Flying drone in National Park?

[Dirty Bird]

I'd prefer the distant buzz of a drone to the argumentative bickering & bawls of brats.

If a drone falls in the toxic waters of a Yellowstone geyser, it will have no discernible effect. Certainly less than the untold millions of foreign objects that have been tossed in the same geysers over hundreds of years. What effect did the man who recently fell in & dissolved have on the hot spring?

Millions of acres of public land with some of the best scenery available have been arbitrarily declared off-limits to drones. These devices can capture views impossible from the ground & there is certainly a way of allowing them to co-exist with pedestrian traffic.

It's not.. as they are not the same thing. When you are standing on a trail looking out over a beautiful landscape or viewing something like Mount Rushmore, will your experience be the same with a drone buzzing right over your head? How about flying a drone over a geyser at Yellowstone and it falls into it? These things are the same as people walking on a trail?

The ability for children to enjoy our Nation seems a little more important then someone using a drone to get a photo. I've been to a lot of National Parks. I think I'd much rather put up with 10 or 20 kids rather then 10 or 20 drones buzzing all over the place.

It's a trade off... millions of people vs preserving the National Parks. The parks system does a very good job at managing this. So much so that these people cause very little harm to the attraction. Certainly _far_ less then if it was not managed.

There is a time and place for everything.

 

[Pete Leare]

Perhaps they should issue a certain number of permits per day in a lottery system... after a background check, similar to requesting permission to climb Everest for example ?

 

[tcope]

I'd prefer the distant buzz of a drone to the argumentative bickering & bawls of brats.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that because people make noise you should be able to make noise with a drone? Are you saying because you dislike the sound of children you should be able to bother people with the sound of a drone as well?

You say "distant" but this won't really be the case. A person will be standing and enjoying the area and 5 people are going to be flying drones right over their heads. I can hear my drone up to 300' away. While I'm siting on Angles Landing in Zion Park I don't want to listen to 10 weed wakers 20' away.

If a drone falls in the toxic waters of a Yellowstone geyser, it will have no discernible effect. Certainly less than the untold millions of foreign objects that have been tossed in the same geysers over hundreds of years. What effect did the man who recently fell in & dissolved have on the hot spring?

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. Object thrown into geysers _have_ had effects on them. It's illegal to throw things into the geysers so you appear to be saying since some people break this law it should okay to accidently fly a drone into one. I'm also not sure why you think a drone won't affect the make up of a geyser. It can... and we are not talking about 1 drone. You really think it we allowed people to fly drones right over a geyser that people won't be lined up to get those great shots? There would be a line around the block!

Millions of acres of public land with some of the best scenery available have been arbitrarily declared off-limits to drones. These devices can capture views impossible from the ground & there is certainly a way of allowing them to co-exist with pedestrian traffic.

I did not have a lot of time this morning when I made the prior post but you bring up a good point where. I could write pages on my thoughts about this but will try to keep it short. I agree 100% with keeping drones away from the populated areas of National Parks. I'd LOVE to use my drone in those areas but the enjoyment and preservation of those areas _far_ out weights my want to get a photo from the air. I think the NPS should revisit this situation and perhaps create smaller No Drone areas. But these would still need to be very large. Otherwise people would stand on the line and simply fly the drone a mile into populated areas of the park. So now we are only talking about areas of the park where there is no one for miles. Well... you really think a ranger is going to catch you flying a drone way out in the middle of nowhere? I'm not condoning it though.

 

[WilliamM]

I'd prefer the distant buzz of a drone to the argumentative bickering & bawls of brats.

If a drone falls in the toxic waters of a Yellowstone geyser, it will have no discernible effect. Certainly less than the untold millions of foreign objects that have been tossed in the same geysers over hundreds of years. What effect did the man who recently fell in & dissolved have on the hot spring?

Millions of acres of public land with some of the best scenery available have been arbitrarily declared off-limits to drones. These devices can capture views impossible from the ground & there is certainly a way of allowing them to co-exist with pedestrian traffic.

I agree with Pete, maybe a limit amount of passes in only certain areas would be a good way to get some shots that you refer to. But to open it up with no oversight is just asking for trouble, because some drone owners don't care about anyone else, it's all about them. And being your a kid hater, it's starting to sound that you could be leaning that way yourself. I'm sorry but my kids and everyone's else's kids come before your right to fly your toy, and that's coming from a drone ower.

 

[snowghost]

I too have heard you can launch from outside the park and overfly. However, I saw a video where this was disputed by a former FAA person. She said the FAA sanctions no-fly in parks period.

 

[sar104]

I too have heard you can launch from outside the park and overfly. However, I saw a video where this was disputed by a former FAA person. She said the FAA sanctions no-fly in parks period.

The FAA does not get to "sanction no-fly in parks". The FAA can make controlled airspace, or special use airspace, or implement TFRs. It cannot simply sanction some other agencies random preferences to give them the force of law.

 

[snowghost]

The FAA does not get to "sanction no-fly in parks". The FAA can make controlled airspace, or special use airspace, or implement TFRs. It cannot simply sanction some other agencies random preferences to give them the force of law.

Check out 14:46 of this video. The no-fly is a Park rule that FAA supports. If you want more background start at 13:34.

Looks like it's illegal either way.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Edit: sorry forgot the link

 

[Klnyc]

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.

they should be more worry about police killing innocent people than worrying a tiny little drone flying over mega million acres of land.

 

[Dirty Bird]

I'm not a kid-hater I just have none & don't particularly care for the way so many parents allow them to run wild. So it's all about you & your kids, eh? Tell me who is being selfish?

I agree with Pete, maybe a limit amount of passes in only certain areas would be a good way to get some shots that you refer to. But to open it up with no oversight is just asking for trouble, because some drone owners don't care about anyone else, it's all about them. And being your a kid hater, it's starting to sound that you could be leaning that way yourself. I'm sorry but my kids and everyone's else's kids come before your right to fly your toy, and that's coming from a drone ower.

 

[RussOnTheRoad]

So we can fly in a National Forest then? There is also a National Forest close by that I've thought about flying in and around too.....

Tips for Responsible Hobby or Recreational Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or "Drones" on National Forest Systems Lands | US Forest Service


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[sar104]

Check out 14:46 of this video. The no-fly is a Park rule that FAA supports. If you want more background start at 13:34.

Looks like it's illegal either way.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Edit: sorry forgot the link

You will notice that she completely avoids providing any detail of the relevant law. "National Park rule that the FAA supports" is a meaningless statement. The NPS does not have jurisdiction and the FAA has not enacted any law that prohibits an overflight. They have, between them, been using weasel words like these for a couple of years now to obfuscate the simple fact that there is no law preventing such a flight, in contrast to the legitimate jurisdiction that the NPS has when it prohibits UAV operations from within the park.

 

[snowghost]

You will notice that she completely avoids providing any detail of the relevant law. "National Park rule that the FAA supports" is a meaningless statement. The NPS does not have jurisdiction and the FAA has not enacted any law that prohibits an overflight. They have, between them, been using weasel words like these for a couple of years now to obfuscate the simply fact that there is no law preventing such a flight, in contrast to the legitimate jurisdiction that the NPS has when it prohibits UAV operations from within the park.

I agree it's very nebulous. However, National Parks are great places to fly if you'd rather not test the system.

 

[sar104]

I agree it's very nebulous. However, National Parks are great places to fly if you'd rather not test the system.

Yes - unfortunately the lack of any legal basis has not stopped NPS LE from making either ignorant or disingenuous attempts to claim jurisdiction.

 

[RussOnTheRoad]

I agree it's very nebulous. However, National Parks are great places to fly if you'd rather not test the system.

Huh? Great places to fly if you'd rather _not_ test the system?? I don't understand. Seems the other way around to me.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[snowghost]

Huh? Great places to fly if you'd rather _not_ test the system?? I don't understand. Seems the other way around to me.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

Well if you encounter a ranger in the park, you'd probably get arrested. Especially the wannabe cops who have guns.

 

[sar104]

Well if you encounter a ranger in the park, you'd probably get arrested. Especially the wannabe cops who have guns.

Right - but in relation to what you wrote, I assumed that you meant: "However, National Parks are not great places to fly if you'd rather not test the system."

 

[snowghost]

Right I meant it the other way round.

 

[RussOnTheRoad]

Well if you encounter a ranger in the park, you'd probably get arrested. Especially the wannabe cops who have guns.

Flying in the NPs would be testing the system as I understand the meaning of the phrase. To not test the system somebody would not fly.

In agree that flying in NP could very well result in a ticket or confiscation of your bird. I highly doubt anyone is going to get locked up for it though. Please be certain that when you write something like that you have some facts to back it up with, otherwise you may just start unsubstantiated rumors. Have you ever heard of anyone getting locked up for flying in a NP or do you know of any law that would allow it?


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[snowghost]

It's happened at least once.

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...d-arrested-for-flying-drone-in-national-park/

 

[sar104]

It's happened at least once.

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...d-arrested-for-flying-drone-in-national-park/

They can certainly intervene and arrest if necessary if you are operating from within NPS boundaries.