Drone Surveillance and St. Louis BB199

  • Post author:
  • Post category:News

We need to (nicely) flood the St. Louis Board of Alderman with emails. But first, some backstory.

I want to start off by saying that using drones to assist a Neighborhood Watch type program would be a huge boon for many crime ridden areas in cities across America. How can it not be? But it has to be done in a cooperative manner involving the company flying the drones, the neighborhood where the operations will take place, and the local elected officials and police departments. There needs to be lots of preplanning meetings, and neighborhood buy-in.

 

And that was not how it was done in St. Louis, Missouri!!!

Joe Johnson, CEO of SMS Novel, ruffled some feathers earlier this month when we proposed to use drones to fly over Gravois Park in St. Louis. This was all done without any true neighborhood coordination or cooperation with the St. Louis Police Department. Needless to say, when word of this got out, the neighbors were not happy. And even after pushback from local residents and elected officials, Mr. Johnson has doubled down.

Many of us in this industry work hard at making drone use acceptable to the general public, and do our best to make sure we operate in manner that will show the general public the good side of drones. Humans are always leery of what we do not understand. Remember having to give your cell phone to a locker room attendant before entering a locker room? 

Drones are no different. But we as an industry been very successful in changing the minds of many people who previously knew nothing about drones. 

 

Mr. Johnson has likely erased much of that hard work done by St. Louis drone owners.

Case in point, and the true subject matter of this article, is a bill put forth by Alderwoman Alisha Sonnier (Ward 7 Alderwoman) on January 12th. Coincidentally soon after the residents of Gravois Park and surrounding areas raised the alarm about Mr. Johnson’s proposed undertaking. Sonnier refers directly to Mr. Johnson’s project in her final “Whereas”: “communities that have been or will be impacted have resoundingly called for a citywide policy that governs the use of commercial drones and private surveillance over residential neighborhoods.”

St. Louis Board Bill Number 199 is a proposal to change Chapter 15 of the St. Louis Revised Code or Ordinances to make it very difficult for commercial drone operators to fly, and completely illegal for recreational drone pilots to fly. As is the case in many of these instances, I reached out to Alderwoman Sonnier first on January 13th when this was brought to my attention. My email contained the usual offer to help, and nicely pointing out the errors in her proposed bill. She didn’t respond until 1/21, and after my second email attempt to reach out.

She basically dismissed my concerns, as well as the concerns of a couple other drone pilots who reached out. 

She also mentioned numerous times that she is working with FAA legal on the wording of her bill. And knowing the FAA folks as well as I do, I have serious doubts (but no proof) she isn’t being entirely honest in that statement. I’ve asked for those emails under the St. Louis Sunshine Law Request process, but to no avail.

 

Hence this article…

I want to reiterate the need for professionalism and clarity in the email I’m going to ask you to send. And I’m going to ask you to make sure you write your email in your own voice. Below you’ll find two important things. First, a point by point dissection of this fatally flawed bill, and second the city email addresses of all appropriate folks to send this too. 

Again, these need to be professionally worded emails. We do not condone doxing and unprofessionalism, it has the same affect as Mr. Johnson’s proposed operation, which started this whole mess.

 

Talking points:

SB199 violates many aspects of the FAA’s sole authority to control the National Airspace System (NAS) in the U.S. Sonnier denies all of this, in spite of being shown why it does.

15.190.02 has numerous instances where Sonnier’s plan is to establish set-back distances creating the following federal preemption issues:

    • Section 2 states no one may “operate a drone within twenty-five (25) feet of another individual” except flight crew.
    • Section 4 states no one may “operate a drone for commercial purposes over events” unless the have a permit from the city.
    • Section 5 states no one may “operate a drone within one thousand five hundred (1,500) horizontal feet of any aircraft, including any drone that may be operated by a public or governmental entity.”
    • All three of those sections are invalid under Federal Preemption. And that’s spelled out quite clearly in the FAA’s updated “State and Local Regulation of UAS Fact Sheet”. Under examples of local UAS laws that would be subject to preemption (page 5), the FAA states: “Regulating UAS operations or restricting flight altitude or flight paths in order to protect the safety of individuals and property on the ground or aircraft passengers, or in order to ensure the efficient use of the airspace by UAS and/or other aircraft;”

    The examples listed above under 15.190.020 would most certainly fall under the “operations or restricting flight altitude or flight paths” umbrella.

    SB199 also establishes “No Fly Zones” for flights within 500’ of an “Emergency Vehicle”, “Emergency Response Incident”, “Schools”, and any “Publicly-Owned Buildings” under 15.190.030, further evidence of Federal Preemption.

    Sonnier also argues in one joint email that, “Your son’s toy helicopter would not be subject to this legislation, as he would be flying for recreational purposes nor would your family portrait photos.” Yet the very language in her own bill proves that to be wrong. Page 3 or SB199 ends with this statement: “Any person who operates a drone or any UA in the City of St. Louis shall have a valid Remote Pilot Certificate from the FAA and shall be in compliance with all standards set forth under the FAA’s Small UAs Rule (Part 107).” Obviously exactly opposite of what Sonnier alleges in her email dated 1/21/24. And there is no mention of 49 USC §44809 in the exemption section of BB199.

    So as you can see, Mr. Johnson’s antics have the potential to do tremendous harm to the St. Louis drone flying community. Both 107 and 44809. And Alderwoman Sonnier’s BB199, a direct result of Mr. Johnson’s antics, is a fatally flawed attempt to address the legitimate concerns about Mr. Johnson’s planned operations. And SB199 is fatally flawed due to it’s obvious contradictions with the FAA’s sole authority to control the NAS. 

    Sonnier and the rest of the members of the Board of Alderman need to hear from you. From all of us really, even if you’re not part of the St. Louis drone communities. Because if Alderwoman Sonnier’s St. Louis BB199 passes, other cities may very well use it as a template in their own city. And no one wants that.

    Together we can stop BB199, and help the St. Louis elected officials understand that they shouldn’t paint the entirety of the drone industry with a wide brush.

    Below are the emails of the Board of Alderman as well as the Mayor of St. Louis. Please be very professional in your responses, using the points above.

    And as always, fly safe! And I’ll add “fly friendly” to the end of this article. It seems appropriate.

    St. Louis Board of Alderman and Mayoral Contacts

     

    Thank you for your support. 

     

    Tags: , , , , ,