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-04.29.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.23.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.24.24 Airborne-FltTraining-04.25.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.26.24

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

Unfortunate... ANN/SportPlane Resource Guide Adds To Cautionary Advisories

The Industry Continues to be Rocked By Some Questionable Operations Recent investigations and a great deal of data has resulted in ANN’s SportPlane Resource Guide’s rep>[...]

ANN FAQ: Turn On Post Notifications

Make Sure You NEVER Miss A New Story From Aero-News Network Do you ever feel like you never see posts from a certain person or page on Facebook or Instagram? Here’s how you c>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.29.24): Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI)

Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) An airport lighting facility providing vertical visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during approach to landing by radiating a directio>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.28.24): Airport Marking Aids

Airport Marking Aids Markings used on runway and taxiway surfaces to identify a specific runway, a runway threshold, a centerline, a hold line, etc. A runway should be marked in ac>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (04.28.24)

Aero Linx: The Skyhawk Association The Skyhawk Association is a non-profit organization founded by former Skyhawk Pilots which is open to anyone with an affinity for the A-4 Skyhaw>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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