Flying Legal in or 'Over' Parks

[geosky]

Apologies if my opinion has already been stated (I didn't have time to read the entire thread).

Parks are not free spaces - they are owned and maintained and are financially responsible by some.. /one/corporation/municipality/county/state/province, etc.
Think about you -and your liability insurance!
Parks are not free space.

A local park had graciously allowed our local rc flying club access to their space on weekends.
However, we still had to purchase an "insurance Certificate" before we were allowed to fly.
I think it was around $10 (for ONE year)

Wait just a minute - what about this million dollar idea??
(ohh, poop - just lost my wifi)

 

[CarlJ]

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.

I can't express how well stated this is, eloquent comes to mind. It is a mature, intelligent argument, but I believe the motivations of those that would be detractors stems from narcissism, and so no amount of logic or rational thought can sway them. Sadly I think you're preaching to the choir, but an impressive post all the same.

Thank you!

 

[ianwood]

There's a long list of things that should be banned from parks well before drones. Harleys and any other bikes that produce more noise than power. Same with cars. Offroaders limited to tightly controlled areas.

But a flurry of drones incessantly buzzing over the park is obviously bad for everyone and everything. As are too many cars, people, etc. The parks don't need to ban all of these things. They need to regulate their flow. Maybe allow a few drones per day under local guidelines to prevent disruption. That would seem to be the most practical approach.

 

[CarlJ]

There's a long list of things that should be banned from parks well before drones. Harleys and any other bikes that produce more noise than power. Same with cars. Offroaders limited to tightly controlled areas.

But a flurry of drones incessantly buzzing over the park is obviously bad for everyone and everything. As are too many cars, people, etc. The parks don't need to ban all of these things. They need to regulate their flow. Maybe allow a few drones per day under local guidelines to prevent disruption. That would seem to be the most practical approach.

Ian,
The best thing for the parks would be to ban people altogether, but if no one sees it, how spectacular can it be? We need a balanced approached when making decisions concerning the parks. I think over time your way of thinking might prevail, but clearly due to bad actors, Park Service feels the need to ban now.

I think if you were to approach park service with a project with some merit other than a l33t video on youtube, they'd be very interested. Remembering that the goal of park service is to promote their parks...of course.

 

[geosky]

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...

I am not a lawyer and I have a great lawyer.
I have been in several important (to me) business situations that I thought were unfair and were not properly addressed by common law/legislation.
The question my lawyer always asked:
"You may very well be right - but do you have the funds to prove you are right - and is it worth it to spend a lot of time and money to prove so - and will you benefit in the long term?"

I usually re-considered (except once).
It was mostly not worth my financial investment to be a precedent-maker to prove my case.

If you want to push the envelope, it could cost you a court-case, a financial penalty and possibly even a restriction on owning/operating a UAV in future.
Is that worth it to you?
If you win and set a precedent, it would have cost you. And the rest of the UAV pilots would certainly thank you (at no expense to them).
If you lose and don't set a precedent, it would have cost you. And the rest of the UAV pilots would not thank you (as future challenges would be more difficult).
My advice is to not do it. Regardless of your capabilities.

This entire flight/photo aerial thing is new (cheap) technology. The legislators do not know how to deal with it.
There must be one lobby-group formed to submit operator-ability (even criminal background check), privacy-issue, hardware-capability, etc.
I have no idea how such a group could be formed.
In the meantime - I will just keep ducking under the bar.