California Modifies Proposed UAV Trespass Bill | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.20.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.28.24

Airborne-FlightTraining-05.29.24 Airborne-Unlimited-05.30.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.24.24

Thu, Aug 13, 2015

California Modifies Proposed UAV Trespass Bill

Would Consider Any Flight Under 350 Feet As A Violation

The California general assembly is considering a modified UAV trespass bill that would make any flight over private property at an altitude under 350 feet a violation of the state's trespassing law.

The bill as modified says that liability for "wrongful occupation of real property and damages to a person who operates an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, as defined, less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying the real property, without the consent of the landowner express permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access or without legal authority."

Basically it means that if you don't have the express permission of the property owner, you can be charged with a crime if you fly your UAV under 350 feet. The FAA limits most UAV flights to an altitude of 400 feet.

For the purpose of the bill, “Unmanned aircraft” means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. “Unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft, that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

Previously, the bill would have only made such flights a crime if the UAV operator knowingly violated the landowner's rights, and captured still or video images or audio recording, and (the 'ands' are important here) that image or recording of the plaintiff showed them “engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity”, and the invasion of privacy was “in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.”

Now it includes a blanket ban of anything under 350 feet.

The bill is still working its way through the California legislature. It was last amended on June 30th.

(Image from file)

FMI: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB142

Advertisement

More News

ANN FAQ: Contributing To Aero-TV

How To Get A Story On Aero-TV News/Feature Programming How do I submit a story idea or lead to Aero-TV? If you would like to submit a story idea or lead, please contact Jim Campbel>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.29.24)

Aero Linx: International Association of Professional Gyroplane Training (IAPGT) We are an Association of people who fly, build or regulate Gyroplanes, who have a dream of a single >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.29.24): NORDO (No Radio)

NORDO (No Radio) Aircraft that cannot or do not communicate by radio when radio communication is required are referred to as “NORDO.”>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.30.24): Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS)

Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS) The operation of a UAS beyond the visual capability of the flight crew members (i.e., remote pilot in command [RPIC], the person manipulating th>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.30.24)

Aero Linx: Malibu M-Class Owners and Pilots Association (MMOPA) The Piper M-Class Owners & Pilots Association (PMOPA) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the interest>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC