Flying drone in National Park?

[RussOnTheRoad]

Perhaps we should cordon off the entire area & just show photos of Rushmore to fully preserve that wilderness feel? We certainly wouldn't want to risk a 3 pound plastic drone breaking off a piece of Washington's nose!

For sure there is room for discussion about drawing the lines in terms of where human activity in one form or another should be prohibited or allowed, encouraged or discouraged. I don't see sarcastic remarks, which is what I take your comment to be (please forgive me if I'm wrong and correct me), as helpful to forwarding the discussion in terms of making wise choices along the road of sensible environmental management.

Let's take a quick look at Mt. Rushmore as an example. It seems to me that mentioning "wilderness feel" and Mt. Rushmore in the same breath is a conflation of two separate issues. On one hand, there’s the environmental disruption caused by the creation of Mt. Rushmore which occurred many years ago and irrevocably destroyed the “wilderness feel” of the area (as well as royally screwing up the ecosystem while creating a spectacular monument). On the other hand, there is the use and enjoyment of the Mt. Rushmore area in today’s world of the sUAS. Since the wilderness feel at Mt. Rushmore disappeared long ago, discussing it in regard to the use of sUAS in the area today doesn’t make any sense. If we are going to discuss whether or not sUAS might interfere with the enjoyment and preservation of wilderness, then let’s talk about places that are still wild or relatively so, not Mt. Rushmore.

But aren’t there things beyond the feel of wilderness and the environment that should be considered when contemplating the use of sUAS in the Mt. Rushmore area? I think there are, and one of them is the enjoyment of those who visit the area. Let’s face it, the buzzing noise as well as the sight of drones can be really distracting, and for somebody wishing to capture still or video footage of the area sUAS can be an interference, an impediment potentially requiring time consuming, perhaps costly or impractical post production retouching in order to remove. I think there are potentially a great many valid arguments on both sides for and against the use of sUAS at Mt. Rushmore. One possible solution might be some controls such as allowing flying on certain days and/or certain times of the day and a certain number of permitted flights.

Dirty Bird has previously and rightfully pointed out that noise is a part of life and that we must all at times tolerate noise that we would prefer didn't exist. There is another side to this, however, which is that there are controls placed on the noises we might make. Late night parties can result in noise complaints and fines because they disturb the rights of others. Hospital quiet zones exist to protect the sick and injured. Children are excluded from certain facilities because of the noises of which they are capable. There are many other examples of regulatory noise limitations including those placed on airports and manned aircraft by surrounding municipalities. In certain places and at certain times it may be fair to judge the noise made by drones disruptive in a manner similar to these other examples and to legislate against their use. To be sure, the pendulum will swing too far against the use of sUAS in some circumstances.

Personally, I think Mt. Rushmore would make an excellent candidate for places within the National Parks that the piloting of sUAS should be allowed. The monument is quite spectacular. It has been and I’m sure will remain a location of great interest. Aerial video footage of the area would probably have many positive applications. Most all of the wilderness feel of the area has long since disappeared so making an argument against the use of sUAS there in order to protect a long lost sense of wilderness would seem silly on the face of it. Similarly, any environmental concerns about a downed drone (or even a dozen of them) would seem picayune compared to the environmental destruction caused by Mt. Rushmore’s creation.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Indeed it was sarcasm, as what else can one say when people talk about "preserving wilderness" in an area where hundreds of tons of rock has been removed to sculpt an ENTIRE MOUNTAINSIDE into human faces! Sure looks like wilderness to me! Sorry sheep pluck my last nerve.

For sure there is room for discussion about drawing the lines in terms of where human activity in one form or another should be prohibited or allowed, encouraged or discouraged. I don't see sarcastic remarks, which is what I take your comment to be (please forgive me if I'm wrong and correct me), as helpful to forwarding the discussion in terms of making wise choices along the road of sensible environmental management.

Let's take a quick look at Mt. Rushmore as an example. It seems to me that mentioning "wilderness feel" and Mt. Rushmore in the same breath is a conflation of two separate issues. On one hand, there’s the environmental disruption caused by the creation of Mt. Rushmore which occurred many years ago and irrevocably destroyed the “wilderness feel” of the area (as well as royally screwing up the ecosystem while creating a spectacular monument). On the other hand, there is the use and enjoyment of the Mt. Rushmore area in today’s world of the sUAS. Since the wilderness feel at Mt. Rushmore disappeared long ago, discussing it in regard to the use of sUAS in the area today doesn’t make any sense. If we are going to discuss whether or not sUAS might interfere with the enjoyment and preservation of wilderness, then let’s talk about places that are still wild or relatively so, not Mt. Rushmore.

But aren’t there things beyond the feel of wilderness and the environment that should be considered when contemplating the use of sUAS in the Mt. Rushmore area? I think there are, and one of them is the enjoyment of those who visit the area. Let’s face it, the buzzing noise as well as the sight of drones can be really distracting, and for somebody wishing to capture still or video footage of the area sUAS can be an interference, an impediment potentially requiring time consuming, perhaps costly or impractical post production retouching in order to remove. I think there are potentially a great many valid arguments on both sides for and against the use of sUAS at Mt. Rushmore. One possible solution might be some controls such as allowing flying on certain days and/or certain times of the day and a certain number of permitted flights.

Dirty Bird has previously and rightfully pointed out that noise is a part of life and that we must all at times tolerate noise that we would prefer didn't exist. There is another side to this, however, which is that there are controls placed on the noises we might make. Late night parties can result in noise complaints and fines because they disturb the rights of others. Hospital quiet zones exist to protect the sick and injured. Children are excluded from certain facilities because of the noises of which they are capable. There are many other examples of regulatory noise limitations including those placed on airports and manned aircraft by surrounding municipalities. In certain places and at certain times it may be fair to judge the noise made by drones disruptive in a manner similar to these other examples and to legislate against their use. To be sure, the pendulum will swing too far against the use of sUAS in some circumstances.

Personally, I think Mt. Rushmore would make for an excellent candidate for places within the National Parks that the piloting of sUAS should be allowed. The monument is quite spectacular. It has been and I’m sure will remain a location of great interest. Aerial video footage of the area would probably have many positive applications. Most all of the wilderness feel of the area has long since disappeared so making an argument against the use of sUAS there in order to protect a long lost sense of wilderness would seem silly on the face of it. Similarly, any environmental concerns about a downed drone (or even a dozen of them) would seem picayune compared to the environmental destruction caused by Mt. Rushmore’s creation.

 

[WilliamM]

Reading comprehension lesson: The quote was prefaced with "essentially saying.". It's called "paraphrasing" & the gist of my paraphrase accurately depicts what you said then & now.

It is quite the accomplishment that you managed to breed. Impressive. Most impressive...

WOW, just wow. Not sure if your really that cynical or just playing the part of a forum troll.

 

[adambfarmer]

It's all garbage. Can't fly my drone on the beach in Santa Monica or Malibu because it's national park. Grand Canyon either. But they sure as hell fly those site-seeing aircraft all through the Grand Canyon and they have all those flying advertisements all up the **** beach. It's a bunch of ********!!!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Mobilegroomer]

Odd how its cool to show up with a horde of brats & trample all over the park on mountain bikes, but simply taking off & flying over the park is so harmful as to be banned.

We're certainly not all brats and the hordes I know respect the grounds they ride on. But I see your point…

 

[John Williams]

At the rate the Federal Government is confiscating land across the country, the whole nation will be one big national park.

 

[RussOnTheRoad]

It's all garbage. Can't fly my drone on the beach in Santa Monica or Malibu because it's national park. Grand Canyon either. But they sure as hell fly those site-seeing aircraft all through the Grand Canyon and they have all those flying advertisements all up the **** beach. It's a bunch of ********!!!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

All you need then is a helicopter Just watch out that one of those 30 morons flying a drone like an idiot doesn't get it jammed in your rotor!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[johnbowen]

We went to Maui last year, decided to go watch the sunrise at Haleakala National Park; to the top of the dormant volcano peak. Hundreds were there very early (winding mountain road) to watch the sunrise. A fellow with a Phantom decided he needed to fly it; in between the National Park observation site and and the rising sun. Literally hundred's of folks pictures had a Phantom in their pictures; along with the sunrise. To add insult to injury, the early morning silence was shattered by his phantom buzzing around right in front of/near all these folks.

He could have gone 100 yard away, gone to an altitude high to not be so disruptive. I approached him, let him know that I too had a DJI product (at the time a DJI 550) and politely informed him that UAS operations in national parks was prohibited. He basically told me to call someone that gave a ****. I then politely reminded him that we drone operators already had been portrayed by the media as villains, and he was not winning any fans; buzzing in front of folks, ruining those that were trying to take a pic of the rising sun themselves, but he literally was "standing right in front of their cameras". He told me to get lost, call the cops; but he was gonna fly there "because it was his right as an American".

This is why we have such laws. Morons.

 

[WilliamM]

We went to Maui last year, decided to go watch the sunrise at Haleakala National Park; to the top of the dormant volcano peak. Hundreds were there very early (winding mountain road) to watch the sunrise. A fellow with a Phantom decided he needed to fly it; in between the National Park observation site and and the rising sun. Literally hundred's of folks pictures had a Phantom in their pictures; along with the sunrise. To add insult to injury, the early morning silence was shattered by his phantom buzzing around right in front of/near all these folks.

He could have gone 100 yard away, gone to an altitude high to not be so disruptive. I approached him, let him know that I too had a DJI product (at the time a DJI 550) and politely informed him that UAS operations in national parks was prohibited. He basically told me to call someone that gave a ****. I then politely reminded him that we drone operators already had been portrayed by the media as villains, and he was not winning any fans; buzzing in front of folks, ruining those that were trying to take a pic of the rising sun themselves, but he literally was "standing right in front of their cameras". He told me to get lost, call the cops; but he was gonna fly there "because it was his right as an American".

This is why we have such laws. Morons.

This is the point I've been trying to make the whole time, is there is a percent of people out there that are not concerned about anyone except themselves. And others that just do unsafe things in general. Add those two groups together and you get a good amount of people that should not be flying a drone anywhere near others. Those of us who don't fit into those two categories understand ramifications of their potential actions. It's a shame there's always a few people out there that spoil things like this for the rest of us who are level-headed.

Sent from my HTC 10 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[RussOnTheRoad]

[Note: Except for the material below that is quoted what follows is my opinion which is that of a layperson, not a lawyer.]

Earlier on PhantomPilots I mentioned that I had been in contact with the National Park Service (NPS) regarding flying sUAS “within” national parks. I’ve placed quotes around the word “within” because it deserves some examination as to what it means as applied to this subject area. For example, since we are essentially talking about two separate locations, that of the pilot and that of the sUAS, it is conceivable that one or the other could be within park boundaries while the other is outside of them. Such being the case, any law, rule or regulation that refers to the operation of a sUAS "within" a national park is unclear on the face of it unless it refers to both locations: that of the pilot and that of the sUAS.

My assessment of the current state of affairs is this: If a sUAS is launched, piloted and landed from outside of park boundaries, the act of overflying the park itself is lawful. Here it may be useful for me to quote part of the correspondence I received from a Public Affairs Officer at the NPS. A portion of one of the emails I received reads “The launching, operating, landing of unmanned aerial vehicles on the lands and waters of the national park system is prohibited. There are two exceptions: a special use permit, applied for at park level and reviewed by the associate director of visitor and resource protection, and two, special administrative uses reserved by the National Park Service which are also reviewed by the associate director of visitor and resource protection.

Since the FAA controls ALL airspace in the United States of America, FAA rules apply to air space over the lands and waters of the national park system. If you have questions about U.S. air space and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, please contact the FAA.”

The author emphasized by use of the word “ALL” in caps, that airspace over the National Parks is subject to FAA control, not that of the National Parks. As I wrote above, I interpret this to mean that if a pilot stays entirely outside of the boundaries of a NP during all phases of a flight then no law that deals solely with flying itself will have been violated. When I write “solely with flying itself” I am not including other things such as disturbing or endangering wildlife or people. Disturbing or endangering wildlife or people could conceivably be accomplished in any number of ways that don’t involve the use of sUAS. Here is a quote from another email I received from the same NP Public Affairs Officer: “...there are other rules and laws in place that likely would affect UAS operations even if an operator were outside a park boundary. This would include, but not be limited to complaints of a UAS disturbing or harassing wildlife, causing a nuisance to or endangering park visitors or employees.”

My takeaway of the situation is that a sUAS can lawfully overfly a National Park if it is launched, piloted and landed from outside park boundaries but if a case can be made that wildlife or people were disturbed or endangered then the pilot may run into problems. I would take it a step further to consider what the actions might be of either an uninformed or overzealous park ranger. It is not difficult to imagine a ranger either mistakenly or maliciously citing a pilot who has broken no law.

While I think there are situations where it would be lawful to overfly a National Park, in some cases it may be difficult or impossible for the pilot to know if wildlife has been disturbed by the flight. It might also be difficult or impossible to know if people have been endangered, in part because this may not be clearly defined. For example, overflying a person or wildlife might be considered endangerment. One thing I have as a layperson learned is that law is replete with gray areas. One court or judge may decide that a certain thing is lawful while another court or judge may find that it is not. The application of law and the results of that application are inconsistent.

So, my lay-takeaway is that overflying a National Park without permission comes with some risk even if it seems to the pilot to be a lawful flight, or in fact is a lawful flight. If a pilot wishes not to worry about the potential consequences of overflying a NP, just or unjust as the consequences might prove to be, then overflying a NP would best be avoided. If, on the other hand, a pilot is willing to deal with the potential problems that may result from overflying a NP, then launching, piloting and landing from outside the park boundaries would seem to be a necessity if one wishes to avoid running afoul of those portions of the law that are more clearly codified. (I’ll add that an inadvertent crash landing might still be considered a landing.) Additionally, taking reasonable precautions so as to avoid disturbing or endangering wildlife or people--however those things might potentially, later be interpreted in a court of law--would seem prudent. Additionally, it might not be a bad idea for a pilot to carry a copy of the law with relevant portions highlighted as well as some means by wish to demonstrate in real time that the piloting location is external to the park boundaries.

 

[tcope]

It's all garbage. Can't fly my drone on the beach in Santa Monica or Malibu because it's national park. Grand Canyon either. But they sure as hell fly those site-seeing aircraft all through the Grand Canyon and they have all those flying advertisements all up the **** beach. It's a bunch of ********!!!

Santa Monica beach is a National Park? You may want to double check this. I think you might find its either a state or county park.

As far as the helicopters, I've already mentioned this. They are in the air, over the National Park. You can do the same thing with your drone. If the local park does not allow you to launch, operate or land in their park than feel free to do the same think the planes and helicopters do... take off from someplace else and fly down the beach.

 

[Foosy]

I just came back from a trip and was surprised at the amount of "No drone zone" signs I saw.

It seems that every worthwhile attraction has been zoned off. Add this to the conventional wisdom of not flying in public places, then our sport is becoming endangered. With restrictions mounting by the day, drones are going to become a collector's item: I couldn't find any place to fly it.

Even if there are no laws, people make their own laws and regulations. When I had finally found a place I could fly over a mountain, a person came and said "the owners of the land disapprove anyone flying drones." Of course it is debatable, but flying drones is supposed to be fun - not argumentative, so I brought it down.

Notwithstanding, we can't ignore that there is a paradox: companies are allowed to fly helicopters and planes in and over canyons and national parks. They do make more noise than drones, and yet, they seem to be in the consensus. This may be because airplanes existed prior to social-media, and even prior to the internet. Also, it may be because you can't complain to a pilot that is IN the airplane, but you can easily complain to a drone operator on the ground. But I think the real reason is that of fear. The fear that our skies will be full of drones. Airplanes are still very expensive, and require a long period of training and licensing to operate. Drones are cheap and anyone can fly them, so there is growing fear that drones will change the skyscape and our environment.

Conversely to what has been said in previous posts, I do not think the issue is only of noise and safety. Even if drones were made with silent propellers and were guaranteed to be safe, there would still be a fear that would cause people to create laws that ban them from flying.

The only thing that can change this situation is commercial usage of drones. When companies like Fedex, Amazon, and later USPS start using drones for operations, they will become staples in our environment. Then, and only then, people will change their perceptions, fear will disappear, and restrictions will ease.

 

[tcope]

This is the point I've been trying to make the whole time, is there is a percent of people out there that are not concerned about anyone except themselves.

I agree. Some here are applying how _they_ fly (a reasonable person) to everyone that would be flying in a National Park. What would _really_ happen is as you mentioned... people would by a drone a few days before visiting the park, not know how to fly it or care where they flew it.

 

[WilliamM]

I just came back from a trip and was surprised at the amount of "No drone zone" signs I saw.

It seems that every worthwhile attraction has been zoned off. Add this to the conventional wisdom of not flying in public places, then our sport is becoming endangered. With restrictions mounting by the day, drones are going to become a collector's item: I couldn't find any place to fly it.

Even if there are no laws, people make their own laws and regulations. When I had finally found a place I could fly over a mountain, a person came and said "the owners of the land disapprove anyone flying drones." Of course it is debatable, but flying drones is supposed to be fun - not argumentative, so I brought it down.

Notwithstanding, we can't ignore that there is a paradox: companies are allowed to fly helicopters and planes in and over canyons and national parks. They do make more noise than drones, and yet, they seem to be in the consensus. This may be because airplanes existed prior to social-media, and even prior to the internet. Also, it may be because you can't complain to a pilot that is IN the airplane, but you can easily complain to a drone operator on the ground. But I think the real reason is that of fear. The fear that our skies will be full of drones. Airplanes are still very expensive, and require a long period of training and licensing to operate. Drones are cheap and anyone can fly them, so there is growing fear that drones will change the skyscape and our environment.

Conversely to what has been said in previous posts, I do not think the issue is only of noise and safety. Even if drones were made with silent propellers and were guaranteed to be safe, there would still be a fear that would cause people to create laws that ban them from flying.

The only thing that can change this situation is commercial usage of drones. When companies like Fedex, Amazon, and later USPS start using drones for operations, they will become staples in our environment. Then, and only then, people will change their perceptions, fear will disappear, and restrictions will ease.

"companies are allowed to fly helicopters and planes in and over canyons and national parks."
Others in this thread have said the same, one thing that is different in the comparison. Helicopters and planes used in tourism are also employers, pay local taxes, pay rent and promote tourism in the local area. They have very little to gain in personal drone use at the same location. Unless they were to issue a permit for that, then it would be a source of income and still be somewhat controlled.

 

[jogforfitness]

I'm skipping a visit to a city because of their drone 'law' this summer. Spending time and money in a different city. So, those tax paying businesses who in essence employ people will have a few less dollars from me an to see their plane flying advertising, etc.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[John Locke]

It's going to take some time for the NPS to sort this out. Don't count on it anytime soon. I would be in favor of allocating certain flight times in the NPS 3 days a week as a test case and compromise. Such as 7am to 8am and 1hr before sunset on Sun, Tues & Fri. This would minimize the noise for the vast majority of the time, while letting citizens obtain their video and photos from the air at a decent time of day when lighting is good. There should also be designated flight areas for safety of course. As for rouge fliers, they will always exist, they walk among us. You can't fix stupid, and there will always be a percentage of people are plain stupid and non-respectful of others, such as the Dallas shooter last week.

What bugs me most is the hypocritical policy the NPS has implement at Lake Mead National park. For decades they have encouraged RC flying, and even have a designated RC runway in the park to fly power planes with those noisy gas motors. Even today you can fly any RC plane at Lake Mead, but not drones. Go figure that one out!

All of the arguments I read against drone flight in national parks don't seem to apply to the vast open areas of Lake Mead or Lake Powell. Noise? Drones are less intrusive than PWC and speed boats buzzing around, and they produce no wakes! Safety? As soon as you leave the marina, flying a drone is more safe than riding a PWC or skiing or tubing behind a boat. It would seem reasonable these two national parks should relax the NO FLY ZONE given the area being more appropriate for safety and noise, instead of following the ALL NATIONAL PARKS NFZ rule. These lakes offer some incredible opportunities for capturing vacation video and photos. But the NPS won't even listen to such logic. Doesn't make sense, but then the feds don't make sense for a lot of things. Heck, with their astute involvement in bathroom regulations, sometimes I wonder which public bathroom is safe for my kids now.....

Here's the Lake Mead Runway area

 

[Seawolf]

Under the Rules and Regulations forum, I've suggested 11 possible guidelines for consideration of drone operations in the NPS. Check it out.

 

[sar104]

[Note: Except for the material below that is quoted what follows is my opinion which is that of a layperson, not a lawyer.]

Earlier on PhantomPilots I mentioned that I had been in contact with the National Park Service (NPS) regarding flying sUAS “within” national parks. I’ve placed quotes around the word “within” because it deserves some examination as to what it means as applied to this subject area. For example, since we are essentially talking about two separate locations, that of the pilot and that of the sUAS, it is conceivable that one or the other could be within park boundaries while the other is outside of them. Such being the case, any law, rule or regulation that refers to the operation of a sUAS "within" a national park is unclear on the face of it unless it refers to both locations: that of the pilot and that of the sUAS.

My assessment of the current state of affairs is this: If a sUAS is launched, piloted and landed from outside of park boundaries, the act of overflying the park itself is lawful. Here it may be useful for me to quote part of the correspondence I received from a Public Affairs Officer at the NPS. A portion of one of the emails I received reads “The launching, operating, landing of unmanned aerial vehicles on the lands and waters of the national park system is prohibited. There are two exceptions: a special use permit, applied for at park level and reviewed by the associate director of visitor and resource protection, and two, special administrative uses reserved by the National Park Service which are also reviewed by the associate director of visitor and resource protection.

Since the FAA controls ALL airspace in the United States of America, FAA rules apply to air space over the lands and waters of the national park system. If you have questions about U.S. air space and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, please contact the FAA.”

The author emphasized by use of the word “ALL” in caps, that airspace over the National Parks is subject to FAA control, not that of the National Parks. As I wrote above, I interpret this to mean that if a pilot stays entirely outside of the boundaries of a NP during all phases of a flight then no law that deals solely with flying itself will have been violated. When I write “solely with flying itself” I am not including other things such as disturbing or endangering wildlife or people. Disturbing or endangering wildlife or people could conceivably be accomplished in any number of ways that don’t involve the use of sUAS. Here is a quote from another email I received from the same NP Public Affairs Officer: “...there are other rules and laws in place that likely would affect UAS operations even if an operator were outside a park boundary. This would include, but not be limited to complaints of a UAS disturbing or harassing wildlife, causing a nuisance to or endangering park visitors or employees.”

My takeaway of the situation is that a sUAS can lawfully overfly a National Park if it is launched, piloted and landed from outside park boundaries but if a case can be made that wildlife or people were disturbed or endangered then the pilot may run into problems. I would take it a step further to consider what the actions might be of either an uninformed or overzealous park ranger. It is not difficult to imagine a ranger either mistakenly or maliciously citing a pilot who has broken no law.

While I think there are situations where it would be lawful to overfly a National Park, in some cases it may be difficult or impossible for the pilot to know if wildlife has been disturbed by the flight. It might also be difficult or impossible to know if people have been endangered, in part because this may not be clearly defined. For example, overflying a person or wildlife might be considered endangerment. One thing I have as a layperson learned is that law is replete with gray areas. One court or judge may decide that a certain thing is lawful while another court or judge may find that it is not. The application of law and the results of that application are inconsistent.

So, my lay-takeaway is that overflying a National Park without permission comes with some risk even if it seems to the pilot to be a lawful flight, or in fact is a lawful flight. If a pilot wishes not to worry about the potential consequences of overflying a NP, just or unjust as the consequences might prove to be, then overflying a NP would best be avoided. If, on the other hand, a pilot is willing to deal with the potential problems that may result from overflying a NP, then launching, piloting and landing from outside the park boundaries would seem to be a necessity if one wishes to avoid running afoul of those portions of the law that are more clearly codified. (I’ll add that an inadvertent crash landing might still be considered a landing.) Additionally, taking reasonable precautions so as to avoid disturbing or endangering wildlife or people--however those things might potentially, later be interpreted in a court of law--would seem prudent. Additionally, it might not be a bad idea for a pilot to carry a copy of the law with relevant portions highlighted as well as some means by wish to demonstrate in real time that the piloting location is external to the park boundaries.

That is pretty much exactly my understanding of the current state of regulation.

 

[RussOnTheRoad]

It's going to take some time for the NPS to sort this out. Don't count on it anytime soon. I would be in favor of allocating certain flight times in the NPS 3 days a week as a test case and compromise. Such as 7am to 8am and 1hr before sunset on Sun, Tues & Fri. This would minimize the noise for the vast majority of the time, while letting citizens obtain their video and photos from the air at a decent time of day when lighting is good. There should also be designated flight areas for safety of course. As for rouge fliers, they will always exist, they walk among us. You can't fix stupid, and there will always be a percentage of people are plain stupid and non-respectful of others, such as the Dallas shooter last week.

What bugs me most is the hypocritical policy the NPS has implement at Lake Mead National park. For decades they have encouraged RC flying, and even have a designated RC runway in the park to fly power planes with those noisy gas motors. Even today you can fly any RC plane at Lake Mead, but not drones. Go figure that one out!

All of the arguments I read against drone flight in national parks don't seem to apply to the vast open areas of Lake Mead or Lake Powell. Noise? Drones are less intrusive than PWC and speed boats buzzing around, and they produce no wakes! Safety? As soon as you leave the marina, flying a drone is more safe than riding a PWC or skiing or tubing behind a boat. It would seem reasonable these two national parks should relax the NO FLY ZONE given the area being more appropriate for safety and noise, instead of following the ALL NATIONAL PARKS NFZ rule. These lakes offer some incredible opportunities for capturing vacation video and photos. But the NPS won't even listen to such logic. Doesn't make sense, but then the feds don't make sense for a lot of things. Heck, with their astute involvement in bathroom regulations, sometimes I wonder which public bathroom is safe for my kids now.....

Here's the Lake Mead Runway area
View attachment 59568

All very interesting. Have you by any chance been in contact with the NPS about this? Have you said that your quadcopter is a model aircraft that would seem to be allowed based on the signage? I'm just wondering what first-person experience you've had interacting with the NPS on this... What you said to them, what they said to you... Like that.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[John Locke]

All very interesting. Have you by any chance been in contact with the NPS about this? Have you said that your quadcopter is a model aircraft that would seem to be allowed based on the signage? I'm just wondering what first-person experience you've had interacting with the NPS on this... What you said to them, what they said to you... Like that.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

No, I haven't been there since 2013, when they banned my 2 stroke carbureted PWC from national parks. But you can listen to this YouTube, starting at 1:02 for a recent first hand story.