State lawmakers in Massachusetts are looking to ramp up regulations on drones, claiming limited federal rules leave state airfields and schools vulnerable. A half dozen bills dealing with drones got a hearing this week – bills that give pause to drone-flying professionals.
For several weeks late last year, residents across the country looked up to the night sky and asked “What’s that thing?”
At one point dubbed “drone hysteria,” a flurry of drone sighting reports came in between November and December. Many turned out to be cases of consumer drones taking flight as well as residents mistaking regular aircraft or even stars for drones, according to federal agencies.
However, such determinations came as some airfields were being shut down, including New York’s Stewart International Airport, which temporarily closed amid the uptick in sightings.
An Air Force Base in Ohio also got a drone scare, leading to an airspace shutdown.
That same week, Boston police tracked down and arrested two men accused of flying a drone near Logan International Airport. The controversy fueled conversations on Beacon Hill and months later, a slate of bills aiming to regulate unmanned aerial/aircraft systems (UAS) were front-and-center at a Joint Committee on Transportation hearing Tuesday.
One lawmaker filing was Hampden and Hampshire State Senator John Velis, whose district includes Barnes Air National Guard Base in Westfield.
“The homeland mission the 104th [Fighter Wing] is to provide armed, F-15 fighters ready to scramble at a moment's notice to protect the Northeast from any airborne threat,” he said of the Massachusetts Air National Guard unit operating there. “I shudder to think if a privately-operated drone interfered during critical response or was able to surveil and obtain information about the wing's operations.”
Velis’s bill, “An act relative to unmanned aerial vehicles in the commonwealth,” spells out penalties for any drone operator interfering with airport operations, including fines as high as $1,500.
The state senator says the proposal also calls for “clear no-fly zones surrounding critical facilities” that include “airports, military installations and correctional institutions.”
Citing his experience in the military, he added drones have weighed heavily on him since his 2018 deployment to Afghanistan.
“One of the challenges that we had, up until the day that I left, is we did not know how to respond to them. They were a renewing threat, an evolving threat, and getting more and more sophisticated,” he said. “[When] I left there ... I kind of put it in my back pocket, but just thought how these types of capabilities are something that certainly could be emulated, simulated in the civilian world back home.”
Another bill looking to put more drone rules on the books was H. 3618, filed by Representative Bruce Ayers of Quincy - legislation focused more on dealing with drones launching near and flying around schools.
“We need to set a stronger precedent, that using drones over our schools, without proper approval, will not be tolerated. This will be proactive in protecting our public safety and privacy of our students and educators. The FAA, which regulates drone use, has no specific regulation prohibiting drones over our schools," Ayers claimed. "For this reason, states have to step in and fill the gap, establishing a no-fly zone. Louisiana, Kentucky, New Jersey and Alabama all have similar laws. What this bill does is create a 400 foot buffer zone over all of our schools, where drones cannot be flown without permission, to deter any unauthorized flights."
Another bill, H. 3800, goes so far as to bar “Chinese state-owned companies” from selling drones in Massachusetts.
The proposals discussed have drawn concern from the drone-flying public, with several speakers testifying against them at the hearing.
One was Michael Ford, a commercial real estate aerial photographer, who says some of the bills would directly interfere with his and others’ ability to work.
That includes H. 3663, he says, “An Act relative to the safe operation of drones in the Commonwealth” - a bill filled with restrictions on where drones can take off and land.
It includes language barring such activities within 150 feet of wildlife preserves, aquifers and various infrastructure.
“I'm negotiating an engagement for some photography for a client in Tisbury, on Martha's Vineyard, but because it overlays a aquifer, half of Martha's Vineyard would not be able to have drones flown over them,” he pointed out. “I took marketing photographs of a commercial distribution center recently. That's also on the list of places I couldn't go."
“With regard to H. 3800, on Chinese drones, I understand that there is worry at the federal level on the security of those and I understand that they are working through to figure out what's true and what's not," he added. "... but getting rid of Chinese drones in the short-term would impact school STEM programs, it would impact public safety, it would impact search and rescue: it would impact anybody who needs to use these drones."
Suggesting an industry panel be formed for guidance, Ford requested the six bills presented Tuesday be tabled, asking lawmakers to work with the FAA to have them “harmonize” with federal law, as some are also redundant.
One example: opponents noted some legislation looks to ban the weaponization of drones, something Hayden Spitz of Boston Drone Productions says has already been tackled by Congress in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act.
“It says it in there – it's under federal law that you are not allowed to equip your weapon, so all of these laws that they are introducing are really just reiterating all the things that are already in federal law,” Spitz said.
