Speaking of Drones

Not sure about authority, but drones were added to the definition of "aircraft," which are subject to the following regulation in the Beach Activities Ordinance:
Sec. 22-58. - Aircraft.
No person operating, directing, or responsible for any airplane, seaplane, helicopter, glider, balloon, dirigible, parachute, ultralight, or other aerial apparatus shall take off from or land on the beaches or water bodies.

According to the news article on the new beach vendor rules...the BCC has decided that drones will now be getting some regulation.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure but... under what authority does the BCC have to regulate air space?

Second 2 part question...doesn't the FAA certify drone pilots and don't they have to follow federal regulations as well??

www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20180109/charcoal-grills-banned-from-south-walton-beaches

Good questions!

According to the news article on the new beach vendor rules...the BCC has decided that drones will now be getting some regulation.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure but... under what authority does the BCC have to regulate air space?

Second 2 part question...doesn't the FAA certify drone pilots and don't they have to follow federal regulations as well??

www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20180109/charcoal-grills-banned-from-south-walton-beaches

I wonder what the specifics of drone regulations are.

I was really hoping for total removal of vending equipment, but once again, Tony votes with the vendors, not the majority of his constituents. We need to be more vocal about this next year.

I am happy to see that they still will not allow food and drink vending.

@miznotebook & @Jimmy T

First to admit I know nothing about drones except that they are mostly "boy toys" and the government uses them in situations where manned flight is considered too risky or difficult....the eye in the sky if you will, and have seen beautiful images, some posted by Kurt and others here of aerial photos taken on Sowal beaches. It's a manned robot.

I've also heard they can be used as a search and rescue tool which in my humble opinion isn't a bad thing when you have tourists who, despite warnings, go into the water when it simply isn't safe to do so. They can also access locations where it would be impossible or safe for humans to go. That's the extent of my knowledge.

In looking for more information I ran across this...

The FAA has implemented a set of unmanned aircraft rules (Part 107), placing limits on autonomous or semi-autonomous drone operation. Specifically, the FAA mandates, among other things:

• Unmanned aircraft must remain within visual line-of-sight of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS or, alternately, within VLOS of the visual observer
• Drones must at all times remain close enough to the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls for those people to be capable of seeing the aircraft unaided by any device other than corrective lenses
• UAVs may not operate over anyone not directly participating in the operation, under a covered structure or inside a covered stationary vehicle
• Daylight-only operations, or civil twilight (30 minutes before official sunrise to 30 minutes after official sunset, local time) with appropriate anti-collision lighting
• Must yield right of way to other aircraft

I guess my point is that I don't know of anything the BCC can do better than the federal government, except screw it up more. In my opinion its overreach by County officials in an effort to control if, the FAA already has rules in place that the operators must abide by.

Other local places have tried to ban them and failed. The FAA guidelines are pretty good. I suppose banning take off and landing from beaches might be wise for safety - if not a legal ban could at least be discouraged.

Other local places have tried to ban them and failed. The FAA guidelines are pretty good. I suppose banning take off and landing from beaches might be wise for safety - if not a legal ban could at least be discouraged.

Yep. Legal battles are ongoing. Here's a recent example:
Judge overturns local law that effectively banned drones over small town

I thought the FAA was considering requiring buyers to register them at purchase.

First to admit I know nothing about drones except that they are mostly "boy toys" and the government uses them in situations where manned flight is considered too risky or difficult....the eye in the sky if you will, and have seen beautiful images, some posted by Kurt and others here of aerial photos taken on Sowal beaches. It's a manned robot.

I've also heard they can be used as a search and rescue tool which in my humble opinion isn't a bad thing when you have tourists who, despite warnings, go into the water when it simply isn't safe to do so. They can also access locations where it would be impossible or safe for humans to go. That's the extent of my knowledge.

I guess my point is that I don't know of anything the BCC can do better than the federal government, except screw it up more. In my opinion its overreach by County officials in an effort to control if, the FAA already has rules in place that the operators must abide by.

Yes, of course this is a typical Walton BCC overreach and ill thought out; no drone “… shall take off from or land on the beaches or water bodies.” OK, people will cross onto vacant private beachfront house decks (seen it happen) or park on 30A right of way and launch drone over private properties.

Courts struck down the FAA requirement to register small drones. FAA over-reach.
Court Strikes Down Drone Registration Requirement | Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine

The most critical part of search and rescue is detection time. Best idea I’ve heard for beach search and rescue (and code enforcement) is the military idea of real time “constant stare”. Good discussion here: Best Money Saving And Effective Solution For Tdc Oversight

Would eliminate Walton vehicles “constant driving” (tire tracks defiling the beauty of the beach) up and down the beach without probable cause too. “Constant stare” would be much more cost effective than “constant drive” or million dollar surplus Sheriff helicopter.
Code Enforcement At Eastern Lake Today

Photo For John G

Kaydence, some have rebuked your posts. You take the effort to point out the ineptness of Walton leadership you know about and like you many of us are just “not going to take it any more.” Don’t agree with everything posted but thanks for saying what many, that I know, feel about the way Walton county government is incompetently run (at the expense of $170,000,000 plus TDC $20,000,000 tax payer's money).
https://www.co.walton.fl.us/DocumentCenter/View/29613

Thank you FBB.

As long as people rebuke me and don't use their "Christian experience" to do it, I'm OK with that. Public discourse is good. Showing people why we need to vote the current government out, hopefully makes them think about the decisions they have made in the past by voting for the likes of C. Jones etc. but it can and will lead to positive change in my opinion....at least that is what I keep telling myself and have said for the last couple decades.

If nothing else, it annoys them to no end and that's always a plus for me.

Being a pilot and a heavy drone user with lots of photos on here, let me chime in.

I seriously doubt that the BCC could legally ban drones. They do not have any jurisdiction of anything in the air. That is FAA territory, and that has been upheld time and time again in the courts. Legally, they cannot impose rules that supersede rules covered by the FAA. FAA has jurisdiction in those cases.

The ordinance as written above..."No person operating, directing, or responsible for any airplane, seaplane, helicopter, glider, balloon, dirigible, parachute, ultralight, or other aerial apparatus shall take off from or land on the beaches or water bodies." does not cover drones unless they are trying to cover it under the guise of "aerial apparatus". Unless they specifically say "drones" it will be challenged if something comes of it. All that will happen is that people will launch from parking lots, streets, or driveways. Most of us don't launch from the beach, anyway, because of sand. Once the drone is in the air the BCC has no jurisdiction.

The FAA does not have strict rules in place for recreational drones. They have guidelines which are the exact same guidelines that cover remote control aircraft, but they are not laws. It starts getting tricky when you go beyond line of sight, fly within 5 miles of an airport, or fly aircraft over 55 pounds.

If you are using a drone for commercial purposes, it must be registered, the operator must have a remote pilot certificate, but again, if the drone is less than 55 pounds the rules are greatly reduced.

The FAA did start a drone registration program a while back (I'm registered), but it was far too late, and I believe it was suspended as a mandatory program. Numbers that can be found show that only a tiny fraction of drones got registered. The idea behind this was to have accountability on the operators part if there was an incident as the drone was supposed to be marked with the registration number. I believe that it is still out there, but it is voluntary.

Now...back to this. The original post said that drones were added to the definition of aircraft which is redundant seeing how the definition of aircraft covers it. The ordinance says "...any airplane, seaplane, helicopter, glider, balloon, dirigible, parachute, ultralight, or other aerial apparatus shall take off from or land on the beaches or water bodies."
It does not say aircraft. It says airplane. The definition of airplane is a fixed wing heavier than air aircraft that can sustain controlled flight. Drones are not fixed wing so they aren't covered, and they don't fit the definition of "helicopter". Again...it falls back on the ubiquitous "aerial apparatus".

Personally, I'm not worried about it. As long as my drone is 1/2" in the air there's nothing the BCC can do about it.

Thanks for the chime...very informational.

It's what I do!

Drones are obnoxious and annoying. They are an invasion of privacy, property, and peace.

Attached is the ordinance change that was approved on Jan. 8 in connection with drones/aircraft, adding drones to the definition of aircraft.

Attached is the ordinance change that was approved on Jan. 8 in connection with drones/aircraft, adding drones to the definition of aircraft.

Thanks for that. It wasn't in the original post.

Again they have no jurisdiction of anything in the air. That's the FAA's territory.

I do have a question back. Does the BCC have the ability to pass laws? If so, it sets up the arguments that drones are not illegal in Walton county and whose law is the one that takes precedent. Im.just playing devils advocate at this point for the sake of discussion. On the surface it seems totally unenforceable.

Thanks for that. It wasn't in the original post.

Again they have no jurisdiction of anything in the air. That's the FAA's territory.

I do have a question back. Does the BCC have the ability to pass laws? If so, it sets up the arguments that drones are not illegal in Walton county and whose law is the one that takes precedent. Im.just playing devils advocate at this point for the sake of discussion. On the surface it seems totally unenforceable.

State law supersedes any local law. Locally the laws can be less stringent or as stringent but can not be more stringent than state law.

I tend to agree with you about this being unenforceable because they have NO jurisdiction over airspace.

Thanks for that. It wasn't in the original post.

Again they have no jurisdiction of anything in the air. That's the FAA's territory.

I do have a question back. Does the BCC have the ability to pass laws? If so, it sets up the arguments that drones are not illegal in Walton county and whose law is the one that takes precedent. Im.just playing devils advocate at this point for the sake of discussion. On the surface it seems totally unenforceable.

They have the ability to pass ordinances. I'm guessing that there is a distinction between ordinance and laws. Not sure why anyone would have said that drones are illegal in Walton County, that certainly doesn't seem to be the case, and I'm not sure the commissioners would have the authority to make them illegal if they wanted to. The recent action about drones was in connection with revisions to the Beach Activities Ordinance. The article stated, and there was actually a statement at the meeting, something to the effect that the revisions would initiate regulation of drones. But I sat through all three-plus hours, and the only action taken was to add drones to the definition of aircraft in the Beach Activities Ordinance. That had the effect of restricting drones, along with other aircraft, from taking off from or landing "on the beaches," which may or may not be a good thing. Nothing was mentioned about air space or that drones could not fly over the beaches.

The article I cited was from the NWFL Daily News which simply said "drones will now be getting some regulation."

Again, I don't understand how they can regulate air space or even where they can take off from or land at, if that is guided by FAA rules.

Seems absolutely ridiculous to me the try and pass an ordinance that would prevent a drone of all things from being launched from the beaches yet allow 10 by 10 tents, gas grills and all those horrible beach chairs and umbrellas.

And maybe someone can tell me why the BCC wants to control all activity on the beaches but have no control when it comes to growth, infrastructure, traffic, the land development codes and comprehensive plan which most often are ignored and over population??

The word OVEReachhhhh still comes to mind.

You may be right that the county can't regulate take-off and landing. If so, the drone lobby will probably see this thread and pounce!

Drones are obnoxious and annoying. They are an invasion of privacy, property, and peace.

10 by 10 tents that prevent others from using the 50% of the beach the BCC has allocated to us doesn't? Beach chairs & umbrellas are allot more obnoxious in my opinion than the steady hum of a drone. Used in the public domain (including free air space) wouldn't be a problem for me. Used to spy on or watch someone getting naked or makin whoopie would be a problem for me personally mostly because (trust me)...ya'll don't wanna see me show my a$$. LOL!

I love the pictures that drones take. I just hope they don't fly over my outdoor shower!

I love the pictures that drones take. I just hope they don't fly over my outdoor shower!

What's your address so I can be sure never to fly there...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

The article I cited was from the NWFL Daily News which simply said "drones will now be getting some regulation."

Again, I don't understand how they can regulate air space or even where they can take off from or land at, if that is guided by FAA rules.

Seems absolutely ridiculous to me the try and pass an ordinance that would prevent a drone of all things from being launched from the beaches yet allow 10 by 10 tents, gas grills and all those horrible beach chairs and umbrellas.

And maybe someone can tell me why the BCC wants to control all activity on the beaches but have no control when it comes to growth, infrastructure, traffic, the land development codes and comprehensive plan which most often are ignored and over population??

The word OVEReachhhhh still comes to mind.

Next time get to your point on the first post instead of post number 20. I am interested in your info but jeez.

Next time get to your point on the first post instead of post number 20. I am interested in your info but jeez.

Ya know @Jenksy you never have one damn thing positive to say about anything ever posted here.

Go read the freaking post again. I did make the point in my first post.

By the way, you don't answer questions very well either but you are sure quick to point out everyone's else's faults.