An Act to Relating to Unmanned Aircraft Systems

An Act to Relating to Unmanned Aircraft Systems

PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION.

San Diego is one of 6 Counties selected as a ‘National Drone Testing Site.’ The final decision to have unmanned aircraft in the national airspace will be decided this December.

There have been no public forums, informational hearings or opportunities for citizen’s to express their concerns about Southern California being a possible Drone Testing Site.

NO VOICE, NO CHOICE!

Bill Text – AB1327 Unmanned aircraft systems.

Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015. Existing federal law requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and implement operational and certification requirements for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system by December 31, 2015.

This bill would “generally prohibit” public agencies from using unmanned aircraft systems, or contracting for the use of unmanned aircraft systems, as defined, with “certain exceptions” applicable to law enforcement agencies and in “certain other cases,” and would “generally require a warrant” for the use of an unmanned aircraft system by law enforcement to block or interfere with electronic communications, as specified, with certain exceptions. The bill would require the acquisition of an unmanned aircraft system, or a contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, for authorized purposes by a local public agency to be subject to the specific approval of the applicable local public agency’s legislative body. The bill would require a local legislative body, in approving the acquisition or purchase, to also adopt policies governing the use and deployment of the unmanned aircraft system. The bill would require a state agency that uses an unmanned aircraft system, or “contracts for the use of an unmanned aircraft system,” to provide, no later than January 1 of each year, an annual report to the Governor that includes, “but is not limited to,” the agency’s acquisitions, purchases, rentals, or leases of unmanned aircraft systems.

Because this bill would “expand the duties of local law enforcement” officials and local public officials and the scope of existing “investigatory activities,” the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would authorize the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL-FIRE) to use unmanned aircraft systems, or contract for the use of unmanned aircraft systems, for fire-related activities. The bill would require reasonable public notice to be provided by public agencies intending to deploy unmanned aircraft systems, as specified. The bill would require images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system under these provisions to be permanently destroyed within 10 days, except to the extent required as evidence of a crime, part of an ongoing investigation of a crime, or for training purposes, as specified, or pursuant to an order of a court. The bill would prohibit a person or entity, including a public agency subject to these provisions, or a person or entity under contract to a public agency, for the purpose of that contract, from equipping or arming an unmanned aircraft system with a weapon or other device that may be carried by or launched from an unmanned aircraft system and that may cause bodily injury or death, or damage to, or the destruction of, real or personal property.

This bill would also prohibit a person or entity, other than a public agency subject to the above provisions or a person or entity under contract to a public agency, for the purpose of that contract, from using an unmanned aircraft system, or contracting for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, for the purpose of surveillance of another person without that person’s consent. The bill would provide that a person who is subject to surveillance without consent may seek and obtain an injunction prohibiting the use of images, footage, or data related to the person that was obtained through the surveillance, and would provide for the awarding of liquidated damages of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each day of surveillance and any actual damages in excess of that amount. The

The bill would require that make the restrictions that apply that are applicable to the use of an unmanned aircraft system by a law enforcement agency also apply applicable to any person, entity, or public agency that uses, operates, or contracts for an unmanned aircraft system.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Digest Key

Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: YES


Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

[This really blows me away! “The People of the State of California Do Enact?” NO! The “People” most definitely DID NOT “ENACT” this Bill]

SECTION 1.

 Title 14 (commencing with Section 14350) is added to Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:

TITLE 14. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

14350.

 (a) A public agency shall not use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, except as provided in this title.

(b) A law enforcement agency may use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, system if it has a “reasonable expectation” that the unmanned aircraft system will collect evidence relating to criminal activity and if it has obtained a warrant based on probable cause pursuant to this code.

(c) (1) A law enforcement agency, without obtaining a warrant, may use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, system in emergency situations if there is an imminent threat to life or of great bodily harm, including, but not limited to, fires, hostage crises, “hot pursuit” situations if reasonably necessary to prevent harm to law enforcement officers or others, and search and rescue operations on land or water.

(2) A law enforcement agency, without obtaining a warrant, may use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, to conduct traffic accident investigations system to assess the necessity of first responders in situations relating to traffic accidents or to inspect state parks for illegal vegetation.

(d) (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), a law enforcement agency may use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, system to block, interfere with, or otherwise control communication or data signals of electronic devices only if it has obtained an order of a court pursuant to Section 2518 of Title 18 of the United States Code. signed by a judicial officer obtained prior to the interruption and consistent with the following:

(A) The order shall include all of the following:

(i) That probable cause exists that the service is being or will be used for an unlawful purpose or to assist in a violation of the law.

(ii) That absent immediate and summary action to interrupt communications service, serious, direct, immediate, and irreparable danger to public safety will result.

(iii) That the interruption of communications service is narrowly tailored to prevent unlawful infringement of speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Section 2 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, or a violation of any other rights under federal or state law.

(B) The order shall clearly describe the specific communications service to be interrupted with sufficient detail as to customer, cell sector, central office, or geographical area affected, shall be narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances under which the order is made, and shall not interfere with more communication than is necessary to achieve the purposes of the order.

(C) The order shall authorize an interruption of service only for as long as is reasonably necessary and shall require that the interruption cease once the danger that justified the interruption is abated and shall specify a process to immediately serve notice on the communications service provider to cease the interruption. [This has happened to numerous people WITHOUT A COURT ORDER! See Lisa]

(2) A law enforcement agency shall not use an unmanned aircraft system to block, interfere with, or otherwise control communication or data signals of electronic devices without a court order except pursuant to this paragraph.

(A) If a government entity reasonably determines that an extreme emergency situation exists that involves immediate danger of death and there is insufficient time, with due diligence, to first obtain a court order, the government entity may interrupt communications service without first obtaining a court order as otherwise required by this section, provided that the interruption meets the grounds for issuance of a court order pursuant to paragraph (1) and that the entity does all of the following:

(i) Apply for a court order without delay, and in no event, later than two hours after commencement of an interruption of communications service.

(ii) Provide to the provider of communications service involved in the service interruption a statement of intent, signed by an authorized official of the “governmental entity,” to apply for a court order. The statement of intent shall clearly describe the extreme emergency circumstances, and the specific communications service to be interrupted with sufficient detail [who will determine this?] as to the customer, cell sector, central office, or geographical area affected.

(iii) Provide conspicuous notice of the application for a court order authorizing the communications service interruption on its Internet Web site without delay, unless the circumstances that justify interruption of communications service without first obtaining a court order to justify not providing the notice.

(2)The requirement for a court order pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not apply in circumstances involving an imminent threat to persons or property, provided that the unmanned aircraft system is deployed for a maximum duration not to exceed six hours.

(e) (1) A public agency other than a law enforcement agency may use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, for the purposes of geological inspections related to the mission of the agency or for the purpose of detecting oil spills.

(2) CAL FIRE may use unmanned aircraft systems, or contract for the use of unmanned aircraft systems, for fire-related activities. (see California Conservation Corps)

(3) Data collected pursuant to this subdivision shall not be disseminated outside the collecting agency or provided to a law enforcement agency unless the agency has obtained a warrant for the data based upon probable cause pursuant to this code.

14351.

 (a) The acquisition of an unmanned aircraft system, or a contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, for purposes authorized by this title by a local public agency shall be subject to the specific approval of the applicable local public agency’s legislative body. The local legislative body, in approving the acquisition or purchase, shall also adopt policies governing the use and deployment of the unmanned aircraft system, consistent with this title.

(b) A state agency that uses an unmanned aircraft system, or contracts for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, shall provide, no later than January 1 of each year, an annual report to the Governor that includes, but is not limited to, the agency’s acquisitions, purchases, rentals, or leases of unmanned aircraft systems and a description of each instance in which the unmanned aircraft system was deployed, including the purpose of the deployment and whether a warrant was obtained.

14352.

 A public agency that uses an unmanned aircraft system, or contracts for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, pursuant to this title shall first provide reasonable notice to the public. Reasonable notice shall, at a minimum, consist of a one-time announcement regarding the agency’s intent to deploy unmanned aircraft system technology and a description of the technology’s capabilities.

14353.

 (a) Images, footage, or data obtained by a public agency through the use of an unmanned aircraft system authorized pursuant to this title shall be permanently destroyed within 10 days, except to the extent required as evidence of a crime, part of an ongoing investigation of a crime, or for training purposes, or pursuant to an order of a court., or any entity contracting with a public agency, through the use of an unmanned aircraft system shall not be disseminated outside the collecting agency, and shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it was collected. Images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system shall be permanently destroyed within 10 days, except if retained for “training purposes”or if a warrant authorized collection of or access to the images, footage, or data.

(b) (1) Images, footage, or data retained by a public agency shall be open to “public inspection,” unless expressly exempt by law.

(2) Images, footage, or data retained for “training purposes” shall be used only for the education and instruction of an agency’s employees in matters related to the “mission of the agency” and for no other purpose.

14354.

(a)(1)A person or entity, other than a public agency subject to Section 14350 or a person or entity under contract to a public agency, for the purpose of that contract, shall not use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, for the purpose of surveillance of another person without that person’s consent.

(2)

14354.

 A law enforcement agency shall only view data gathered by a person or entity, other than a public agency subject to Section 14350, entity using an unmanned aircraft system, “or a person under contract to a public agency,” if the law enforcement agency has obtained a warrant or has the permission or approval of that person or entity, or person under contract to a public agency, provided that the data gathered by the person or entity was lawfully obtained.

(b)A person who is subject to surveillance without consent may seek and obtain an injunction prohibiting the use of images, footage, or data related to the person that was obtained through the surveillance. The person shall also be awarded liquidated damages of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each day of surveillance and any actual damages in excess of that amount.

14354.5.

 A person or entity, including a public agency subject to Section 14350 or a person or entity under contract to a public agency, for “the purpose of that contract,” shall not equip or arm an unmanned aircraft system with a weapon or other device that may be carried by or launched from an unmanned aircraft system and that may cause bodily injury or death, or damage to, or the destruction of, real or personal property.

14354.7.

The restrictions on the use of an unmanned aircraft system by a law enforcement agency shall apply to any person, entity, or public agency that uses, operates, or contracts for an unmanned aircraft system.

14355.

 (a) Nothing in this title is “intended” to conflict with or supersede federal law, including rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration.

(b) Nothing in this title prohibits a local agency from adopting more restrictive policies on the use of unmanned aircraft systems for the protection of a person’s privacy.

14356.

 As used in this title, “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.

14357.

As used in this title, “surveillance” means the monitoring of persons, places, or events by any means of electronic technology, including, but not limited to, interception, overt or covert observation, photography, or the use of any tracking devices.

14357.

 The surveillance restrictions on electronic devices pursuant to Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 630) of Title 15 of Part 1 shall apply to unmanned aircraft systems. (See here CA Codes (bpc:7587-7587.15)

SEC. 2.

 No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. [See California Sovereign Lands]

Total contributions given to Assembly members from interest groups.

$0 – $1,634,560

Oppose this bill

State & local government employee unions

Consumer groups

Human rights

Contributions by Legislator:

0 Organizations Support and 3 Oppose:

3 organizations oppose this bill

Need proof?

American Civil Liberties Union of California

California State SheriffsAssociation

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Assembly Committee on Public Safety (2013, April 22). Assembly Committee Analysis

eff-drone-map

Anything missing?

MapLight did not identify any interest groups that took a position on this vote!
You may be able to explore campaign contributions data if you add interest groups.
Help your colleagues by suggesting an organization that took a position on this vote.

[Note: I added ‘Back Country Voices ‘ as a “special interest group”]

Reported contributions to campaigns of Assembly members in office during the 2013-2014 California State Legislature, from interest groups invested in the vote, January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2012.

Add Data Filters:

Scroll over to the right to see all (Bottom of page or click on blue highlighted area)

Name

Party

District

$ From Interest Groups
That Support

$ From Interest Groups
That Oppose

 

Name

Party

District

$ From Interest Groups
That Support

$ From Interest Groups
That Oppose

Katcho Achadjian

R

CA-35

$0

$2,000

Luis Alejo

D

CA-30

$0

$21,300

Travis Allen

R

CA-72

$0

$2,000

Tom Ammiano

D

CA-17

$0

$13,300

Toni Atkins

D

CA-78

$0

$21,700

Frank Bigelow

R

CA-5

$0

$7,800

Richard Bloom

D

CA-50

$0

$0

Raul Bocanegra

D

CA-39

$0

$1,000

Susan Bonilla

D

CA-14

$0

$19,700

Rob Bonta

D

CA-18

$0

$12,000

Steven Bradford

D

CA-62

$0

$25,100

Cheryl Brown

D

CA-47

$0

$3,900

Joan Buchanan

D

CA-16

$0

$29,650

Ian Calderon

D

CA-57

$0

$23,000

Nora Campos

D

CA-27

$0

$16,800

Ed Chau

D

CA-49

$0

$72,390

Rocky Chavez

R

CA-76

$0

$1,000

Wesley Chesbro

D

CA-2

$0

$15,800

Connie Conway

R

CA-26

$0

$1,500

Ken Cooley

D

CA-8

$0

$67,400

Brian Dahle

R

CA-1

$0

$0

Tom Daly

D

CA-69

$0

$0

Roger Dickinson

D

CA-7

$0

$39,300

Tim Donnelly

R

CA-33

$0

$0

Susan Eggman

D

CA-13

$0

$6,000

Paul Fong

D

CA-28

$0

$29,200

Steve Fox

D

CA-36

$0

$0

Jim Frazier

D

CA-11

$0

$27,800

Beth Gaines

R

CA-6

$0

$0

Cristina Garcia

D

CA-58

$0

$33,400

Mike Gatto

D

CA-43

$0

$40,700

Jimmy Gomez

D

CA-51

$0

$82,400

Rich Gordon

D

CA-24

$0

$8,800

Jeff Gorell

R

CA-44

$0

$0

Adam Gray

D

CA-21

$0

$34,900

Shannon Grove

R

CA-34

$0

$0

Curt Hagman

R

CA-55

$0

$0

Isadore Hall

D

CA-64

$0

$9,800

Diane Harkey

R

CA-73

$0

$0

Roger Hernandez

D

CA-48

$0

$27,000

Chris Holden

D

CA-41

$0

$47,950

Brian Jones

R

CA-71

$0

$0

Reggie Jones-Sawyer

D

CA-59

$0

$59,900

Marc Levine

D

CA-10

$0

$500

Eric Linder

R

CA-60

$0

$0

Dan Logue

R

CA-3

$0

$0

Bonnie Lowenthal

D

CA-70

$0

$3,500

Brian Maienschein

R

CA-77

$0

$0

Allan Mansoor

R

CA-74

$0

$0

Jose Medina

D

CA-61

$0

$67,025

Melissa Melendez

R

CA-67

$0

$0

Holly Mitchell

D

CA-54

$0

$21,500

Mike Morrell

R

CA-40

$0

$6,025

Kevin Mullin

D

CA-22

$0

$26,600

Al Muratsuchi

D

CA-66

$0

$71,300

Adrin Nazarian

D

CA-46

$0

$45,600

Brian Nestande

R

CA-42

$0

$15,600

Kristin Olsen

R

CA-12

$0

$0

Richard Pan

D

CA-9

$0

$70,721

Jim Patterson

R

CA-23

$0

$0

Henry Perea

D

CA-31

$0

$2,000

John Perez

D

CA-53

$0

$92,700

Manuel Perez

D

CA-56

$0

$4,500

Bill Quirk

D

CA-20

$0

$29,850

Sharon Quirk-Silva

D

CA-65

$0

$20,399

Anthony Rendon

D

CA-63

$0

$64,050

Rudy Salas

D

CA-32

$0

$61,400

Nancy Skinner

D

CA-15

$0

$21,100

Mark Stone

D

CA-29

$0

$16,300

Phil Ting

D

CA-19

$0

$52,000

Don Wagner

R

CA-68

$0

$0

Marie Waldron

R

CA-75

$0

$0

Shirley Weber

D

CA-79

$0

$40,100

Bob Wieckowski

D

CA-25

$0

$25,600

Scott Wilk

R

CA-38

$0

$0

Das Williams

D

CA-37

$0

$56,400

Mariko Yamada

D

CA-4

$0

$15,300

Top Interest Groups

Last two years of available data, Jan. 1, 2011 – Dec. 31, 2012.

Construction unions

$4,362,843

Attorneys & law firms

$2,995,623

Native American tribes & governing units

$2,902,050

State & local government employee unions

$2,701,515

Police & fire fighters unions and associations

$2,679,467

Property & casualty insurance

$2,023,238

Telecommunications

$1,986,976

Teachers unions

$1,624,125

Pharmaceutical manufacturing

$1,219,851

Real estate

$1,182,545

See all interest groups

Campaign Contributions Received by California Legislators

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Operator (15W) | goarmy.com

Drone testing starts in Atchison County – AviationPros.com

U.S. H.R. 2868 (113th) – Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013

Peter Welch / The bill has been referred to committee.

To amend the FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 to provide guidance and limitations regarding the integration of unmanned aircraft systems into United States airspace, and for other purposes. Peter Welch (D-VT) U.S. House | MapLight – Money and Politics

Calif. AJR 6 (2013-2014) – Relative to Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

Unmanned aircraft systems

Steve Fox / The bill has become law (chaptered).

Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015. Existing federal law requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and implement operational and certification requirements for the operation of public… More

Calif. AB 1327 (2013-2014) – An Act to Add Title 14 (Commencing with Section 14350) to Part 4 of the Penal Code, Relating to Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

Unmanned aircraft systems

Jeff Gorell, Steven Bradford / The bill was voted on by an Assembly committee on May 1, 2013.

Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015. Existing federal law requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and implement operational and certification requirements… More

U.S. H.R. 5965 (112th) – To Require the Chief of the Forest Service to Make the Forest Service First and Second Generation Modular Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS) Units Available to Units of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve That Have the Aircraft Capability and Pilot and Crew Member Training Adequate for Utilizing Such Firefighting Systems to Help Alleviate the Shortage of Air Tankers to Fight Wildfires.

Emergency management

Elton Gallegly / The bill has been introduced.

To require the Chief of the Forest Service to make the Forest Service First and Second Generation Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) units available to units of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve that have the aircraft capability and pilot and crew member training adequate for utilizing such firefighting systems to help alleviate the shortage of air tankers to fight wildfires.… More

U.S. H.R. 2868 (113th) – Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013

Peter Welch / The bill has been referred to committee.

To amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to provide guidance and limitations regarding the integration of unmanned aircraft systems into United States airspace, and for other purposes. (by CRS)

U.S. H.R. 1262 (113th) – Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013

Transportation and public works

Edward Markey / The bill has been referred to committee.

To amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to provide guidance and limitations regarding the integration of unmanned aircraft systems into United States airspace, and for other purposes. (by CRS)

U.S. H.R. 6676 (112th) – Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2012

Transportation and Public Works

Edward Markey / The bill has been introduced.

To amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to provide guidance and limitations regarding the integration of unmanned aircraft systems into United States airspace, and for other purposes. (by CRS)

Aviation

***

California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration of Rights – Official …

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1.  All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTSSEC. 2.  (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.

CAL. PRC. CODE § 14350 : California Code – Section 14350

The director may establish a training program for members of county or city conservation corps. The program may be designed to provide the same training to members of county or city conservation corps as provided to corps-members of the corps and may be conducted in the same facilities. The program is authorized only to the extent that it does not adversely affect the ability of the California Conservation Corps to maintain 2,000 active corps-members.

If the corps establishes a training program as described in Section 14350, the corps may contract with the county or city requesting the training and the contract may require the corps to be fully reimbursed for all costs of the training program.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=gov

1-26 TITLE 1. SOVEREIGNTY AND PEOPLE OF THE STATE CHAPTER 1. 270-275.2 DIVISION 2. STATE 430-439 CHAPTER 4. SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, POLITICAL DIVISIONS, AND LEGAL DISTANCES 860-860.4 CHAPTER 7.

An Act to Add Title 14 (Commencing with Section 14350) to Part 4 of …

Campaign Contributions Received by California Legislators

Back Country Voices | Citizen’s Action Group

Related articles

http://lisaleaks.com/2013/10/30/an-act-to-relating-to-unmanned-aircraft-systems/

An Act to Relating to Unmanned Aircraft Systems – lisaleaks

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “An Act to Relating to Unmanned Aircraft Systems

  1. Pingback: FAA Reauthorization and Modernization | Back Country Voices

  2. Pingback: Connections, laws biggest factor in UAS test site for Inyokern | Back Country Voices

  3. Pingback: Congressmembers sign letter of support for Cal UAS, San Diego | Back Country Voices

  4. Pingback: To amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 | Back Country Voices

  5. Pingback: Legislation to Promote Transparency, Privacy for Commercial and Government Drone Use | Back Country Voices

  6. Pingback: Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013HR 1262 | Back Country Voices

  7. Pingback: Status of Domestic Drone Legislation in the States | Back Country Voices

  8. Pingback: 2013 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Legislation | Back Country Voices

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s