"The council would ordinarily have held a first reading of the ordinance and voted at the next meeting, but Thomas asked that the first reading be waived. He said the General Assembly is considering a bill that would prohibit cities from restricting drones, and if the council did not approve an ordinance by April 1, it would not be able to do so under the state law."
http://www.macon.com/news/local/article139713138.html
Here is a copy of the Ordinace I recieved.
Local municipalities in Oklahoma have attempted some ordinances lately; not directly related, but similar in structure. The location, drilling and operation of gas and oil wells is controlled by State Law. Several cities attempted to pass ordinances that were more constrictive than the State's laws. Even though the ordinances passed and were in place, our Attorney General (who is now the head of the EPA) ruled that municipalities cannot pass ordinances that are contrary to State law and thereby 'shooting down' a city's ability to keep a drilling rig from operating right next door to an elementary school or a hospital.
Just another example of the Man tryin' to keep Homie down....;)
It is interesting. I guess they didn't read this paper by the FAA that they say the preempt regulating the airspace. https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf They could have written it prohibiting viedo transmitting, pictures or recording without the landowners consent.
Warner Robbins is also home to Robbins AFB so that may have something to do with the ordinance.
Andy
I believe that the FAA regs already prohibit flying over non-participants.
There's language in there that makes me think the author has knowledge of the legitimate uses for UAS for surveying, inspection, etc., which makes this ordinance all the more perplexing. I really fail to understand what people are afraid of.
The biggest problem with something like this, as well as some of the FAA and State regulations, is that when operating a fixed wing UAS, the area covered by the flight is approximately triple the area that is actually being photographed. So even if the property being surveyed is not restricted under this ordnance, the area we have to overfly to make the turns and get on line usually is. If it's a privacy issue, the premise that we're violating anyone's privacy is not valid as we're only taking photos over the project area.
The statement that the FAA doesn't control airspace below 400' is also invalid; there's already precedent for that.
I can understand and appreciate legitimate safety concerns. We have a well trained flight crew, a Part 107 certificate holder, and a Chief Pilot with over 40,000 hours in fixed wing aircraft, and we adhere to the letter of the law. We also have rigorous planning, failsafe, and safety programs in place. People are afraid about safety with drones, yet seemingly have no problem with the fact that anyone with a pilot's license can jump in an airplane and fly anywhere and over anything they want as long as it's Class G airspace. All things considered, I'd rather get crashed into by a 6.5 pound drone than a Cessna.
My $0.02.