- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,075
- Reaction score
- 169
- Age
- 39
Flying at San Clemente State Beach
- Thread starter KingDad1985
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,075
- Reaction score
- 169
- Age
- 39
Negatory! I found the info. Drones ARE allowed in state parks Beaches unless posted otherwise
I was asking specifically about San Clemente State Beach. Haha
Here's a State Parks superintendents posted NO that I saw today along I-5 in CA.
So ask a superintendent first who likely will say "No" or look for it being posted on a board somewhere banning them for whatever reasons. A lifeguard may know too.
I asked at two places today and got "No!" at both so be prepared. People complain to rangers about drones buzzing near them and then the ban comes into play. I asked at one AMA field who had sailplanes and gliders off a cliff and those are okay, but drones are not "Because they have cameras and raise privacy issues, and people complain about them" or so I was told. But they don't complain about a large balloon and its passengers flying overhead pointing cameras down at them. Drones just get a bad rap and the news reports feed it. Even the Golden Gate Bridge has signs near it to call some special number if you see a drone flying nearby. "See a drone. Call the cops."
So ask a superintendent first who likely will say "No" or look for it being posted on a board somewhere banning them for whatever reasons. A lifeguard may know too.
I asked at two places today and got "No!" at both so be prepared. People complain to rangers about drones buzzing near them and then the ban comes into play. I asked at one AMA field who had sailplanes and gliders off a cliff and those are okay, but drones are not "Because they have cameras and raise privacy issues, and people complain about them" or so I was told. But they don't complain about a large balloon and its passengers flying overhead pointing cameras down at them. Drones just get a bad rap and the news reports feed it. Even the Golden Gate Bridge has signs near it to call some special number if you see a drone flying nearby. "See a drone. Call the cops."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,075
- Reaction score
- 169
- Age
- 39
That's bullHere's a State Parks superintendents posted NO that I saw today along I-5 in CA.
View attachment 85531
So ask a superintendent first who likely will say "No" or look for it being posted on a board somewhere banning them for whatever reasons. A lifeguard may know too.
I asked at two places today and got "No!" at both so be prepared. People complain to rangers about drones buzzing near them and then the ban comes into play. I asked at one AMA field who had sailplanes and gliders off a cliff and those are okay, but drones are not "Because they have cameras and raise privacy issues, and people complain about them" or so I was told. But they don't complain about a large balloon and its passengers flying overhead pointing cameras down at them. Drones just get a bad rap and the news reports feed it. Even the Golden Gate Bridge has signs near it to call some special number if you see a drone flying nearby. "See a drone. Call the cops."
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 15
- Age
- 41
what about Dana Point?Can we fly at its beach?Here's a State Parks superintendents posted NO that I saw today along I-5 in CA.
View attachment 85531
So ask a superintendent first who likely will say "No" or look for it being posted on a board somewhere banning them for whatever reasons. A lifeguard may know too.
I asked at two places today and got "No!" at both so be prepared. People complain to rangers about drones buzzing near them and then the ban comes into play. I asked at one AMA field who had sailplanes and gliders off a cliff and those are okay, but drones are not "Because they have cameras and raise privacy issues, and people complain about them" or so I was told. But they don't complain about a large balloon and its passengers flying overhead pointing cameras down at them. Drones just get a bad rap and the news reports feed it. Even the Golden Gate Bridge has signs near it to call some special number if you see a drone flying nearby. "See a drone. Call the cops."
Here's some more bull from San Clemente dated May 1, 2017:
http://san-clemente.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=36578
Section 8.82.030 - Prohibited Operations for UA, Section C:
"No person shall takeoff, land, or operate a UA on or over private property without the written or electronic consent of the property owner, if the property owner is a person other than the UA operator. When consent to operate a UA is required to takeoff, land, or operate a UA over private property, UA operators must have on their possession a copy of the written or electronic consent from the owner of the property, or properties, over which they takeoff, land, or operate a UA."
Welcome to "We hate drones," aka CA.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,075
- Reaction score
- 169
- Age
- 39
Yes, hmmmmmm... is right.
The way this San Clemente thing is written, you'd need a Google Earth map view and then an app to block out any properties where you don't have a signed release from the owner to keep your drone clear of it. A micro NFZ map made especially for you.
Carrying a pocketful of property release forms is silly, much as carrying around a tablet or phone app to keep track of the "electronic releases" as well in San Clemente with their new ordinance. I think the ordinance was written so anytime a cop sees someone flying they can ask for the permission slips and stop you from flying or cite you for revenue. Their Grand Jury already looked into this and forwarded it so it now became an ordinance, along with the FAA's blessing too as they stay out of ground-based and privacy and trespassing matters.
The superintendent of the CA State Parks in the photo above controls a lot of land north-east of Los Angeles as their office is out in the middle of the desert and not in Tehachapi (A city.). It's at some desolated state poppy preserve that only has visitors maybe 2-3 weeks annually when they are in bloom. He also controls much of the state park along Hwy. 14 (Red Rock S.P. which is very low usage and vacant much of the time.) as well as the ones along I-5 (Fort Tejon State Park).
I also have a photo of the rules of the AMA field where some drone pilots crossed the field's posted road boundary line and flew over it to the nearby lake and what led to the L.A. Parks Dept. coming down hard on the flying field due to drone complaints from water recreators and campers around the perimeter and them banning drones from the field as the AMA field is leased from the L.A. Parks Dept.
This San Clemente plan will likely grow to other nearby LA cities to where any city flights are banned from UA usage without permissions or permits. I thought I also saw much the same in NJ somewhere too (Dover?) where they weren't happy with realtors and UA flights over privacy and trespassing issues.
Asking for signed permission for over-flights will lead to more complaints of violations, imho, by the general public. All cities really need some published "Places to fly drones or practice/test" list to shut the anti-drone complaining public up. I fear "Guerilla flights" (i.e. Local ordinance violators.) will just raise the local bureaucrats ire even more and cell phones and social media will feed the anti-drone crowd to becoming instant complainers which they don't want to hear.
Fly 'em while you still can - or sell it all before you can't even give it away the way it is going.
The way this San Clemente thing is written, you'd need a Google Earth map view and then an app to block out any properties where you don't have a signed release from the owner to keep your drone clear of it. A micro NFZ map made especially for you.
Carrying a pocketful of property release forms is silly, much as carrying around a tablet or phone app to keep track of the "electronic releases" as well in San Clemente with their new ordinance. I think the ordinance was written so anytime a cop sees someone flying they can ask for the permission slips and stop you from flying or cite you for revenue. Their Grand Jury already looked into this and forwarded it so it now became an ordinance, along with the FAA's blessing too as they stay out of ground-based and privacy and trespassing matters.
The superintendent of the CA State Parks in the photo above controls a lot of land north-east of Los Angeles as their office is out in the middle of the desert and not in Tehachapi (A city.). It's at some desolated state poppy preserve that only has visitors maybe 2-3 weeks annually when they are in bloom. He also controls much of the state park along Hwy. 14 (Red Rock S.P. which is very low usage and vacant much of the time.) as well as the ones along I-5 (Fort Tejon State Park).
I also have a photo of the rules of the AMA field where some drone pilots crossed the field's posted road boundary line and flew over it to the nearby lake and what led to the L.A. Parks Dept. coming down hard on the flying field due to drone complaints from water recreators and campers around the perimeter and them banning drones from the field as the AMA field is leased from the L.A. Parks Dept.
This San Clemente plan will likely grow to other nearby LA cities to where any city flights are banned from UA usage without permissions or permits. I thought I also saw much the same in NJ somewhere too (Dover?) where they weren't happy with realtors and UA flights over privacy and trespassing issues.
Asking for signed permission for over-flights will lead to more complaints of violations, imho, by the general public. All cities really need some published "Places to fly drones or practice/test" list to shut the anti-drone complaining public up. I fear "Guerilla flights" (i.e. Local ordinance violators.) will just raise the local bureaucrats ire even more and cell phones and social media will feed the anti-drone crowd to becoming instant complainers which they don't want to hear.
Fly 'em while you still can - or sell it all before you can't even give it away the way it is going.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,424
- Reaction score
- 296
Dana Point has a sign specifically for UAVs, and it basically says No UAVs Allowed! I once flew my p3p at Trestles, San Clemente, and the park ranger drove up to me and said that there was a military airbase "nearby," so I had to stop flying. It was this spot specifically:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,075
- Reaction score
- 169
- Age
- 39
Camp Pendleton has restricted area "R-2305A & D" which is very close, if not over Trestles beach. Further north at San Clemente, earlier this year (Feb) I didn't see any signs posted about prohibiting flying over the beach.
I fly at Doheny State Beach all the time. Other than an occasional glare from someone passing by I've had no issues. Park rangers and sheriffs pass by and have never approached me, I even flew during this year's Blues Festival. I also find most people are friendly and curious. I'm frequently approached and asked how easy are they to fly, what's the range, battery life, etc...
Couple things to keep in mind:
- Dana Point doesn't have an UAS ban however they are restricted at the Headlands conservation area
- Dana Point has a lot of low flying air traffic so be aware and vigilant
- As always, people at any beach or harbor are there to enjoy themselves so mind their privacy and don't hover or fly too low. Take it up fast and move to an open area and you won't be bothered
While I agree with the first part of the statement, and agree with your suggestions to move to an open area, just to be pedantic about things, I don't know how much we have to mind their "privacy" per se. I don't know if people at a public beach are entitled to expect privacy the way that someone sunbathing at home would be entitled to expect privacy.
I am not saying this just to be argumentative. I am just saying that if we are approached by local law enforcement and they give us a hard time about people's privacy, then we should be able to (very politely) respond to the authorities that people at a public beach don't have the same rights to privacy as when at home.
I guess if I were close to a restricted airspace / MOA I would bring a sectional chart along as well and if they hassle me, I would start talking about airspace and showing them on the chart that I was flying in class G airspace and basically just show them (very politely) that I was competent in the rules and regulations.
Still, you can't argue your way out of a cities local drone ordinance with a sectional chart. Or carrying a pocketful of signed private property overflight permission slips with the idiotic San Clemente, CA ordinance link above.
It's getting to the point you almost have to go to the local police station to ask about "Where to fly a drone without some infraction around here?" That or go to the local film commissioner's office for some high-priced film permit where you can run anybody off along with maybe a cop/monitor assigned to you as part of the gig.
Your absolutely right and it was a poor word choice on my part as I wasn't using it in the legal sense. I was more refering to people's perception of privacy, although not defined by a legal statute in a public setting, and the paranoia that it brings some.
I feel at this juncture we should be cautious strictly arguing that we have a legal right to operate and ignore all other factors. It's the uninformed public that lobby the cities to enact UAS bans and the fact that they don't have a legal right or expectation to privacy on a public beach is irrelevant.
For example, Laguna Beach recently passed a ban citing that drones were filming homes and invading privacy. Although, at the end of the day the ban includes public parks and beaches.
I just feel that if we respect people's privacy regardless of a legal statute it might help reduce city ordinances or a future of fly by permit only. Especially at a time when there's an incident in the news every other day.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2017
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 303
Couldn't agree more with you on this.
I fully respect their "perceived" right to privacy (even if it isn't real) and would only mention that to a law enforcement who thought I was doing something wrong.
Similar threads
