of industry and recreation. Privacy is something that should be protected. However, portraying hobbyists and technology aficionados as likely anti-privacy offenders is detrimental and discouraging. Most if not all users, act responsibly and avoid violating individuals privacy. Regulations should not be made out of fear of the unknown. Rather, laws should be carefully crafted with the consideration of all groups affected.

I encourage to reach out to the community to help craft these guidelines. Done correctly, this technology can be a much need boon to the Californian economy. I also encourage you to invest in crafting laws that will help small businesses forge ahead in this industry seemingly made for California's large filmmaking community, rather than stifle it. I hope that you consider my comments.

Respectfully,
Jonathan M"
 

Emowillcox

Emowillcox

Member
I'm not big into politics, but very surprising our government would try and put such restrictions on our hobby.
 

G

ghaynes

Member
Here's the bill which he introduced in Dec 2012. This is a strange bill. If I am reading it correctly it just says that the State should establish standards for operation. Like I say really weird but maybe this is how they write legislation in California.


Introduced by Senator Padilla

December 3, 2012

An act relating to aviation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 15, as introduced, Padilla. Aviation: unmanned aircraft systems.
Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015. Existing federal law requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and implement operational and certification requirements for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system by December 31, 2015.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would establish appropriate standards for the use of unmanned aircraft systems.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
P1 1​
SECTION 1.

The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2​
following:
3​
(a) Recent developments and innovations have allowed computer
4​
technology to advance to the point where vehicles, including
5​
aircraft, can operate without the need of an on-board operator.
6​
(b) On February 14, 2012, President Obama signed into law the
7​
Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act
P2 1​
of 2012, which, among other things, requires the Federal Aviation
2​
Administration to fully integrate government, commercial, and
3​
recreational unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as
4​
“drones,” into United States airspace before October 2015.
5​
(c) While privately and publically operated unmanned aircraft
6​
systems can have a legitimate role in areas such as agriculture,
7​
scientific research, and public safety, these systems present new
8​
challenges to the privacy and due process rights of Californians.
9​
(d) Both public and private operators of unmanned aircraft
10​
systems have a responsibility to not infringe on the rights, property,
11​
or privacy of the citizens of California, and any data, information,
12​
photographs, video, or recordings of individuals, both public and
13​
private, should be minimized and retained in a manner consistent
14​
with current privacy standards.
15​
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that
16​
would establish appropriate standards for the use of unmanned
17​
aircraft systems in California.




 

jcmonty

jcmonty

Member
Yeah, it's unfortunate. People are freaking out over drones right now. You can't get away from the negativity or publicity. I live and breath it all day since I work in the military UAV industry and hobby in the personal UAV industry...

Btw, Texas is pushing for laws as well. you may want to look into it
 

Benjamin Rowland

Benjamin Rowland

Member
Show 'em this. It was posted a few days ago. It's a bit blunt, but I think it makes a good point.

View attachment 9560
 

Attachments

  • Drone_Difference.jpg
    Drone_Difference.jpg
    122.9 KB · Views: 220

jcmonty

jcmonty

Member
ghaynes said:
Here's the bill which he introduced in Dec 2012. This is a strange bill. If I am reading it correctly it just says that the State should establish standards for operation. Like I say really weird but maybe this is how they write legislation in California.
Introduced by Senator Padilla

December 3, 2012

An act relating to aviation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 15, as introduced, Padilla. Aviation: unmanned aircraft systems.
Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015. Existing federal law requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and implement operational and certification requirements for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system by December 31, 2015.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would establish appropriate standards for the use of unmanned aircraft systems.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
P1 1​
SECTION 1.

The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2​
following:
3​
(a) Recent developments and innovations have allowed computer
4​
technology to advance to the point where vehicles, including
5​
aircraft, can operate without the need of an on-board operator.
6​
(b) On February 14, 2012, President Obama signed into law the
7​
Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act
P2 1​
of 2012, which, among other things, requires the Federal Aviation
2​
Administration to fully integrate government, commercial, and
3​
recreational unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as
4​
“drones,” into United States airspace before October 2015.
5​
(c) While privately and publically operated unmanned aircraft
6​
systems can have a legitimate role in areas such as agriculture,
7​
scientific research, and public safety, these systems present new
8​
challenges to the privacy and due process rights of Californians.
9​
(d) Both public and private operators of unmanned aircraft
10​
systems have a responsibility to not infringe on the rights, property,
11​
or privacy of the citizens of California, and any data, information,
12​
photographs, video, or recordings of individuals, both public and
13​
private, should be minimized and retained in a manner consistent
14​
with current privacy standards.
15​
(e) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that
16​
would establish appropriate standards for the use of unmanned
17​
aircraft systems in California.
Click to expand...

It's vague enough that it's concerning to me. I would like to hope that's going to make provisions for rather than kill the industry and hobby, but right now, the most vocal people have negative things to say about drones of all flavors.
 


D

Danub

Member
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would establish appropriate standardsWhile privately and publically operated unmanned aircraft . . . systems can have a legitimate role in areas such as agriculture, scientific research, and public safety. . . Both public and private operators of unmanned aircraft systems have a responsibility
Click to expand...
The wording on this one seems very ambiguous. . .Based on the snippets I quoted, It ALMOST sounds like they are trying to make a set of rules for "appropriate usage" which could be opening up "CA legal" commercial operations(maybe i am trying to see the positive). . . . But you know things get a bit weird/crazy when it comes to government.
 

H

HPL

Member
jcmonty said:
Here it is. Cut and paste as necessary:

"Hello Sen. Padilla,

I am concerned about the "drone" bill recently proposed. As an avid hobbyist and aerospace engineer, I appreciate and enjoy this technology. I currently use my R/Cs to film and photograph landscapes and scenery - legally - always respecting both the privacy and safety of others.

Beyond being used by hobbyists, this technology supports a budding industry that is positively impacting the economy and communities. Many filmmakers use this technology to achieve shots not previously possible. Firefighters, police, and search and rescue groups can be greatly aided with portable and inexpensive UAVs. These are just a few examples for a segment that really has no limits if protected.

There has been a recent trend of linking hobbyists and those interested in commercial avenues with anti-privacy and killing machines. The media has generally portrayed UAVs (or "drones") as a largely scary unknown. The reality is vastly different. While I do agree that well-crafted legislation can be a benefit, wide-sweeping restrictions will have a negative impact and destroy an ever-growing segment of industry and recreation. Privacy is something that should be protected. However, portraying hobbyists and technology aficionados as likely anti-privacy offenders is detrimental and discouraging. Most if not all users, act responsibly and avoid violating individuals privacy. Regulations should not be made out of fear of the unknown. Rather, laws should be carefully crafted with the consideration of all groups affected.

I encourage to reach out to the community to help craft these guidelines. Done correctly, this technology can be a much need boon to the Californian economy. I also encourage you to invest in crafting laws that will help small businesses forge ahead in this industry seemingly made for California's large filmmaking community, rather than stifle it. I hope that you consider my comments.

Respectfully,
Jonathan M"
Click to expand...

You have a typo in the last paragraph, second sentence. "need" should be "needed". I also find your very first sentence a bit awkward. I would put "recently proposed" before "drone bill" as opposed to after it.

"individuals" in "avoid violating individuals........." should be "individuals'....." (note the apostrophe). Hope you don't mind the proofing. I always get someone to proof anything important before I send it out. ;-)
 



D

Danub

Member
Not necessarily related to the pending CA legislation but I found it funny that I just saw a parrot AR drone for sale in a BWI airport gift shop. LOL
One place in this country is doing one thing while others are doing the complete opposite :dejection:
 

R

RTRyder

Merlin of Multirotors
All of this pending legislation is a knee jerk response by legislators responding to "concerns" posed by their constituents. The bottom line is none of the legislation is valid or enforceable, airspace in the USA is controlled by the FAA and they take precedence over any local or state laws. A state might push through a bill that they thinbk is going to address their concerns but at the end of the day all they're doing is wasting time. On the issue of privacy concerns and who actually regulates airspace see this document... http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42940.pdf in particular read the sections dealing with United States v. Causby

For an idea of how the FAA deals with states or localities passing laws trying to regulate airspace see this article... http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/02/local/me-banners

While all of these proposed laws are certainly a field day for the media, it's all just white noise that will come to nothing. Once the FAA issues it's regulations on sUAS that will be what you need to be concerned with, any local legislation will be shot down pretty quickly by either the FAA or a corporate entity with a large vested financial interest and lots of lawyers.

Ken
 
Last edited by a moderator:


You must log in or register to reply here.
Top