If it wasn't for all the idiots breaking the rules of common sense, we wouldn't need to be regulated.
Flying Legal in or 'Over' Parks
- Thread starter srandall25
- Start date
I wonder if this applies to the Blue Ridge Parkway? And does this mean there is a ban today or are they working on a ban? Where is the ban one loud motorcycles, which certainly disturb people and wildlife?
Can I still practice falonry?
Can I still practice falonry?
Tails_Up said:
My parents live in Gatlinburg, TN so this news kind of sucks! They aren't in the park, but some beautiful shots just off the road are in the park.
kydan said:
As search reveals the same article with the pretty much the same content--even the same topic titles at cbs, cnn, free press, digital trends, forbes, tech crunch, and on and on and on.
There was no mistake. These websites (and countless others) also carried pretty much the same information as it pertains to this topic regarding "Flying Legal in or 'Over' Parks:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/government- ... nal-parks/
http://www.freep.com/article/20140622/N ... onal-parks
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/ ... nal-parks/
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional ... ccead.html
srandall25 said:
I've read through all the responses thus far. Lots of interesting information and opinions. One of the comments mentions a park official directing his employees to write a directive banning "launching or landing" from within the park. Fine, they have that right. But I don't think the park has any more right to forbid you to fly OVER park property than you do to tell your local airport you don't want aircraft flying over your house. I want "air rent" though!
We're not talking about a national security issue and, unless you are flying over crowds of people, I hardly see this as a safety issue. No matter what it is, there always seems to be some ******* who feels the need for a power trip. Its why I have little use or respect for our leviathan, out-of-control government. One park official comment mentioned he didn't want drones flying in front of Mt. Rushmore. Why? Does he really think a Phantom is going to damage the granite were it to crash? Or is it just because he can? :roll:
I'll take my chances and film what I want so long as I feel I can do it safely.
One of my other hobbies is metal detecting. I have plenty of pointers to share on this issue.
If you want to do something that other people might object to, don't be so **** obvious. If I want to metal detect at a spot where someone might say "HEY. What are You doing?" (like a open construction site where the clearing has just started), I try and be as unobvious as possible.
I don't hop out of the car and wave my metal detector around where anyone passing by can see. I try to be discreet and respectful of what's going on. They don't care, unless I make them care. Setting up and launching around a crowd people or buzzing over neighborhoods at less than 300 feet is just asking for it.
Don't try and circle the Washington Monument. Don't fly close to office buildings or public structures, If you want to fly in a city from an empty parking lot or park, stay close and below 400 feet. Don't go zooming over crowds. Choose a time when the least amount of people would care. There's a carnival here in a few months. If I launch across the lake and stay over water, no one should care. 50 feet away from the ferris wheel - you're a public nuisance and a hazard.
Oh, and bragging on YouTube about it isn't a good idea either.
If you want to do something that other people might object to, don't be so **** obvious. If I want to metal detect at a spot where someone might say "HEY. What are You doing?" (like a open construction site where the clearing has just started), I try and be as unobvious as possible.
I don't hop out of the car and wave my metal detector around where anyone passing by can see. I try to be discreet and respectful of what's going on. They don't care, unless I make them care. Setting up and launching around a crowd people or buzzing over neighborhoods at less than 300 feet is just asking for it.
Don't try and circle the Washington Monument. Don't fly close to office buildings or public structures, If you want to fly in a city from an empty parking lot or park, stay close and below 400 feet. Don't go zooming over crowds. Choose a time when the least amount of people would care. There's a carnival here in a few months. If I launch across the lake and stay over water, no one should care. 50 feet away from the ferris wheel - you're a public nuisance and a hazard.
Oh, and bragging on YouTube about it isn't a good idea either.
kydan said:
Actually first mistake was (you) saying article came from FOXNews.. Associated Press was the original news source, fOXNews just reprinted article and mentions that fact. the same article has appeared on many threads here by many news agencies.
good thing you weren't alive during the american revolution. Do you always just blindly accept and follow other peoples stupid rules?abacus01 said:
Tails_Up said:
It probably does since the BRP is a part of the national park system. I've launched mine on a few occasions from the Parkway, but probably won't any more due to the ban. I would assume the ban begins immediately even though it doesn't yet say so yet on the official web site. The places I launched from were over open woods and rock with no one below and very few people around. Many were very interested in what I was doing and no one objected. I was in contact with someone from the Great Smoky Mountain Assoc. who saw my videos (a FB friend also). I asked about shooting in the Smokies and she said absolutely not - this was a couple of weeks ago. She said even their videographer couldn't get permission from the park super to shoot promotional video. Seems a bit extreme to me, but hopefully the rules will change in the future.
I believe the news articles everyone is reading is a little misleading. The articles basically state that all national parks have banned the flying of drones. What actually happened is that the park service director Jonathan B. Jarvis signed an order just the other day directing park superintendents to ban visitors from using the small personal aircraft. This direction was in the form of a memo that was sent to all superintendents. The superintendents have now been charged with coming up with the proper regulations and process for enforcing it for their park. I haven't seen anything in terms of official regulations that state this ban and it's because there still isn't any. The only thing that's out there is a memo that was sent to the superintendents of the parks and all these news articles stating that all the national parks have banned drones. The law isn't concerned so much with news articles. It's concerned with actual regulations and ordinances that are clearly spelled out and have gone through an approval process. This has yet to be accomplished. I actually spoke with a national park ranger the day this news broke, and she mentioned to me that they (park superintendents) received this memo instructing them to come up with policy for their park to ban these drones. The citizens must still have some guidance or policy to follow. The citizens didn't receive this memo, the superintendents did. The superintendents still require time to establish the proper signing or whatever process they're going to use in order to enforce the latest direction from the park service director. Now, I'm not stupid, and I wouldn't do this based on what I now know, but hypothetically, if one went to a national park that has never formally had any policy against flying drones, and decided to fly their drone tomorrow at that park, and there was no sign identifying the new policy, what exactly is now legally holding this person accountable for illegally flying a drone in the park? News articles stating that a memo was sent to the superintendents to ban drones?
'Disorderly Conduct' is far more applicable for RC aircraft, including our Phantoms, than any FAA regulations.
Regardless the place if your actions cause a crowd and concern for public or individual safety you can be detained, cited, arrested depending on the situation.
DC and or Menacing are the "Catch All" charges local law enforcement can use if nothing else fits.
Regardless the place if your actions cause a crowd and concern for public or individual safety you can be detained, cited, arrested depending on the situation.
DC and or Menacing are the "Catch All" charges local law enforcement can use if nothing else fits.
I agree with the NPS doing this. The point of the parks is for the enjoyment of a natural serene environment for both people and wildlife. That said, im not sure that they can actually dictate what goes on in their airspace. In fact, I dont think that this temporary measure does so. Airspace is the purview of the FAA. The NPS can certainly regulate what goes on on their lands and waters, but its interesting to note that they dont state 'over' the land or waters. the closure language is 'from' or 'on'. Not 'over'.
Additionally, if one reads the actual policy memo released by the department of the interior, they will find the following:
"The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS."
However, given that the FAA has just recently said NOT to fly out of line of direct sight, one would have a very limited range to fly within the park (if launched outside of it).
Additionally, if one reads the actual policy memo released by the department of the interior, they will find the following:
"The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS."
However, given that the FAA has just recently said NOT to fly out of line of direct sight, one would have a very limited range to fly within the park (if launched outside of it).
jdenkevitz said:
Would the enjoyment of natural serene environment also mean that noisy vehicles--particularly motorcycles and cars that were modified to be noisy, music, concerts, fireworks, campfires (pollution from smoke), hah--smoking (anything) should also be prohibited?
Flying Cephlopod said:
I think that rational adults can appreciate that there is a spectrum involved. We permit certain activities and not others within the parks.
Small noisy and potentially hazardous aircraft, which are being flown only for the enjoyment of the operator, does not strike me as particularly important to permit in our national parks. By their very nature, they are annoying. They also unquestionably interfere with wildlife. Radio Control vehicle airspace isnt part of the implicit mandate of our Park system.
Our parks are already threatened by environmental damage and a general lack of adequate funding to ensure the proper maintenance and care for the regions (to fight off encroaching invasive species and fight off arboreal diseases). Allowing drones to fly unabated within our parks would no doubt be enjoyable for the operator, and would result in nice photographs and videos, but I believe would likewise interfere with other peoples usage and in sufficient enough numbers, have an extremely detrimental impact.
There are already rules in most national and state parks regarding making noise and interfering with others quiet enjoyment of said areas. This new policy is a natural extension of those rules. I don't see it as being overreaching or unduly burdensome.
I love flying my drone, and thought it would be great to take it to some parks for photos. But I had no notion that I was entitled to do so, as to me its obvious that that is NOT what the parks are about.
Then again, I prefer backcountry over car-camping myself. Some people like all the creature comforts of large RV/Campers with noisy generators, satellite tv, and video games when they camp. I guess to them, drones are just another toy to have when camping.
Similar threads
