This video is no longer available

This video was hosted on Vidme, which is no longer in operation. However, you might find this video at one of these links:

Video title:

City Council Hearing for a drone ordinance

Upload date:

March 3 2017

Uploaded by:


Video description:

If you are wondering what I have been up to as of late besides sitting on FAF footage and slowly releasing it. Well, I've been working on countering this issue where a city councilman wanted to pass a drone ordinance without really thinking about it. I only got to cover half of the legal issues involved for this drone ordinance and what it's intended purpose for dealing with privacy. While listening to this please check out the following links to news articles and citations. Official paperwork but lacks latest amendment: News Articles: The FAA put out a memo back in 2015 stating that it is a bad idea about municipalities and state passing their own drone legislation. "Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the operation or flight of aircraft. If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating UAS in the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling the airspace and flight patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow. A navigable airspace free from inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system." They cite several court cases around this issue. "See Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007), and French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989); see also Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012) (“Where Congress occupies an entire field . . . even complimentary state regulation is impermissible. Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any 3 state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards.”), and Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 386-87 (1992)" Furthermore, the 1926 Air Commerce Act gave jurisdiction of the skies to the Aeronautic Branch of the United States Department of Commerce which is now known as the FAA. Another important fact is United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946) states: "The airplane is part of the modern environment of life, and the inconveniences which it causes are normally not compensable under the Fifth Amendment. The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the land, is part of the public domain. We need not determine at this time what those precise limits are. Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." Keep in mind the term low and frequent are the key words in this statement which means that a person would have to have numerous low flights to be able to seek civil penalties. Lastly Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) states you have no right to privacy from publicly used airspace. Since the airspace under 400 feet has been opened up to regular UAS operations those wanting privacy from the sky must set up their own proper methods blocking the normal eye or normal camera from seeing what is on your property from this angle. #drone #UAS #citycouncil #RCaircraft #ordinance #hearing #Anchorage #alaska

Total views: