Bans, Restrictions and Public Use

Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
237
Reaction score
215
Age
52
Hi All,

I have been flying my P4 all around the US and various spots around the world. I love it, it’s one of the best inventions that has come along since the digital camera. There is no better way that I know, for an average person to be able to capture beautiful high definition aerial footage with near professional quality.

Sadly, it has become more and more difficult to use drones in public areas around the US. Most, if not all parks, preserves, open spaces, nature areas, etc. have restricted the use of drones. As have most local municipalities, local parks and regional recreation districts. The result is a mix mash of restrictions and local bans that make it near impossible to use these wonderful tools.

While I agree that appropriate guidelines should be prepared and enforced so as not to endanger others, impact wildlife or create a public nuisance. However, the current default stance of “just ban them” results ultimately in restricting access to public areas, specifically designed to be preserved and protected for the purpose of the public’s enjoyment. That is not acceptable and I think that we as a community of hobbyists have as much right to view and photograph these lands as any other group. I would also propose that if we don’t push for this as a group, the access will be taken from us without any discussion or perspective.

If your interested in defending our ability to use our drones. Please sign the attached partition and let our local governmental agencies know that the current default stance of banning drones is not acceptable or reasonable.

Sign the Petition
 
  • Like
Reactions: NRJ

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,910
Reaction score
5,645
Age
49
Location
Western North Carolina
Why does your right to fly your noisy hobby flying camera over rule the right to quiet and relaxation of everyone else? When I'm in the back country enjoying nature the last thing I want is a UAS buzzing around overhead spoiling my peace and probably my view as well.

We need to find respectful places to fly like we have for decades.

Sometimes we feel like we are many but in reality our #'s or minuscule at best. In a dream world you'd see a time when our National Parts (and other parks) are open to any and all UAS activities you'll see a huge public outcry and reality would quickly set in. It's just not going to happen.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
853
Reaction score
340
Location
US
Sadly, it has become more and more difficult to use drones in public areas around the US. Most, if not all parks, preserves, open spaces, nature areas, etc. have restricted the use of drones. As have most local municipalities, local parks and regional recreation districts. The result is a mix mash of restrictions and local bans that make it near impossible to use these wonderful tools.
This is false.

Certainly, some localities and municipalities have enacted some restrictions, but there is no evidence that it is "most" and certainly not "all".
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
237
Reaction score
215
Age
52
Why does your right to fly your noisy hobby flying camera over rule the right to quiet and relaxation of everyone else? When I'm in the back country enjoying nature the last thing I want is a UAS buzzing around overhead spoiling my peace and probably my view as well.

We need to find respectful places to fly like we have for decades.

Sometimes we feel like we are many but in reality our #'s or minuscule at best. In a dream world you'd see a time when our National Parts (and other parks) are open to any and all UAS activities you'll see a huge public outcry and reality would quickly set in. It's just not going to happen.
I appreciate the perspective, however along these lines, why does your right to drive your noisy, pollution producing car, RV or camper into a park override everybody else’s right to quite and relaxation. The same argument could apply to your right to turn on a music device, or allow an airplane or helicopter into such areas.

I’m not advocating a total abandonment of all regulation. To your point, with no guidelines the issue would quickly escalate and get out of hand. These areas were set aside for the enjoyment of the public and they should be available for such purposes. Appropriate guidelines should be set in place which balances the rights of all. The trend I am seeing however is to simply ban drones all together vs allowing for the debate and public comment required to establish a set of standard guidelines.

Generalized bans won’t get us to any standard of access that would be considered reasonable. That’s my fundamental argument here.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
42
Reaction score
10
Age
76
Location
Litchfield Park, AZ
I agree and I just started a thread "Flying over parks" that I talk about trying to work out a legal way to over fly the parks using FAA guidlines. It would not really give full access as we have to maintain VLOS but it would make access to the borders of the parks accessable. Also I agree that there are many more disturbing things in the parks. From dogs, horses, moutain bikes, music and noisy unruly kids, that make our drones pretty mundane in contast. In parks there are always areas that people don't go or hike in because the only way to get to them would be by air. The trend to blanket restrict them is draconian. IMHO
 
  • Like
Reactions: streamwhuddle
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
42
Reaction score
10
Age
76
Location
Litchfield Park, AZ
As far as BigA107 talking about over running National Parks, well Parks and Wilderness Areas prevent people like him from "over running" the areas through the use of permits. That is the way to control the number of what ever needs to be controled. Just say no is dumb!
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
237
Reaction score
215
Age
52
This is false.

Certainly, some localities and municipalities have enacted some restrictions, but there is no evidence that it is "most" and certainly not "all".
Interesting, out of curiosity what data are you referring to in your statement that “some” localities have enacted “some” restrictions?

In my area, the following has occured:

1. The East Bay Parks district has banned all drones (they manage all parks and public lands in the East Bay from Oakland to San Jose).

2. The Alameda County parks district has banned all drones (they manage broad areas around Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, Milpitas, Fremont and surrounding areas.

3. Mnt Diablo and surrounding areas have banned all drones (this is the general area around Walnut Creek, Concord, Danville and the actual park district).

4. San Mateo parks district has banned all drones (this includes Coyote hills, the central parks area, and hillside parks).

This is not a compete list, and is intended to be illustrative. These four administrators cover the major of the parks, preserves and open spaces in the greater Bay Area. Other local boards have either followed suite or are considering new bans. My statement that most is based on my local region, and disputes the assertion made that my statements are false.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
42
Reaction score
10
Age
76
Location
Litchfield Park, AZ
In my area, the following has occured:
This is not a compete list, and is intended to be illustrative.
This fact sheet indicates that those restrictions may not be enforced. The FAA does not want a "patch work" of flight restrictions. Read the linked pdf file on this. They can restrict take off and landings as well as enforce nuisance laws etc. Over flight appears to be out of their jurisdiction.

The fact sheet provides examples of state and local laws affecting UAS for which consultation with the FAA is recommended, such as restrictions on flight altitude or flight paths, regulation of the navigable airspace, and mandating UAS-specific equipment or training.
Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,910
Reaction score
5,645
Age
49
Location
Western North Carolina
As far as BigA107 talking about over running National Parks, well Parks and Wilderness Areas prevent people like him from "over running" the areas through the use of permits. That is the way to control the number of what ever needs to be controled. Just say no is dumb!
Or better yet they control it by not allowing certain types of vehicles in the area... ATV's , 4X4, UAS... yea this works out pretty well TBH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yenrab
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
42
Reaction score
10
Age
76
Location
Litchfield Park, AZ
Or better yet they control it by not allowing certain types of vehicles in the area... ATV's , 4X4, UAS... yea this works out pretty well TBH.
LOL! Personally I am in favor of them not allowing noisy, gas polluting vehicles in most areas. The fact that they do provide areas for those things gives more reason they should allow UAVs as they do not add the same toxic things to the enviroment . . . IMHO :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: streamwhuddle

N017RW

Premium Pilot
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,245
Location
Palm Beach Co.- FL
In my area, the following has occured:
This is not a compete list, and is intended to be illustrative.
This fact sheet indicates that those restrictions may not be enforced. The FAA does not want a "patch work" of flight restrictions. Read the linked pdf file on this. They can restrict take off and landings as well as enforce nuisance laws etc. Over flight appears to be out of their jurisdiction.

The fact sheet provides examples of state and local laws affecting UAS for which consultation with the FAA is recommended, such as restrictions on flight altitude or flight paths, regulation of the navigable airspace, and mandating UAS-specific equipment or training.
Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
That link is 3 years, 9 months old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: streamwhuddle

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
5,300
Reaction score
2,689
Location
Los Alamos, NM.
That is the most recent FAA comment and is there something that negates this?
It’s essentially just an FAA news release. It has no force of law or other legal standing but, on the specific regulatory items that it addresses, I don’t see anything that is not currently correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yenrab

N017RW

Premium Pilot
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
8,961
Reaction score
3,245
Location
Palm Beach Co.- FL
That is the most recent FAA comment and is there something that negates this?
Negates???

It’s just an FYI.

For one thing.... there’s no mention of Part 107 operations.

TEHO
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
42
Reaction score
10
Age
76
Location
Litchfield Park, AZ
Negates???

It’s just an FYI.

For one thing.... there’s no mention of Part 107 operations.

TEHO
I am just researching this as I have just acquired a Phantom P4 and want to do some more serious photography. I appreciate your response and as I said before any input is helpful. 107 is my next step after I find out what I can do with my current equipment before I go to more pro upgrade.

BTW:
ne·gate
nəˈɡāt/
verb
3rd person present: negates
  1. 1.
    nullify; make ineffective.
    "alcohol negates the effects of the drug"
    synonyms: invalidate, nullify, neutralize, cancel; More

  2. 2.
    LOGICGRAMMAR
    make (a clause, sentence, or proposition) negative in meaning.
;-) I gots me some book learnin' LOL
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
237
Reaction score
215
Age
52
As you all may know, the FAA established a set guidelines for UAV operators back on June 18, 2014 and announced these as accepted rules in December of that year. This is not a set of new laws to be clear, the guidelines were initially published as a memo that the FAA drafted as an interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of Public Law 112-95) see: Getting Started and was intended as a baseline for updated FAA rules that would be applied in the usage and operation of UAVs for both Private and Commercial use. The draft rules and subsequently adopted rules did require that commercial use required FAA licensing and that all users were required to register their drones with the FAA (for a small fee). Subsequently, my understanding was that a lawsuit brought before the court in the District of Columbia alleged the FAA did not have authority to require registration for private operators, and that this lawsuit resulting in a ruling that upheld the complaint. The Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the case wrote "In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft", which would imply that the published rules were no longer enforceable. However, the FAA has taken the position that only the registration rule was deemed unenforceable and that the other published rules still applied.

So basically, its pretty murky as to what the FAA can or will enforce in terms of UAV usage and operations in the US. At the same time, local municipalities, agencies, governing bodies, etc. are writing rules, ordinances, bans and restrictions for UAV operations in their respective jurisdictions, which are in conflict with the FAA, who technically has jurisdiction over vehicles operating in US airspace. So we are stuck with no clear governing body, a general stance that its better to ban then establish proper oversight, and the unique aspect of a drone operating from as well as over the jurisdictions of these various agencies.

The FAA has kicked off an UAA Integration Pilot Program in an attempt to establish a baseline set of governing rules, which will include interested public entities and private parties (i.e. you and me). Any of you reading this may want to get involved if you have in interest in where this hobby is heading from an oversight perspective: How to Apply to UAS Integration Pilot Program.

You can also sign my petition as I will be advocating for the same thing, clear guidelines that respect drone operators rights to use these wonderful tools, especially in/over public lands, reserves and parks with the potential privacy, nuisance, impact and fair use issues that need to be addressed.

Sign the Petition
 

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
5,300
Reaction score
2,689
Location
Los Alamos, NM.
As you all may know, the FAA established a set guidelines for UAV operators back on June 18, 2014 and announced these as accepted rules in December of that year. This is not a set of new laws to be clear, the guidelines were initially published as a memo that the FAA drafted as an interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of Public Law 112-95) see: Getting Started and was intended as a baseline for updated FAA rules that would be applied in the usage and operation of UAVs for both Private and Commercial use. The draft rules and subsequently adopted rules did require that commercial use required FAA licensing and that all users were required to register their drones with the FAA (for a small fee). Subsequently, my understanding was that a lawsuit brought before the court in the District of Columbia alleged the FAA did not have authority to require registration for private operators, and that this lawsuit resulting in a ruling that upheld the complaint. The Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the case wrote "In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft", which would imply that the published rules were no longer enforceable. However, the FAA has taken the position that only the registration rule was deemed unenforceable and that the other published rules still applied.

So basically, its pretty murky as to what the FAA can or will enforce in terms of UAV usage and operations in the US. At the same time, local municipalities, agencies, governing bodies, etc. are writing rules, ordinances, bans and restrictions for UAV operations in their respective jurisdictions, which are in conflict with the FAA, who technically has jurisdiction over vehicles operating in US airspace. So we are stuck with no clear governing body, a general stance that its better to ban then establish proper oversight, and the unique aspect of a drone operating from as well as over the jurisdictions of these various agencies.

The FAA has kicked off an UAA Integration Pilot Program in an attempt to establish a baseline set of governing rules, which will include interested public entities and private parties (i.e. you and me). Any of you reading this may want to get involved if you have in interest in where this hobby is heading from an oversight perspective: How to Apply to UAS Integration Pilot Program.

You can also sign my petition as I will be advocating for the same thing, clear guidelines that respect drone operators rights to use these wonderful tools, especially in/over public lands, reserves and parks with the potential privacy, nuisance, impact and fair use issues that need to be addressed.

Sign the Petition
That's mostly accurate but possibly misses a subtlety of 14 CFR Part 101 - namely that it does not contain any new rules governing recreational flight, and only one old rule codified in 101.43 (No person may operate model aircraft so as to endanger the safety of the national airspace system).

The only other section of Part 101, which is 101.41, has no rules - it simply describes the applicability of Part 101, i.e. the criteria that you must satisfy to fall under the provisions of the Special Rule. If you don't meet those provisions then you have not broken any rules or laws under Part 101, but rather have ceased to fall under Part 101 and instead fall under Part 107, which has lots of rules.

In other words the FAA response to being prohibited from promulgating new rules on model aircraft flight was simply to define very strictly what comprises model aircraft flight.

The result is that there really is no ambiguity here. Registration was a new rule, implemented via a 2015 FAA Regulatory action, and hence was struck down. There are no other model aircraft rules to strike down.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
853
Reaction score
340
Location
US
Interesting, out of curiosity what data are you referring to in your statement that “some” localities have enacted “some” restrictions?

In my area, the following has occured:

1. The East Bay Parks district has banned all drones (they manage all parks and public lands in the East Bay from Oakland to San Jose).

2. The Alameda County parks district has banned all drones (they manage broad areas around Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, Milpitas, Fremont and surrounding areas.

3. Mnt Diablo and surrounding areas have banned all drones (this is the general area around Walnut Creek, Concord, Danville and the actual park district).

4. San Mateo parks district has banned all drones (this includes Coyote hills, the central parks area, and hillside parks).

This is not a compete list, and is intended to be illustrative. These four administrators cover the major of the parks, preserves and open spaces in the greater Bay Area. Other local boards have either followed suite or are considering new bans. My statement that most is based on my local region, and disputes the assertion made that my statements are false.
Well, in Virginia, localities are currently prohibited by state law to enact any legislation to regulate UAS.

§ 15.2-926.3. (Expires July 1, 2019) Local regulation of certain aircraft
§ 15.2-926.3. (Expires July 1, 2019) Local regulation of certain aircraft.
No locality may regulate the use of a privately owned, unmanned aircraft system as defined in § 19.2-60.1 within its boundaries.

They are, however, prohibited in Virginia State Parks.

Most National Forest Service properties are open for UAS use. The Forest Service has publicly stated that they have no jurisdiction over the airspace.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
237
Reaction score
215
Age
52
In truth, neither the National Forest Service or Park service can regulate their airspace as the FAA has jurisdiction. They can however regulate the operation of UAS devices from the lands under their jurisdiction. That is why the National Park Service ban has been upheld to date. Granted no one has tested the ban in court, so it may be premature to say it’s been upheld as it really hasn’t been tested so far. None the less, you can currently, technically anyway, fly a drone over a National Park, you cannot however operate it from a National Park.
 
  • Like
Reactions: streamwhuddle

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
138,479
Messages
1,429,953
Members
100,501
Latest member
yunior979