Thank you. It seems respect has been lost by most.
You’re welcome. I’m not naturally an eloquent person but those thoughts and policies were so eloquently beaten into my rather thick skull.
Well it is up to all of us as operators to make sure we know the laws before we fly and that we are flying in a safe and legal manner at all times. It is a shame that any person in authority has some sort of attitude as they approach and greets you with anything less than civility. However unfortunately it does happen not only with people in authoritative positions but simple store clerks have bad days it doesn't excuse the behavior but again had you not been operating illegally it appears the situation would not have occurred perhaps had you found the Ranger and spoke with them before flying this could have all been averted. Not making excuses for him as I have had my run-ins with the law enforcement with bad attitudes for something simple and they were in the wrong. Just my two cents worth
This is an interesting case. I think there are two separate issues here. I'm not going to get into the age of the local law enforcement officer. This is not so cut and dry.
It is true that we must "follow the rules" and that's even a question on the 107 exam. Anti-authoritarianism is a trait that the FAA does not like, like impulsiveness and machoism.
If you are flying in a place where a local authority has prohibited flying, I would expect to draw both unwanted attention from law enforcement and a fine. It's not something I would do just because I find it very unpleasant in general when being on the wrong side of local law enforcement.
It is a separate issue whether this Wisconsin prohibition on flying in state parks is a valid law. Every law has to have a rational basis and what is the rational basis for the Wisconsin ban? What public purpose is that blanket ban serving? The law is invalid if there is no rational basis.
Separately is the question of whether Wisconsin even has the right to ban an otherwise authorized aircraft from state park airspace. It seems to me that the only the FAA has jurisdiction over Wisconsin state park airspace. I don't think that Wisconsin could ban other FAA regulated aircraft like ultra-lights or Cessnas or air balloons over WI state park airspace so it would not make sense that they could ban an FAA regulated UAS being flown properly either under the recreational exception or Part 107.
The precedent concerns me, because I live in the US west where a blanket restriction on flying in state parks would take away millions of acres of public land (and much of it very remote and film-worthy) airspace from drone operators. I think that while we need to obviously follow the local laws that exist, we should be careful as drone operators about ceding airspace to local jurisdictions.
It is true that we must "follow the rules" and that's even a question on the 107 exam. Anti-authoritarianism is a trait that the FAA does not like, like impulsiveness and machoism.
If you are flying in a place where a local authority has prohibited flying, I would expect to draw both unwanted attention from law enforcement and a fine. It's not something I would do just because I find it very unpleasant in general when being on the wrong side of local law enforcement.
It is a separate issue whether this Wisconsin prohibition on flying in state parks is a valid law. Every law has to have a rational basis and what is the rational basis for the Wisconsin ban? What public purpose is that blanket ban serving? The law is invalid if there is no rational basis.
Separately is the question of whether Wisconsin even has the right to ban an otherwise authorized aircraft from state park airspace. It seems to me that the only the FAA has jurisdiction over Wisconsin state park airspace. I don't think that Wisconsin could ban other FAA regulated aircraft like ultra-lights or Cessnas or air balloons over WI state park airspace so it would not make sense that they could ban an FAA regulated UAS being flown properly either under the recreational exception or Part 107.
The precedent concerns me, because I live in the US west where a blanket restriction on flying in state parks would take away millions of acres of public land (and much of it very remote and film-worthy) airspace from drone operators. I think that while we need to obviously follow the local laws that exist, we should be careful as drone operators about ceding airspace to local jurisdictions.
I've flown - safe and sane - in Wisconsin state parks and forests and riverways for 5 years now. I've come across rangers who never had any problems and were even interested and asked me to demonstrate for them. Yesterday, at Devil's Lake State Park, I thought I'd get some aerial shots of a huge Native American effigy mound in the shape of a man-bird. Nobody was around the mound and I kept my entire flight immediately above it. I had pretty much got all my shots and was in the high 20% on the battery so I was already bringing it in when a ranger showed up and told me to bring it in. I told him I was doing just that, and he told me again to bring it in. I asked him if I hadn't just said that.
He proceeded to inform me that quadcopters and the like aren't allowed in any state parks in WI. Couldn't have told you that based on previous rangers' reactions... but I was landing anyway.
Just bugged me that I was being totally cooperative and civil, and yet he felt the need to push the order he gave. Part of the problem is my difficulty with authority figures young enough to be my kids.
Oh well. I put it away and he went off and hassled someone else for using too much charcoal on the grills or something.
I think we just need to start contacting my legislators that we want to fly and state and federal parks that there is no good reason why we cannot if we fly in a safe and professional manner and follow the rules like a previous poster said there are millions of Acres of national parks and I do not believe drone flying is a detriment to them. But the only way this will change is through the legislative process which means we need to start stepping up.
I don’t imagine there will ever be a time where drones will be allowed in federal parks. It somewhat goes against the entire point of the park in the first place. It’s supposed to essentially be a memorilization of untouched wild. Having a loud noise buzzing through the sky is in direct contrast with the overall purpose of the park. It seems reasonable to me.
I;ve found the Rangers that police our conservation areas here in Ontario Canada, usually more than willing to help a drone flyer out. Example, I fly at least once a week at one minutes from my home & if there is no one around, they let me take off from the parking lot, if there are people/cars in the lot they've given us a vacant area, to take off from, about a 10 minute walk away from the parking lot.
In return for their patience, we don't even try to fly there on weekends when you know all the dog walkers, Horse people will be all over the park.
Nice arrangement
In return for their patience, we don't even try to fly there on weekends when you know all the dog walkers, Horse people will be all over the park.
Nice arrangement
We are not allowed to take off or land in our state parks. The FAA controls the airspace so yes, you can fly into our state parks, just do it from outside the parks boundary.
Now wait I could be wrong but it is not against any FAA rules nor DNR rules to fly in a state or federal park. What is not allowed is landing or launching in these areas. Only the FAA can control airspace not parks so you can technically do a fly over just like an airplane or helicopter just not touch down.
Yes?
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
- Messages
- 388
- Reaction score
- 123
- Age
- 67
As I mentioned earlier, the FAA also prohibits overflight by aircraft of state and national parks below 2000 ft AGL. Does it apply to UAS? Hmm? Does it? Do you know the facts? I certainly don't in this case. And even though the fine might be less than the fee for the permit, I DON'T want it on my record personally. Your mileage may vary.
Since it is a felony to shoot down an aircraft or cause it to crash (including UAVs), it's quite possible the 2000 ft. AGL rule applies to UAS.
Since it is a felony to shoot down an aircraft or cause it to crash (including UAVs), it's quite possible the 2000 ft. AGL rule applies to UAS.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2016
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 8
- Age
- 72
Yep, it's always a hitch when the authorities catch you breaking the law and aren't all nice about it. You fly, it's your responsibility to know where you can legally fly. Instead of not being nice, he should have just cited you.I've flown - safe and sane - in Wisconsin state parks and forests and riverways for 5 years now. I've come across rangers who never had any problems and were even interested and asked me to demonstrate for them. Yesterday, at Devil's Lake State Park, I thought I'd get some aerial shots of a huge Native American effigy mound in the shape of a man-bird. Nobody was around the mound and I kept my entire flight immediately above it. I had pretty much got all my shots and was in the high 20% on the battery so I was already bringing it in when a ranger showed up and told me to bring it in. I told him I was doing just that, and he told me again to bring it in. I asked him if I hadn't just said that.
He proceeded to inform me that quadcopters and the like aren't allowed in any state parks in WI. Couldn't have told you that based on previous rangers' reactions... but I was landing anyway.
Just bugged me that I was being totally cooperative and civil, and yet he felt the need to push the order he gave. Part of the problem is my difficulty with authority figures young enough to be my kids.
Oh well. I put it away and he went off and hassled someone else for using too much charcoal on the grills or something.
The park exists with taxpayer dollars. Prove that drones impact the environment. Automobiles in the parks,radios make as much noise. Imho
Gosh, I’m confused. I thought I did a search of rules before a recent vacation in Door County Wisconsin. I took a sectional chart for airport locations, but I don’t remember State Parks being NFZ. If I go back, where is that law/regulation/guideline written.
I don’t think I have to prove drones are loud, anybody who has flown one can verify that fact. The main complaint is the noise. Beyond that there are concerns over keeping the beauty of the park. In some cases, their use has resulted in noise and nuisance complaints from park visitors, park visitor safety concerns, and one documented incident in which park wildlife were harassed. Small drones have crashed in geysers in Yellowstone National Park, attempted to land on the features of Mount Rushmore National Memorial and been lost over the edge of the Grand Canyon. The National Park Service embraces many activities in national parks because they enhance visitor experiences with the iconic natural, historic and cultural landscapes in our care. Also, you can’t blare your radio at a park or drive your car anywhere you want through it. All of those rules are specifically designed to maintain the peaceful tranquility of national parks.
Well, believe it or not, it never even occurred to me that day, particularly after having flown in state parks before with no problem... even interest on the part of the rangers. To be fair, the previous time, it was in fall at a lake. There were no other people around, so the rangers may have determined that it was not worth enforcing; but because of that, it honestly hadn't dawned on me to check before this past visit. It seemed to me that it was OK.
I was once pulled over for crossing the double yellow line to avoid rumble strips that would have woken up my baby in the car seat. It was clear, straight, daylight, not another car in sight... and I never even imagined it was a traffic offense. Luckily, THIS cop was realistic, we talked about it, he gave me a verbal warning, and we were on our way. Now I know.... in both cases.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 130083
- Phantom 3 Pro/Adv
