Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees send drone policy back to committee after debate over FAA jurisdiction and classroom use
Summary
At its Jan. 14 meeting the board debated proposed drone policy language that several trustees warned appears to claim authority over nearby airspace; trustees requested legal clarification from CSBA and remanded the draft back to the policy committee to resolve classroom exemptions and jurisdictional issues.
The Redwood City School Board on Jan. 14 discussed a proposed drone policy and directed policy committee to seek legal clarification and return with recommended edits.
Trustees raised two core concerns: whether the draft improperly asserts control over airspace (a matter trustees said belongs to the Federal Aviation Administration) and whether the policy would unintentionally require burdensome approvals for harmless in-class STEM demonstrations using ultralight drones.
Board President Preston Weekley, who identified himself in the meeting as an FAA-licensed commercial pilot and a certified drone remote pilot-in-command, said the district cannot lawfully regulate navigable airspace and urged the policy be revised to avoid overreach. "The district doesn't own the airspace," Weekley said, and he cautioned that language suggesting overflight control "will get shot down in court." He added that very light drones under 0.55 pounds used for classroom demonstrations should not be constrained by a policy that would impose commercial licensing or onerous insurance requirements.
Other trustees said the policy committee should ask CSBA (the California School Boards Association) for interpretation of standard sample language and recommended clarifying distinctions between district-controlled operations (takeoffs/landings and operations from district property) and unaffiliated overflight. Several trustees suggested the policy might instead establish a response and reporting protocol for suspected problematic overflights.
The board did not adopt the drone language at first reading and asked policy committee to return with clearer language addressing jurisdictional limits, classroom exceptions for ultralight drones and any insurance or operational thresholds for larger devices.
The discussion illustrated a broader tension trustees said exists between protecting student safety and avoiding legal overreach that could hamper STEM instruction.
