What does one do when you realize that you don’t have the authority to ban drone flights? If you’re the Georgia Building Authority then you vote to give yourself that authority. In doing so, the Building Authority has the potential to single-handedly shoot down a lucrative technology research and public safety area for Atlanta and Georgia.
As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s “Political Insider” broke on Monday, the Building Authority’s Board chaired by Gov. Nathan Deal unanimously passed a resolution that completely bans “unmanned aircraft systems (drones)” over, in, and around the grounds of the state Capitol as well as the grounds of the governor’s mansion. Specifically, the resolution prohibits operations within 5 miles of the “capitol hill heliport.” No exception is made for hobbyists, law enforcement, public safety, or research flights.
The Building Authority bases the resolution on the need for safety and uninterrupted operations at the capitol and the mansion. A reference to the heliport located on the Capitol grounds, as well as the Federal Aviation Administration’s draft small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) proposed rulemaking guideline, are thrown in for good measure. A key fact overlooked in the resolution is that “safety” in the airspace is solely and directly under the FAA’s purview.
No matter how strongly the Building Authority may want to push for safety restrictions in the national airspace, it cannot give itself the authority merely by declaring it to be the case. The FAA continues to assert itself and its authority over air safety regulations.
The Capitol heliport 5-mile radius ban would have far-reaching impact into areas of Georgia’s technology and research industries. In particular, this restriction would ground any Atlanta-area flights by the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) and CNN joint-partnership with the FAA’s “Pathfinder” research project. In May, the FAA announced its “Pathfinder” program in which it partnered with three companies to research safe UAS operations in set situations. CNN was selected to study the safe operations of by media outlets over-populated, urban areas. The Pathfinder partnership built on existing research between the FAA, CNN, and GTRI into media UAS operations. Perhaps a University of Georgia graduate drafted the resolution as a means to a halt to this exclusive and lucrative research project.
The resolution also fails to provide an exemption for law enforcement and public safety operations. As local law enforcement and state agencies look to UAS flights as a cost-saving and efficient means of rescue operations and inspections, the Building Authority would clip their wings. For a state with traffic management on the mind, the ban would also prevent the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and other agencies from utilizing UAS technology within the Atlanta-area. In 2013, the GDOT commissioned a $75,000.00 traffic study through GTRI that
outlined potential UAS traffic management benefits. All of this would have to stay in the hanger should the Building Authority’s resolution hold.
A buck shot resolution response to a buzzing annoyance for a few officials at the Building Authority has the potential to draw FAA fire, ease public safety operations, and halt lucrative technology advances in Georgia.
The author is an attorney with Hall Booth Smith in Atlanta.
