If a park enforces an ordinance against flying drones or UAS within the park, is it technically legal to stand outside of the park and fly the drone over the park while actually controlling/flying the drone outside of the park? In other words, do the parks have jurisdiction over the airspace above the park, or can they only enforce regulations for a person's actions while within park boundaries? Does anyone know if there is any regulation that speaks to this level of detail? Thanks.
Flying Legal in or 'Over' Parks
- Thread starter srandall25
- Start date
Good Question !!
With eZUHF fitted you could easily fly from 5km away (FPV) from outside any boundaries.
With eZUHF fitted you could easily fly from 5km away (FPV) from outside any boundaries.
I know in te UK, most landowners don't own the airspace. I have videoed National Trust properties but took off outside their boundary (legally). I still dont fly too low though, dont want to rock any boat.
Sent from my Galaxy Note 8
Sent from my Galaxy Note 8
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
As is the case for most all UAV operations in the US, there is no clear answer. My understanding is you have some legal support if you stay well above the property and at least 83 feet above the ground and are not doing anything that would otherwise be considered illegal.
This is an interesting segment on this topic:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/05/ ... ns-the-air
This is an interesting segment on this topic:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/05/ ... ns-the-air
The answer is definite yes. They dont want drones flying in the park period. Doesnt matter if your controlling it from inside or outside the park. Your disobeying their rule which is no drone flying.
My real question has to do with legal. I understand they don't 'want' drones flying in the park... but does the park have legal jurisdiction to prevent someone from operating a drone outside of the park and flying the drone into the airspace over the park? If so, what is the law or regulation that speaks to the airspace and jurisdiction. It's my understanding that the park can make rules for operating a drone within the park, but I haven't seen anything that spells out the legality of operating outside and flying over the park...abacus01 said:
Yea if they can find you you will either be asked to stop flyong it or worse get arrested, depending on the cop on duty and how he feels that day. They have full ability to arrest you because your breaking the law .why dont you give it a shot and tell us what happens. Lol
Expectation of privacy currently and personal airspace control ends at 83ft above ground. Local ordinances cannot encroach on Federal jurisdiction and the FAA regulates airspace. Currently 83 - 400 feet belong to RC. They can prevent you from launching from their property but flying the perimeter is perfectly legal. As long as you are following AMA guidelines you are well within the law.... http://www.modelaircraft.org/
And more data see related story right (parks)
http://gigaom.com/2014/06/16/meet-the-h ... will-love/
http://gigaom.com/2014/06/16/meet-the-h ... will-love/
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2014
- Messages
- 173
- Reaction score
- 9
US National Park Service bans drone in all parks:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/travel/na ... ?hpt=hp_t2
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/travel/na ... ?hpt=hp_t2
abacus01 said:
so again, that's the question... is this truly breaking the law... i'm just trying to better understand the law and know where it is cited. Simply saying it's against the law is not answering my question. I'm asking about legal references and jurisdiction. True, a cop can arrest anyone for anything, it doesn't mean every arrest is just. You could be right. I'm looking for the legal references that say whether you're right or wrong.
rgc2005 said:
Thank you for addressing the legal with actual facts. I will research to see exactly what regulation or law identifies the 83 - 400 ft as federal jurisdiction and governed by the FAA. If you happen to know, please advise. Thanks for the info...
Also, I'm well aware that if a park is enforcing a no fly ordinance, it's probably not wise to fly over it even from outside the perimeter; however, assuming the information above is correct... it's only not wise in the sense that certain authorities may not fully recognize the extent in which their ordinance can legally be enforced. If I felt it necessary to fly over a park from outside the park boundary for whatever reason, and I were approached by authorities and asked to leave, I personally would simply leave. It's not worth the fight of what is legally right or wrong. If I'm approached by authorities and I'm given a fine or worse (jail time), then armed with this legal knowledge, I at least have something in my back pocket to fight it with later. I think it's good for us all to know the true legality for how, when, and where we fly. I think it's important that we respect others and respect the park. I think it's also important that everyone, including the authorities, fully understand the law. It's clear to me after watching certain videos, that some authorities are not familiar with the laws or even its own park's regulations when it comes to flying RC quadcopters. For this reason, I feel the need to know not only a park's ordinance, but exactly how that ordinance should be interpreted with respect to federal law.
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm not a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Express last nite (j/k) 
But recently I read some stuff locally about the how & whys the cops can detain you for disorderly conduct, which can be as lil as being belligerent to a cop. Making an arse of yourself. Oh & this is in the USA. You can be thrown in jail if the cops feel you are making it hard for them to do their job, most likely you will be just told to move on or given a fine.
Now as for rc/quads/drones go.. most likely when the laws were written they never had a clue the public would be getting so heavily into rc craft so the writers never even considered it, same as cellphones, the internet, etc. So I would hazard a guess that many places are playing catchup & its still very much a grey area. I mean, how many people back in the 40s or 50s even had cameras? Let alone before then?
Do you really want to be the guinea pig by flaying someplace you have been told not too? Is it worth the risk of a police record possibly? With my job its not, I will lose my job if I am arrested, no ands ifs or buts about it.
If you decide to fly, do come back & let us know if you got caught & what the results of getting caught were, well unless you are in jail, I don't think they have internet access there. :lol:
But recently I read some stuff locally about the how & whys the cops can detain you for disorderly conduct, which can be as lil as being belligerent to a cop. Making an arse of yourself. Oh & this is in the USA. You can be thrown in jail if the cops feel you are making it hard for them to do their job, most likely you will be just told to move on or given a fine.
Now as for rc/quads/drones go.. most likely when the laws were written they never had a clue the public would be getting so heavily into rc craft so the writers never even considered it, same as cellphones, the internet, etc. So I would hazard a guess that many places are playing catchup & its still very much a grey area. I mean, how many people back in the 40s or 50s even had cameras? Let alone before then?
Do you really want to be the guinea pig by flaying someplace you have been told not too? Is it worth the risk of a police record possibly? With my job its not, I will lose my job if I am arrested, no ands ifs or buts about it.
If you decide to fly, do come back & let us know if you got caught & what the results of getting caught were, well unless you are in jail, I don't think they have internet access there. :lol:
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
The whole 83 feet thing is a myth and is incorrect.
It's one of those internet factoids that have developed a life of their own because it has been accepted by unquestioning people who then repeat it. There is no boundary at 83 feet dividing landowners property from public airspace.
It all comes from a lawsuit in 1946 where a chicken farmer adjacent to an airport found his chickens were dying because they were frightened by the noise of aircraft overflying on approach and takeoff. He sued for compensation and was awarded $1435. The often quoted 83 feet figure comes from the lowest height that planes passed over the property. The glideslope followed by planes over the property was 83 feet high at the lower end and 365 feet at the higher end.
The court case is known as United States v. Causby.
SHort discussion of the case here ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby
For anyone interested in further detailed information on the case and its legal implications, refer to this document ...
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 3fpc8MFPVQ
It's one of those internet factoids that have developed a life of their own because it has been accepted by unquestioning people who then repeat it. There is no boundary at 83 feet dividing landowners property from public airspace.
It all comes from a lawsuit in 1946 where a chicken farmer adjacent to an airport found his chickens were dying because they were frightened by the noise of aircraft overflying on approach and takeoff. He sued for compensation and was awarded $1435. The often quoted 83 feet figure comes from the lowest height that planes passed over the property. The glideslope followed by planes over the property was 83 feet high at the lower end and 365 feet at the higher end.
The court case is known as United States v. Causby.
SHort discussion of the case here ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby
For anyone interested in further detailed information on the case and its legal implications, refer to this document ...
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 3fpc8MFPVQ
And that my friend is exactly why I look to the regulations or law. Thank you for that info. That is really good info and something I have not yet seen or heard of. Listening to someone say 'it's illegal' or 'you will get arrested' doesn't say anything for whether we're truly operating within the law. The answer to my question may truly be that the law doesn't address whether or not the park has jurisdiction over the airspace above it... or if the park's ordinance can legally enforce a penalty for a drone in the airspace above the park at any altitude when the operator is outside of the park.. however, i'm not yet convinced that the law doesn't address this somewhere but it would be good to know one way or another if it does or doesn't.Meta4 said:
srandall25 said:
The police really don't need a reason to detain you, I think they can legally hold you for 48 hours. The only reason they would detain you would be because of pending charges, but you get the idea.
Play it safe, don't fly over the park.
I agree.. good to play it safe.. stay informed, know your rights, know the law, and play it safe...
Some quotes from:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06 ... nal-parks/
So, is it or isn't the flying permitted?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06 ... nal-parks/
So, is it or isn't the flying permitted?
Wish all the restrictions were not so, they seem to be coming on stronger and stronger and more and more as the weeks and months goes by. Once restrictions start no matter what kind they are almost impossible to change, and the more they are generated.
Similar threads
