Flying drone in National Park?

[adambfarmer]

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.

According to The Hover app it is national park. Not sure how accurate the hover app is. It matched up pretty good to the FAA app before it stopped working. But over the weekend I went to SM Pier to fly and before I flew I walked the Pier with my family and I saw what appeared to be a P3 flying over the water around the Pier. There were cops/security walking up and down the Pier with their radios trying to identify the operator. It didn't really matter. I wouldn't of flown anyway. Way to much air traffic and I realized that their is a small one strip airport within 5 miles. It just aggravates the **** out of me how unfair things are getting and most of it is based off all the negativity that surrounds this hobby in the media. As far as the helicopters go, I agree with yielding to manned aircraft, but we should be able to fly the same places they do.

Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Flintstone]

Mmmm... I think the jury is still out on this. Now, I'm not saying I think it's a good idea to fly in National Parks. I tend to lean the other way because I think there should be some places left undisturbed by drones, among other things. I say this all the while torn between that position and the idea of flying over and filming some of the spectacular scenery found in the parks.

Factually, it may be the case that if the pilot is outside the park boundaries while flying a drone that has been launched from outside the park the pilot may not be violating the regulations regarding the operation of a sUAS within the National Parks should the pilot overfly the park. This is because the FAA not the NPS controls the airspace. I'm in the middle of a correspondence about this very point with a representative of the NPs and I am pressing him to present factual information contravening this assertion. So far he has not, but as I just emailed him very recently pressing this point he may not have had a chance to respond. Should it turn out that overflying a NP while having launched from outside the park and piloting the flight from outside the park not be in violation of any law or regulation insofar as the simple act of flying goes it should be understood there may be other things for which a pilot could be cited. These include disturbing wildlife or endangering park visitors or employees, for example, by flying over them. My intention is to report back to PhantomPilots on this point if and when I hear from my contact at the parks.

Separately, there has been some discussion in this thread about a drone that crashed into a "geyser". I cannot be certain but my guess is the reference is to the Prismatic Spring within Yellowstone National Park. Putting aside for the moment that the Prismatic Spring is technically not a geyser, any notion that this incident has caused no harm is not necessarily meritorious. It may be that no observable negative effects have yet been measured in terms of the spring itself, but this may not remain so over the passage of time. Apart from the spring, there has been, I think it fair to say, enormous consternation over this incident as well as significant expense in terms of exploring possible ways to extract the aircraft which is not a simple task in this case. These are real and negative consequences.

IMHO, any sort of dismissive or cavalier attitude toward the significance of this incident would reflect badly on the entire sUAS community because we should be showing concern about this event and not dismissing it as insignificant. I fear the latter would only garner public disdain for drones and their pilots and work against the sUAS community. Just my 2¢.

I can see flying just outside park boundaries but I would not try it inside. Fines are substantial and the parks have made statements regarding the disturbance of wildlife from drones. I will be in Yellowstone and the Grand Teton park in Septenber I will ask what the rule is.

 

[mb168]

Wondering about flying "close" to a National Park. There is a Civil War fort/National Park on an island near Savannah, GA and right next to it is a smaller island with an old, non-functioning, lighthouse that also is red on the chart. How close is "too close?"

Here's a screen shot of the area and the lighthouse is on the tiny island to the bottom right of the large one.

 

[snowghost]

So Malibu is no-fly. But what if you took off from a private residence located right on the beach and flew out over the ocean?

 

[pixel]

The NPS will not give you permission to fly, I know I work for them. You can fly over NPS property, you just can't operated the aircraft from their property. National Forest are controlled by Department of Agriculture not the NPS.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

Perspective: There are MILLIONS of annual visitors to a place like Yosemite. MILLIONS of people trudging around on foot, disturbing the environment, leaving behind trash, tossing coins in geysers & springs, removing things, making noise, etc.. Only a tiny fraction of the public has a drone, & an even smaller fraction visit a place like Yosemite. Maybe a few thousand flights a year? Granted we don't want drones flying over huge crowds of people, but a drone flying past Mt. Rushmore is hardly placing the public at risk. Personally I find the buzz of a drone much less annoying than that of screaming brats. This is a typical idiotic government overreaction to a non-issue.

The main concern is that of wildlife harassment according to those in the Park Service I've talked to... I too feel this is a blanket overkill. There could easily be reg's that ban flights during nesting season and say no lower than 100 feet of tree tops or something.

 

[GMack]

I just found out the Santa Monica Mountains Recreational Area has become Santa Monica Mountains National Park and banned drones. Some of the area was CA State Parks and more lenient, but not now. Airmap shows the new red areas from Point Mugu NAS that reaches across the mountains to the west, along with some beaches, and follows Mulholland Hwy. all the way to the Hollywood Freeway (Hwy.101). Very large spider-like area.

Park superintendent has set aside the Paramount Ranch north loop area as a flying field area off Cornell Road as it has been there prior.

Some of this is in the Superintendent's Compendium Feb. 2017.

( https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/management/upload/SAMO_SUPT_COMPENDIUM_2017_FINAL.pdf )

*Unmanned Aircraft:
Launching, landing, or operating an unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service within the boundaries of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is prohibited except as approved in writing by the superintendent.

The Paramount Ranch North Race Track Loop has been designated as an approved area for unmanned aircraft based on a historic use pattern.

All users of unmanned aircraft must comply with FAA Regulations (Refer to and comply with FAA Advisory Circular 91-57A). Use of this area must be closed at any time due to fire danger or necessary control of airspace.

The term "unmanned aircraft" means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the device, and the associated operational elements and components that are required for the pilot or system operator in command to operate or control the device (such as cameras, sensors, communication links). This term includes all types of devices that meet this definition (e.g., model airplanes, quadcopters, drones) that are used for any purpose, including for recreation or commerce.

Unmanned aircraft, boats and cars:
Location: The designated unmanned aircraft and model car use area is in the north
racetrack loop area of Paramount Ranch.
○ Only electric or non-motorized unmanned aircraft are allowed.
○ Only electric or non-motorized model vehicles are allowed.
○ Motorized model boats are not allowed on park waters.
○ Unmanned aircraft and vehicles must be kept away from wildlife and equestrians.
○ Unmanned aircraft operators must follow the safety guidelines stated in FAA
Advisory Circular 91-57.
○ During times of heightened fire danger, special events or park administrative activities, the use of model airplanes and vehicles may be restricted or suspended.

Justification: this area of Paramount Ranch is a traditional use of remote controlled airplane use. The use of model cars on a historic race track is appropriate.

 

[borschelrh]

My 2 cents on this. I did write to the NPS Special Use Permit director and she was kind enough to reply. I mentioned I am a FAA licensed pilot living outside the US and was requesting a Special Use permit. As an aside I also am taking the Part 107 exam while I am in Las Vegas. I did complete the online Part 107 safety course version for licensed pilots but am out of currency and due to ridiculous laws since 9/11 the biennial flight review can now only be done in the US. I haven't bothered to covert my FAA license to a European license as I really have no desire to fly any more since I lost a lot of my vision after cataract surgery. So, not worth it to me and the online exam at the CSC is $150 and I am certain I will pass okay. I do not fly planes or helicopters anymore as it is just too expensive for me. I switched to sailboats for that kind of pleasure and of course flying my P4.

She did indicate that Special Use permits are "possible" but since the ban was implemented (without any public notice or opportunity for public comment which is a requirement for new regulations) only 2 permits have been issued and these were to film advertising for the parks and that any other use, not by NPS personnel, would likely never be approved. If there is a change in policy then Special Use permits would be granted on a case by case basis and would require filing an application, paying a $250 fee, making a specific flight plan and be assigned a specific time and place for the flight which would have to be performed under the direct supervision of a Park Ranger at additional expense. So, if the political climate changes then this is how it would go which would not be cheap.

We also now have the sUAS laws in place which should regulate all sUAS flying including National Parks. As far as I can tell the FAA regulations are being ignored by the NPS. BUt, if it came down to a court case I think the FAA rules would have providence over NPS rules. That said I believe there is a loophole in the US. sUAS weighing less than 250g (0.55lbs) are unregulated completely. These are considered toys and do not weigh enough to cause serious damage. However, there are several "selfie" drones out now which have 4K video and could be operated legally in National Parks IF the FAA regulations supercede NPS regulations. I plan to try this out next month using a Dobby drone but of course, only when relatively private. I do not see any need to deliberately piss people off. The Dobby is particularly noisy and is probably very annoying so I will limit my use to when I am at least 100 meters away from people. I will hike to points where I can fly without bothering people or animals. The range is only 100 meters which is enough for me to do photography (I am not particularly interested in video yet) and the flight time is limited to less than 9 minutes and again, this should fit my needs. Generally most of my flights for photos are less than 10 minutes. I am maintaining a hardcopy drone flight log and will add the Dobby to that. If I run into trouble I will of course comply with the rangers. Generally, a warning is the first course unless you do something ridiculously stupid. I did write the NPS about sUAS that are less than 250g and so far I have been completely ignored so I am of the opinion this is something they don't want to publically address. I would argue if I am detained that I was operating an sUAS less than 250g and therefore not considered a drone and thus unregulated. I have a copy of the law posted inside my logbook. It will probably have to be challenged in the courts by some unfortunate soul. Hopefully, not me.

 

[sar104]

My 2 cents on this. I did write to the NPS Special Use Permit director and she was kind enough to reply. I mentioned I am a FAA licensed pilot living outside the US and was requesting a Special Use permit. As an aside I also am taking the Part 107 exam while I am in Las Vegas. I did complete the online Part 107 safety course version for licensed pilots but am out of currency and due to ridiculous laws since 9/11 the biennial flight review can now only be done in the US. I haven't bothered to covert my FAA license to a European license as I really have no desire to fly any more since I lost a lot of my vision after cataract surgery. So, not worth it to me and the online exam at the CSC is $150 and I am certain I will pass okay. I do not fly planes or helicopters anymore as it is just too expensive for me. I switched to sailboats for that kind of pleasure and of course flying my P4.

She did indicate that Special Use permits are "possible" but since the ban was implemented (without any public notice or opportunity for public comment which is a requirement for new regulations) only 2 permits have been issued and these were to film advertising for the parks and that any other use, not by NPS personnel, would likely never be approved. If there is a change in policy then Special Use permits would be granted on a case by case basis and would require filing an application, paying a $250 fee, making a specific flight plan and be assigned a specific time and place for the flight which would have to be performed under the direct supervision of a Park Ranger at additional expense. So, if the political climate changes then this is how it would go which would not be cheap.

We also now have the sUAS laws in place which should regulate all sUAS flying including National Parks. As far as I can tell the FAA regulations are being ignored by the NPS. BUt, if it came down to a court case I think the FAA rules would have providence over NPS rules. That said I believe there is a loophole in the US. sUAS weighing less than 250g (0.55lbs) are unregulated completely. These are considered toys and do not weigh enough to cause serious damage. However, there are several "selfie" drones out now which have 4K video and could be operated legally in National Parks IF the FAA regulations supercede NPS regulations. I plan to try this out next month using a Dobby drone but of course, only when relatively private. I do not see any need to deliberately piss people off. The Dobby is particularly noisy and is probably very annoying so I will limit my use to when I am at least 100 meters away from people. I will hike to points where I can fly without bothering people or animals. The range is only 100 meters which is enough for me to do photography (I am not particularly interested in video yet) and the flight time is limited to less than 9 minutes and again, this should fit my needs. Generally most of my flights for photos are less than 10 minutes. I am maintaining a hardcopy drone flight log and will add the Dobby to that. If I run into trouble I will of course comply with the rangers. Generally, a warning is the first course unless you do something ridiculously stupid. I did write the NPS about sUAS that are less than 250g and so far I have been completely ignored so I am of the opinion this is something they don't want to publically address. I would argue if I am detained that I was operating an sUAS less than 250g and therefore not considered a drone and thus unregulated. I have a copy of the law posted inside my logbook. It will probably have to be challenged in the courts by some unfortunate soul. Hopefully, not me.

The FAA clearly has authority in the airspace, but the NPS is not really asserting that - it is regulating flight operations (takeoff and landing) and that is entirely and legitimately within their jurisdiction since it is a land use issue.

 

[borschelrh]

Yes, perhaps (although I question the legality of that) but can they regulate something that is not legally a sUAS? Also, they implemented this ban without using the legal process thus if challenged in court it might not be deemed legal although in the US since 9/11 it doesn't seem to matter as they can always pull the National Security issue as legitimacy. It really is interesting as the logic used is that it scares the animals which is somewhat ridiculous given helicopter overflights are way more noisy. Also, when they want to they fly their own UAS without any obvious concerns. Granted there should be a process to get permission to fly and this is why the Special Use Permit exists and yes there should be a fee but $250 plus would be amazingly onerous especially if you visit multiple parks. Perhaps for commercial services but for amateur photographers it is too steep. It should be enough to have a Part 107 license, proof of insurance, application for a SUP which includes intended flight operations. The requirement of direct supervision is also overkill. But, it is under their management although it is our land as citizens. They tend to forget that. What bothers me is they are not all that diligent in pursuing violators but are adamant about not granting permission to responsible pilots. That needs to be addressed but under the current and past administrations there is no political will to overrule decisions made in secret by unnamed bureaucrats.

I might also mention that Kite Aerial Photography (KAP) is perfectly legal almost anywhere including National Parks (a few restrictions at the National Capital and near airports). There are regulations in place for them as well but only if their weight exceeds 5 pounds. Even then it isn't as onerous as for sUAS. Here is a link to the regulations of Part 101 for things like kites, balloons, and rockets: eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

I am setting up that as a backup plan and I think it might provide photos when drones are impossible to fly. But, a kite is silent and tethered and draws less ire from the public. On the other hand once a camera is on them they become a menace. Of course satellite photography is now so precise that any idea of privacy from above is lunacy. I recall back before the FAA set up Part 107 there was a lot of arguments about operating tethered drones. I am unsure how that eventually worked out. It is another solution to getting longer flight times if you tether with an electrical cord to a source of power. But, I think it isn't legally an aircraft if it is still attached to the ground although it would be covered under Part 101 anyway. Beats me why the difference or the arbitrary 5 pound limit.

But it looks like anything like our Phantoms are not going to be legal in any NPS managed land at least not anytime soon. I encourage all to who are interested in changing this policy to something more sane write their Congressmen and Senators as that is the only way this will get addressed. I cannot do that as an expatriate American as we have no representation. So, I wrote the President several times now but as expected no answer. There is power in numbers though.

 

[sar104]

Yes, perhaps (although I question the legality of that) but can they regulate something that is not legally a sUAS? Also, they implemented this ban without using the legal process thus if challenged in court it might not be deemed legal although in the US since 9/11 it doesn't seem to matter as they can always pull the National Security issue as legitimacy. It really is interesting as the logic used is that it scares the animals which is somewhat ridiculous given helicopter overflights are way more noisy. Also, when they want to they fly their own UAS without any obvious concerns. Granted there should be a process to get permission to fly and this is why the Special Use Permit exists and yes there should be a fee but $250 plus would be amazingly onerous especially if you visit multiple parks. Perhaps for commercial services but for amateur photographers it is too steep. It should be enough to have a Part 107 license, proof of insurance, application for a SUP which includes intended flight operations. The requirement of direct supervision is also overkill. But, it is under their management although it is our land as citizens. They tend to forget that. What bothers me is they are not all that diligent in pursuing violators but are adamant about not granting permission to responsible pilots. That needs to be addressed but under the current and past administrations there is no political will to overrule decisions made in secret by unnamed bureaucrats.

I might also mention that Kite Aerial Photography (KAP) is perfectly legal almost anywhere including National Parks (a few restrictions at the National Capital and near airports). I am setting up that as a backup plan. But, a kite is silent and tethered. I recall back before the FAA set up Part 107 there was a lot of arguments about operating tethered drones. I am unsure how that eventually worked out. It is another solution to getting longer flight times if you tether with an electrical cord to a source of power. But, I think it isn't legally an aircraft if it is still attached to the ground. Beats me why the difference.

But it looks like anything like our Phantoms are not going to be legal in any NPS managed land at least not anytime soon. I encourage all to who are interested in changing this policy to something more sane write their Congressmen and Senators as that is the only way this will get addressed. I cannot do that as an expatriate American as we have no representation. So, I wrote the President several times now but as expected no answer. There is power in numbers though.

I don't disagree that it would be great to be able to fly in National Parks, but I don't understand why there is any question over whether NPS has authority to regulate. There many activities that are banned in National Parks. Helicopter and aircraft overflights are not under NPS jurisdiction, so those are not banned, but they can regulate flight operations in the Parks.

 

[borschelrh]

I don't disagree that it would be great to be able to fly in National Parks, but I don't understand why there is any question over whether NPS has authority to regulate. There many activities that are banned in National Parks. Helicopter and aircraft overflights are not under NPS jurisdiction, so those are not banned, but they can regulate flight operations in the Parks.

I think you misunderstood what I am trying to say here. Yes, they can regulate but they can't make up new rules arbitrarily. Drones were okay then suddenly without notice banned. There is a legal process required to do so which under Obama was sidestepped and hasn't been fixed yet. It is the same for any government agency that makes up their own rules as they go. There is a legislative process for that and it is why Trump put in the requirement to remove 2 regulations for every new one created. It is insane the number of regulations implemented without any process and often arbitrarily and very often feathering someone's personal agenda. I think the UAV ban falls into the latter category as much of the overflights by helicopters etc. are permitted and arguably upset the fauna more than a drone would. The same for the military overflights. Those "could" also be banned but aren't so their logical argument doesn't wash. I am a licensed pilot with a Commercial Instrument SEL rating. I also flew rotary craft in the Army. On our forthcoming photography trip to the great Southwest we were "offered" (and I rejected) to take flights in a helicopter over Lake Powell for a 45 minute flight and it would "only" cost $800 per person. If (I cannot as I am not current) I rented a Robinson R44 wet it goes for $80 an hour at the North Las Vegas airport. So, the profit margin for these tour operators is ginormous. Just saying how ridiculous this is but apparently the market bears the price so more power to them. But, I am suspicious of kickbacks or political donations (Harry Reid?) which allows their operation over National Parks. I also suspect that is who is pushing to keep drones banned as if you want aerial photography you have little choice other than to book a flight or try and put together a KAP package. In the US it is always a question of "who benefits" from any political decision. It is always follow the money. The UAS community is still too small to matter but we are growing and we need to be more proactive about it otherwise we will be relegated to flying in only "special" places. Of course, the impetus will grow through efforts from Amazon etc. who want to have autonomous drone fleets delivering packages and goods. I can easily see autonomous UAS taxi's flying people about in the next 20 years. None of that is permitted under the current FAA rules. Money talks so the rules will change accordingly but we aren't rich enough or large enough to directly influence politics unless we begin to get proactive and create a voice.

 

[sar104]

I think you misunderstood what I am trying to say here. Yes, they can regulate but they can't make up new rules arbitrarily. Drones were okay then suddenly without notice banned. There is a legal process required to do so which under Obama was sidestepped and hasn't been fixed yet. It is the same for any government agency that makes up their own rules as they go. There is a legislative process for that and it is why Trump put in the requirement to remove 2 regulations for every new one created. It is insane the number of regulations implemented without any process and often arbitrarily and very often feathering someone's personal agenda. I think the UAV ban falls into the latter category as much of the overflights by helicopters etc. are permitted and arguably upset the fauna more than a drone would. The same for the military overflights. Those "could" also be banned but aren't so their logical argument doesn't wash. I am a licensed pilot with a Commercial Instrument SEL rating. I also flew rotary craft in the Army. On our forthcoming photography trip to the great Southwest we were "offered" (and I rejected) to take flights in a helicopter over Lake Powell for a 45 minute flight and it would "only" cost $800 per person. If (I cannot as I am not current) I rented a Robinson R44 wet it goes for $80 an hour at the North Las Vegas airport. So, the profit margin for these tour operators is ginormous. Just saying how ridiculous this is but apparently the market bears the price so more power to them. But, I am suspicious of kickbacks or political donations (Harry Reid?) which allows their operation over National Parks. I also suspect that is who is pushing to keep drones banned as if you want aerial photography you have little choice other than to book a flight or try and put together a KAP package. In the US it is always a question of "who benefits" from any political decision. It is always follow the money. The UAS community is still too small to matter but we are growing and we need to be more proactive about it otherwise we will be relegated to flying in only "special" places. Of course, the impetus will grow through efforts from Amazon etc. who want to have autonomous drone fleets delivering packages and goods. I can easily see autonomous UAS taxi's flying people about in the next 20 years. None of that is permitted under the current FAA rules. Money talks so the rules will change accordingly but we aren't rich enough or large enough to directly influence politics unless we begin to get proactive and create a voice.

No - I did not misunderstand what you said - I was simply trying to explain why you are incorrect in your statements about what the NPS may and may not regulate. You are confusing laws with regulations, and you are confusing NPS jurisdiction with FAA jurisdiction.

You stated above "Yes, they can regulate but they can't make up new rules arbitrarily." That is self-contradictory. NPS is fully able to put in place regulations - it is explicitly authorized by law to do so, in this case under 36 CFR 1.5 as explained in the active intermim policy directive on sUAS operations on NPS property.

They cannot, on the other hand, ban overflights that do no originate on NPS property because they do not have jurisdiction over the airspace.

It's clear, however, from your long-winded rant about politics that you have already made up your mind that this is some kind of political/business conspiracy. I doubt whether anything is going to change your mind at this point but you might, at least, want to try to keep your facts straight when discussing this subject.

 

[borschelrh]

Apparently, you are correct and I have confused jurisdictions and establishment of rules/regulations. The ban seems to be arbitrary or perhaps they were just late in recognizing a problem. However, they do have the capability to authorize special use permits which they are refusing to do. This doesn't necessarily change the ultimate enforcement which seems arbitrary and poorly established. However, I am reasonably certain that the rules will change eventually to reflect economic or political pressure. At some point they will realize there is a big profit to be made which can support the park budgets which are being reduced so any opportunity to generate revenue is considered carefully. But, the NPS is relatively slow to appreciate this. For me I am not all that concerned living outside the US and we have our own, perhaps worse, problems here in Europe. But, I did look into this carefully regarding Special Use Permits which do exist but are not being given any consideration except by the NPS themselves.

 

[mp43sniper]

There's an example of NPS LE telling you anything they feel like, irrespective of reality.

Although the answer was pretty much what you said, it does not change the fact that - in this instance - the park employee was correct. A better explanation is that asking a random government employee IS NOT the correct way to discover what's written in the law. I have dealt with MSHA, OSHA, PA-WV-OH-NY DEP, DOT, ATF, EPA, DHS, and other (if you can believe that) agencies since 1999 because of the industry I am employed in. While some know parts of the law quite well, very few will tell you "I don't know the answer to that" and will make something up instead. Anyone wanting to know a law can spend a few minutes and have a written copy in hand which will not only inform them of relevant regulations, but also .gov employees who may want you to do or not do something that isn't necessary. Also, if you use the net you always have the argument that you were attempting to have the most updated regs as well. Books and pamphlets are out of date as soon as they're printed IMHO. I completely understand and agree that .gov websites are AWFUL and sometimes hard to navigate but finding regulations is still much easier now with the internet.

It took me all of one minute to find this: PA DCNR - Drones and UAS

So the park ranger was correct about Presque Isle but incorrect when saying "ALL state parks".

Hope this (first post of mine) helps someone out. I'm sorry I replied to an older post, but I did a net search for the legality of flying at Presque Isle and saw this thread.

 

[GMack]

...

They cannot, on the other hand, ban overflights that do no originate on NPS property because they do not have jurisdiction over the airspace.

This is changing - and fast!

Nevada has claimed sovereignty of airspace under 250 feet based on trespassing and could care less what the FAA thinks.
Read this and the mid-section NRS 493.103 (1,1A,1b) : NRS: CHAPTER 493 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-493.html
Elsewhere, some cities are implementing a permission for over-flight law like San Clemente, CA where you need a signed and also carry with you permission to fly over anyone other than the pilot's property. They enacted this June 1, 2017 (View 8.82.030 Prohibited Operations for UA, Part C: http://san-clemente.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=36578

Local judges are making the calls, and FAA seems reluctant to intervene. So much for FAA controlling local airspace anymore with regards to sUAV.

 

[sar104]

This is changing - and fast!

Nevada has claimed sovereignty of airspace under 250 feet based on trespassing and could care less what the FAA thinks.
Read this and the mid-section NRS 493.103 (1,1A,1b) : NRS: CHAPTER 493 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Elsewhere, some cities are implementing a permission for over-flight law like San Clemente, CA where you need a signed and also carry with you permission to fly over anyone other than the pilot's property. They enacted this June 1, 2017 (View 8.82.030 Prohibited Operations for UA, Part C: http://san-clemente.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=36578

Local judges are making the calls, and FAA seems reluctant to intervene. So much for FAA controlling local airspace anymore with regards to sUAV.

I agree that non-Federal authorities are increasingly attempting to claim airspace jurisdiction, mostly based on various nuisance or trespass ordinances. It will be interesting to see how that evolves, especially given the accelerating commercial interest in UAVs.

 

[JWH]

It is strange that I can fly my Cessna over a national park but not my drone. The Cessna makes more noise when flying and will do much more damage if I crash.