Local County Park Unlawfully attempting to regulate drones

[jacuzzibusguy]

Well, parks can be persuaded to change their regulations when given sufficient information and challenged as to why they restricted UAVs from the park. I previously tried to fly in a public park in Columbia, SC and was told that it was not allowed. This is a park that sells yearly passes to the park and requires you to sign an agreement that you will obey all posted rules. I asked where the rule was posted and nobody could tell me. It was not posted in the park, not posted on the web site, etc.

I suggested that an unposted rule was unenforceable since it was not really a rule and potentially left people wide open to discrimination. I started with the park manager, them went to the park supervisor's office, and said that I was ready to go to the Park Commission with the dispute. I also pointed out that the park assumed much more potential liability for other activities allowed in the park and asked if liability was their primary concern. I also suggested in writing how any potential liability could be mitigated.

I spent several weeks educating the park officials with current FAA regulations, drone operations, and provided a drone for them to actually see. I then got a request to meet with the park staff and work up some acceptable rules governing take off/landing in the park. I essentially wrote a general set of rules that were easy to understand as well as enforce and was told that they would be submitted to the Park Commission for action.

The entire process took close to three months, but I received a hone call last week telling me that I could now take off/land in the park at the site I initially suggested. I made my first legal flight last Saturday and nobody even challenged me even though the rules have not been officially posted.

Take offs/landings in a park can be accomplished if you are patient, have logic on your side, volunteer to help set location and rules. IMO, the effort was worth it and I can now fly in a very nice area near my home.

Nelson

This is excellent to hear!

This is the result i expected when I sent the first friendly email back in November.

Instead, I’ve spent almost 6 months sending emails, making phone calls, going to commission meetings, talking with reporters, trying to get the attorney general involved, I contacted the Michigan dot aeronautical commission, who contacted the county on my behalf informing them their rules are in direct violation of stars law etc....

I’ve never seen anything like this before. The county park commission does not care that they are violating state law.

I’ve done lots of contemplating and thinking as to why they are anti drone. The reality is that it is not about drones, it’s about power.

The commission publicly chastised me, a lowly citizen, for trying to tell them what they can do with their private property.

Clearly these public servants do not seem to understand how the system works.

 

[jacuzzibusguy]

You cant just fly drones around the parks. Its dangerous.

The faa already has a system in place in regards to doing dangerous things with drones, like flying over people.

We’re not talking about Central Park here.

Conducting safe flights, especially in unpopulated areas, is allowed in all state and local parks in Michigan. (Unless there are airspace restrictions put in place by the faa)

Although mackinaw island May soon be granted the authority to regulate launching and landing of uas.

 

[BigAl07]

I’m am glad to see some push back against unreasonable restrictions. To many people either don’t care, don’t want to make waves, actually agree that we should restrict drones from most public places or are to lackadaisical to do anything. Inertia has a great deal of power it seems.

What surprised me the most was how little support there is for appropriate, fair-use, fair-access drone regulation even on these forums, where I would assume the population would be generally biased towards fair-use advocacy and not unreasonable restrictions.

Yet, when posts come up either requesting help in pushing back, or highlighting groups that are pushing back, I see more support for the bans then for the groups advocating change. Even some of the moderators, i..e BigAl, seem more inclined to resist drone fair-use advocacy and equal access, and more likely to criticize attempts at changes in these areas.

Seems very odd.

It's true I don't think anyone should be able to fly anywhere they want. I also do not think that places like National Parks should be open to any sUAS because they are protected in order to try and keep some degree of NATURAL to them. For the record I also don't want to see a Gun Range, Softball Field, Stadium, and many other things in the NPS.

Does any of the above mean I'm anti-sUAS etc? I just feel like there are places where sUAS don't belong. Do I think that every park/venue should be closed to sUAS? Heck no! I flew this week at our local Rec Park and there was another sUAS also flying in the same park at the same time.

@bhartwell just because I don't support the right to launch and fly anywhere you like doesn't mean that I am not supportive of the industry. I just happen to not support your particular point of view as it stands. Don't make it personal.

 

[jacuzzibusguy]

It's true I don't think anyone should be able to fly anywhere they want. I also do not think that places like National Parks should be open to any sUAS because they are protected in order to try and keep some degree of NATURAL to them. For the record I also don't want to see a Gun Range, Softball Field, Stadium, and many other things in the NPS.

Does any of the above mean I'm anti-sUAS etc? I just feel like there are places where sUAS don't belong. Do I think that every park/venue should be closed to sUAS? Heck no! I flew this week at our local Rec Park and there was another sUAS also flying in the same park at the same time.

@bhartwell just because I don't support the right to launch and fly anywhere you like doesn't mean that I am not supportive of the industry. I just happen to not support your particular point of view as it stands. Don't make it personal.

I agree with your points!

When I’m out enjoying nature, I really don’t want drones buzzing around disturbing the tranquility of the moment.

I’ve spent months trying to get this, the largest local park system in the state, to stop banning drones in their parks. At the same time, I am sympathetic to their cause. Although their unlawful drone ban was brought to my attention while flying at a 4x4 truck and ATV park.

This local park issue is simple for me.

The state expressly forbids Genesee County from regulating the operation or ownership of unmanned aircraft. I do not care how well intentioned the local public servants are, if they want to regulate drones they first have to get the state to carve out an exception.

It comes down to what is legal. Even if you are an elected commissioner or the chief of park police, you still gotta follow the law.

 

[bhartwell]

It's true I don't think anyone should be able to fly anywhere they want. I also do not think that places like National Parks should be open to any sUAS because they are protected in order to try and keep some degree of NATURAL to them. For the record I also don't want to see a Gun Range, Softball Field, Stadium, and many other things in the NPS.

Does any of the above mean I'm anti-sUAS etc? I just feel like there are places where sUAS don't belong. Do I think that every park/venue should be closed to sUAS? Heck no! I flew this week at our local Rec Park and there was another sUAS also flying in the same park at the same time.

@bhartwell just because I don't support the right to launch and fly anywhere you like doesn't mean that I am not supportive of the industry. I just happen to not support your particular point of view as it stands. Don't make it personal.

Hi BigAl, nothing personal, just an example. At the same time please don’t take my stance out of context. I am not and have not been an advocate for the right to “fly and launch from anywhere”. I am an advocate for appropriate regulation vs general bans. I respect the right of people wanting to be able to walk in nature without buzzing drones as much as the next guy, as an avid nature photographer, maybe more then the next guy. That being said, I do not support the policy of many municipalities and local park districts, especially in my area, of enacting across the board bans of UAVs. Where privacy, noise or impact to wildlife issues come into play, I have no issues with appropriate restrictions being put into place. Arbitrary bans across a region or all proprieties under management of a district, that I have an issue with.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

It's true I don't think anyone should be able to fly anywhere they want. I also do not think that places like National Parks should be open to any sUAS because they are protected in order to try and keep some degree of NATURAL to them. For the record I also don't want to see a Gun Range, Softball Field, Stadium, and many other things in the NPS.

Does any of the above mean I'm anti-sUAS etc? I just feel like there are places where sUAS don't belong. Do I think that every park/venue should be closed to sUAS? Heck no! I flew this week at our local Rec Park and there was another sUAS also flying in the same park at the same time.

@bhartwell just because I don't support the right to launch and fly anywhere you like doesn't mean that I am not supportive of the industry. I just happen to not support your particular point of view as it stands. Don't make it personal.

So if you want only "NATURAL" things in NATIONAL parks, they should not allow cars, RVs, motorcycles or boats, right?

 

[BigAl07]

Hi BigAl, nothing personal, just an example. At the same time please don’t take my stance out of context. I am not and have not been an advocate for the right to “fly and launch from anywhere”. I am an advocate for appropriate regulation vs general bans. I respect the right of people wanting to be able to walk in nature without buzzing drones as much as the next guy, as an avid nature photographer, maybe more then the next guy. That being said, I do not support the policy of many municipalities and local park districts, especially in my area, of enacting across the board bans of UAVs. Where privacy, noise or impact to wildlife issues come into play, I have no issues with appropriate restrictions being put into place. Arbitrary bans across a region or all proprieties under management of a district, that I have an issue with.

On those things we agree.

So if you want only "NATURAL" things in NATIONAL parks, they should not allow cars, RVs, motorcycles or boats, right?

When I go into nature I want to see NONE of those things as well. At least where I'm from, Western NC, the NPS do not allow any of those things as well, except cars etc to/from the location.

We go back into the Natural Areas to get away from technology and modern day living.

 

[Nick Mendocino]

On those things we agree.



When I go into nature I want to see NONE of those things as well. At least where I'm from, Western NC, the NPS do not allow any of those things as well, except cars etc to/from the location.

We go back into the Natural Areas to get away from technology and modern day living.

Looks like you are confusing federally designated wildnerness areas with national parks. I suppose you want to also ban all overflights by manned aircraft so they won't spoil your illusion that you're escaping from technology and modern day living.

 

[BigAl07]

Looks like you are confusing federally designated wildnerness areas with national parks. I suppose you want to also ban all overflights by manned aircraft so they won't spoil your illusion that you're escaping from technology and modern day living.

No I can assure you I'm not confusing my terms in the least. If I meant Wilderness Areas I would have stated as such. I live in an area pretty much surrounded for National Park Service land and ironically we also have some Wilderness Area as well. I'm fully aware of the differences but that does't change my point of view.

About your second comment.. LOL!

 

[jacuzzibusguy]

We showed up to the picnic only to find the gate locked and the park closed.

No big deal. The park system is 11,000 acres. They cannot close them all!

We went to a different park about three miles away.

The police presence was heavy to say the least.

My apologies as I did not take nearly enough photos.

These two parked right next to us and watched continuously while approximately 7 more police cars continuously circled us.

If any member of the group wandered away, they followed them with a police car.

Lots of positive things came about during the picnic.

Nobody got cited or detained but almost nobody flew drones. We changed our strategy just a day or so before the picnic and decided that rather than fighting a bunch of bogus charges, it is a safer, better alternative to bring the fight to them by getting a circuit court judge to issue a declaratory judgement.

This is the park we were in:

This is the park police station:

It has been decided that we are creating a 501 charity that will do several things including:

Educate the public on Michigan drone laws

Advocate for uas at the state level in regards to legislation

Educate municipalities that try to unlawfully regulate unmanned aircraft

And bring legal action if necessary against those communities who continue to violate state law.

We will need donations to bring this legal action, but our lawyer was at the event and he is super interested in putting an end to these shenanigans. He made us an offer with bargain basement pricing that is too good for us to turn down.

 

[trcsmith]

You cant just fly drones around the parks. Its dangerous.

That's true, You still need to follow the Federal rules that have to do with airspace and around people..

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Have any of you contacted the Michigan State Attorney General and voiced your concern?

 

[xspwhite]

The parks aren't even open yet LOL..

 

[bhartwell]

We showed up to the picnic only to find the gate locked and the park closed.

View attachment 110390

View attachment 110391

No big deal. The park system is 11,000 acres. They cannot close them all!

We went to a different park about three miles away.

The police presence was heavy to say the least.

My apologies as I did not take nearly enough photos.

View attachment 110392

These two parked right next to us and watched continuously while approximately 7 more police cars continuously circled us.

If any member of the group wandered away, they followed them with a police car.

Lots of positive things came about during the picnic.

Nobody got cited or detained but almost nobody flew drones. We changed our strategy just a day or so before the picnic and decided that rather than fighting a bunch of bogus charges, it is a safer, better alternative to bring the fight to them by getting a circuit court judge to issue a declaratory judgement.

View attachment 110393

This is the park we were in:

View attachment 110394

This is the park police station:

View attachment 110396

It has been decided that we are creating a 501 charity that will do several things including:

Educate the public on Michigan drone laws

Advocate for uas at the state level in regards to legislation

Educate municipalities that try to unlawfully regulate unmanned aircraft

And bring legal action if necessary against those communities who continue to violate state law.

We will need donations to bring this legal action, but our lawyer was at the event and he is super interested in putting an end to these shenanigans. He made us an offer with bargain basement pricing that is too good for us to turn down.

I wonder just how much that show of force cost the park district? I can assure you, the rangers were not there as volunteers. So the district pays overtime to their officers to follow a group around, close the park and display a show of force, all so you don’t fly your drone?

Seriously? An unlawful protest, maybe a civil rights issue, animal sacrifice,etc., ok, it would make sense to bring out the law enforcement team. A group of hobbyists wanting to fly a few drones and so we pay tax dollars for a foolish show of force. Where is the social media outrage, the nightly news commentary on local rangers overstepping their authority?

That’s the real story here, god help you if you wanted to maybe hold an unauthorized birthday party. Would they send in the SWAT teams.

 

[bhartwell]

Have any of you contacted the Michigan State Attorney General and voiced your concern?

Live stream to Facebook, pictures and circumstances to local news outlets, maybe a letter to the local paper. This one does deserve some local press attention.

 

[jacuzzibusguy]

Have any of you contacted the Michigan State Attorney General and voiced your concern?

We contacted the Michigan dot aeronautics commission who requested the ag office take action.

This is a wonderful step, but my guess is that the ag has plenty of more important things on their plate than drone preemption.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

We contacted the Michigan dot aeronautics commission who requested the ag office take action.

This is a wonderful step, but my guess is that the ag has plenty of more important things on their plate than drone preemption.

By law, they're required to follow up. It may not be her personally, but someone from her office should respond. Good luck. Love the shirt!

 

[Deleted member 29014]

Why did MI turn out to be non-restrictive for UAS?
What other states are non-restrictive to same degree?
Any easy path for turning restrictive states into non-restrictive states?

AZ has the same since 2016:
C. Except as authorized by law, a city, town or county may not enact or adopt any ordinance, policy or rule that relates to the ownership or operation of an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of an unmanned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft system. Any ordinance, policy or rule that violates this subsection, whether enacted or adopted by the city, town or county before or after August 6, 2016, is void.

Other interesting bits in the law:

D. This section does not:

1. Apply to a person or entity that is authorized or allowed by the federal aviation administration to operate or use an unmanned aircraft system if the person's or entity's operation or use complies with the authorization granted to the person or entity or with federal aviation administration rules.
2. Prohibit a city, town or county from enacting or adopting ordinances or rules on the operation or use of a public unmanned aircraft that is owned by the city, town or county.
3. Prohibit a city, town or county from enacting or adopting ordinances or rules that regulate the takeoff or landing of a model aircraft in a park or preserve owned by the city, town or county if:
(a) There are other parks or preserves that are within the city, town or county and that are available for model aircraft operation.
(b) The city, town or county only has one park or preserve that is within the city, town or county.

 

[Drestin Black]

You cant just fly drones around the parks. Its dangerous.

Not any more dangerous than any other location. Don't fly over people is the basic concern, like everywhere else. Just flew in my local park, very nice trees and lake.

 

[xspwhite]

Not any more dangerous than any other location. Don't fly over people is the basic concern, like everywhere else. Just flew in my local park, very nice trees and lake.

It's going to get to the point where drones will get smaller and smaller. They will be everywhere and too small to regulate. People will just have to grow use to it.