District I - 2015/06

We supported the FAA’s Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
exemption of recreational model
aircraft from regulation; however, many
of us expressed concerns about the
FAA’s interpretation of Congress’ intent
in Public Law 112-95, Section 336(c).
We believe FAA’s interpretation
attempts to circumvent public law.
When and if these issues are settled
with the FAA or in court, we are now
seeing a proliferation of state legislation
to address public safety, security, and
privacy concerns.
After attending several legislative
hearings and listening to the testimony
of a variety of people representing
human rights, law enforcement, and
those lobbying for or against sUAS/
drone bills, it became apparent that
with no single government agency, or at
any one level of government, will issues
of sUAS/drones be resolved. The FAA
in its NPRM does not address privacy
protection safeguards. We need to
continue to lobby at the federal, state,
and municipal levels to protect the
interests of AMA members flying in the
National Airspace System.
Most of the individuals who testified
on drone legislation favored state and
municipality legislation over federal
regulations. Federal legislation tends
to be a one-size-fits-all regulation,
which doesn’t take into account the
differences in geographical locations in
terms of risks and drone applications.
For example, drone restrictions for
precision agricultural uses in a rural
location would differ dramatically
because of the higher risks to the
public in an urban area. For this reason,
Rhode Island’s HB5292, which sought
exclusivity for the state to regulate
over municipalities, did not move
forward.
Those who testified on Rhode
Island’s HB5454, which deals with
privacy protection and the requirement
of warrants by law enforcement,
argued that this was necessary because
the Supreme Court has held that we
do not have reasonable expectation
of privacy above our homes. This bill
was held for further study to include
exemptions for such uses as search
and rescue, large event monitoring, and
locating an active shooter.
The bill of most concern to
aeromodeling is Rhode Island’s
HB5453, which includes exclusive
authority to regulate, register, and
charge fees of $15 for each model
aircraft, and prohibits flying within
5 miles of large airports, and within
2 miles of smaller state airports and
emergency aircraft. It also prohibits
flying within .5 miles of government
buildings, schools, and colleges, and
prevents drones from capturing images
within occupied dwellings.
On March 31, 2015, I testified at
the Rhode Island State House. I was
the last person to testify in opposition
to HB5453. Essentially, I opposed
exclusive authority because, by statute
only, the FAA has exclusive sovereignty.
I opposed registration because without
defining and classifying the types of
aircraft, a $20 toy airplane would
require the same fee as a $15,000 jet,
and those with numerous aircraft would
be overly burdened.
With regard to prohibiting flying
near airports, the comments made in
my column last month concerning
the New Hampshire bill addresses my
opposition. The value of flying on or
near schools or colleges was expressed
by sUAS educational programs,
research, and letters from technical
schools supporting permitted flying.
The privacy safeguards are addressed in
AMA’s FPV and autopilot operational
documents.
In conclusion, the legislators were
urged to exempt us from any drone
bills because of AMA’s exceptional
safety record and its community-based
organization status as affirmed by
Congress and reaffirmed by the FAA.
Representative Cale Keable advised
that if HB5293 establishes a legislative
drone study commission, he would look
forward to my participation.
I appreciate the input and advice from
district members. Anyone wishing to
help us in addressing legislation can
track bills on state government websites
or using www.legiscan.com.