More bans, no fly zones

[bhartwell]

I’ve posted on this topic a few times, the issue is becoming more and more prevalent. Flying in the Las Vegas area this last weekend. Turns out drones are banned in the Red Rock conservation area and nearby Spring Mountain state park. I also found that drones are now banned at the Valley of Fire state park, although there is no mention of this on the official web site.

As in other locations that have banned drones, most areas offering the beautiful scenery we want to film in the first place have now banned the tools to do so. In the case of a Valley of Fire, I was really annoyed as there was no notice posted online, and it’s an hour plus drive to get there from LV. When I asked about why there was a ban, I got the normal safety risk, noise, scares animals and so forth. I didn’t mention the hypocrisy of this, as a helicopter flew over at an altitude of no more then 1000’ and making a heck of a lot more noise, pollution and likely posing a much greater threat then my flying camera.

If we can’t seem to organize as an industry, we will have no industry to protect.....

 

[pporozin]

Flying in a nature reservation is prohibitted in Germany as well. If you look at the map, it is hard to fly anywhere. But having a commercial license opens you the zones under some rules. Maybe it is the same within the US.

 

[GMack]

Yeah, I'm seeing more notices being posted even in areas where it is just dirt and desert. The notice below is from a district office in the middle of a California state poppy field which is in bloom maybe one month of the year, and then mostly desert dirt and deserted and isolated. Even though the state's governor okayed drones for use in state parks, he left it to each supervisor who generally says "No!" probably due to it possibly stressing the indigenous bugs or scorpions who may think the drone is a bird of prey (Fwiw, my younger sis is one of those rangers and she does think like that!). That or you need some high-priced permit with sundry attachments for money from other state and local departments as part of it.

Here is one posted sign from the Tehachapi district supervisor who controls much of the state park's area north of Los Angeles:

 

[tcope]

In the case of a Valley of Fire, I was really annoyed as there was no notice posted online, and it’s an hour plus drive to get there from LV. When I asked about why there was a ban, I got the normal safety risk, noise, scares animals and so forth. I didn’t mention the hypocrisy of this, as a helicopter flew over at an altitude of no more then 1000’ and making a heck of a lot more noise, pollution and likely posing a much greater threat then my flying camera.

Drones have been banned at VoF for year now. True, their website does not mention this but it's been posted in this very forum several times. If you search on Google you will also find the a photo of the sign at the I-15 side entrance. There are also no mentions of the ban at the visitors center. You can also call before you go out for this information.

I knew this before going out there the second time. I drove past the entrance on the east side and pulled over about 1/4 mile away to fly. Park ranger stopped and told me no flying. I mentioned that I left the park. He pointed out that the park did not end at the entrance, it extended further out about another mile. He just gave me a warning as he stated that he thought I attempted to leave the park before flying. The issue with the east side is that Lake Mead then starts there... which is run by the National Park Service. It's not a National Park but because it's run by them, their ban applies there as well.

I do agree, it should be on their website. But this information is clear searchable.

 

[bhartwell]

The point isn’t so much that the information was or was not properly posted, the point is the ban exists at all. The default stance of most, if not all resource administration services is to ban drones, for no apparent reason other then generally not liking them.

These inconsistent and discriminatory regulations make as much sense as banning cars and cameras. If the various services wanted to ban public use of the lands they are entrusted to preserve, image the outcry.

We all need to remember, it’s our taxes that pay the salaries of these folks. We are not asking a favor to be allowed to access our communal property. We are not requesting some sort of special accommodation to be able to film the national treasures we all hold in trust and pay to maintain. By what right do any of these agencies take away our access, the public’s access, to which they are chartered solely to protect.

This is the point, if we cannot get off our collective arses and start pushing back, we will lose yet another basic right, the right to access the public lands we hold in trust, pay for and that have been set aside for our use. That is why these parks and exist, for the good of the public, except apparently, those of us that happen to want to film it using a drone camera.

 

[macoman]

The point isn’t so much that the information was or was not properly posted, the point is the ban exists at all. The default stance of most, if not all resource administration services is to ban drones, for no apparent reason other then generally not liking them.

These inconsistent and discriminatory regulations make as much sense as banning cars and cameras. If the various services wanted to ban public use of the lands they are entrusted to preserve, image the outcry.

We all need to remember, it’s our taxes that pay the salaries of these folks. We are not asking a favor to be allowed to access our communal property. We are not requesting some sort of special accommodation to be able to film the national treasures we all hold in trust and pay to maintain. By what right do any of these agencies take away our access, the public’s access, to which they are chartered solely to protect.

This is the point, if we cannot get off our collective arses and start pushing back, we will lose yet another basic right, the right to access the public lands we hold in trust, pay for and that have been set aside for our use. That is why these parks and exist, for the good of the public, except apparently, those of us that happen to want to film it using a drone camera.

Then send emails or call to your state representative and also get in contact with the academy of model aeronautics (AMA) they represent us in Washington DC. They need to know that our right to fly are getting banned almost every where.

 

[bhartwell]

Good point, and to get the process started, any of you that are interested in this topic please sign my change.org petition.

Sign the Petition

 

[jeffcutler]

Good point, and to get the process started, any of you that are interested in this topic please sign my change.org petition.

Sign the Petition

Done!

 

[rodgerbwg]

I’ve posted on this topic a few times, the issue is becoming more and more prevalent. Flying in the Las Vegas area this last weekend. Turns out drones are banned in the Red Rock conservation area and nearby Spring Mountain state park. I also found that drones are now banned at the Valley of Fire state park, although there is no mention of this on the official web site.

As in other locations that have banned drones, most areas offering the beautiful scenery we want to film in the first place have now banned the tools to do so. In the case of a Valley of Fire, I was really annoyed as there was no notice posted online, and it’s an hour plus drive to get there from LV. When I asked about why there was a ban, I got the normal safety risk, noise, scares animals and so forth. I didn’t mention the hypocrisy of this, as a helicopter flew over at an altitude of no more then 1000’ and making a heck of a lot more noise, pollution and likely posing a much greater threat then my flying camera.

If we can’t seem to organize as an industry, we will have no industry to protect.....

I think the problem is the irresponsible few ruin things for the responsible.

 

[Amergin]

I think you need to accept as well that maybe the majority of people do not fly drones and probably don't like the noise/visual intrusion into wild areas. It is unlikely that as drone prices come down and more people get them as christmas presents attitudes will turn more positive. Just saying.

 

[rodgerbwg]

I think you need to accept as well that maybe the majority of people do not fly drones and probably don't like the noise/visual intrusion into wild areas. It is unlikely that as drone prices come down and more people get them as christmas presents attitudes will turn more positive. Just saying.

I think the attitude has become more positive due to registration allowing accountability.

 

[andy_k]

Why shouldn't people ban drones on land they are entrusted to manage? Like it or not, we are in a minority and we shouldn't be the ones stamping our feet saying 'well, I've bought a drone, I want to fly here'. That's not how it works. Fly with consideration for others and there will be less problems. There are very few people in this world that want their afternoon walk in a country park disturbed by all the local drone flyers turning up just because they want to. The OP recalls one helicopter flying (legally) below 1000ft. I think we can all put up with one helicopter and there's a vast difference between that and many drones. If you can't fly responsibly where you live then drive somewhere else. If you can't be bothered to drive somewhere else, take up a different hobby. Flying isn't a right, it's a privilege

 

[bhartwell]

I think you need to accept as well that maybe the majority of people do not fly drones and probably don't like the noise/visual intrusion into wild areas. It is unlikely that as drone prices come down and more people get them as christmas presents attitudes will turn more positive. Just saying.

I do understand the concern. It’s the knee jerk reaction to enact compete bans that I have an issue with. Rather then working with the industry, hobbyists and the public to layout sensible rules, it just seems to be less work to ban completely.

These are lands held by public agencies, who are chartered to hold and protect them in trust for us. So we have a right to have access, so long as our access doesn’t damage the resource or damage the experience of others. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to establish a set of guidelines / rules that govern where in the park drones can fly, times of day, etc.

Then again, it’s easier just to ban. So if no one representing our interests is pushing back, the bans will stand and alternatives will not be considered.

 

[Travels with Yoly]

I'm a 69 year old responsible Phantom pilot and I agree with many of the restrictions and their justification. However, the bans in open areas where there are no people or wildlife are examples of a trend heading in a negative direction. If things progress as they seem to be it doesn't bode well for the industry.

 

[Calsun]

Drones seem to garner an emotional reaction from bureaucrats. Where I live there is a marine sanctuary and according to federal regulations all aircraft are supposed to fly at an altitude of 2,000 feet or higher unless they have a special permit for the day. Nonetheless there are private planes and helicopters that routinely fly at 500 feet or lower over the sanctuary and on weekends there are pilots with stunt planes pulling hammerheads and doing barrel rolls at 1000 feet or less over both the sanctuary and over nearby residential areas.

Between 2008 and 2012, there were 7,502 general aviation accidents in the United States. That averages out to 5 crashes a day somewhere in the United States. No one gets excited when a plane crashes, even into houses, but heaven forbid that a 2lb. drone flies over a park. There is also currently no federal requirement that the owner or pilot of a private aircraft carry insurance to cover injuries to passengers or a third party on the ground.

 

[bhartwell]

Drones seem to garner an emotional reaction from bureaucrats. Where I live there is a marine sanctuary and according to federal regulations all aircraft are supposed to fly at an altitude of 2,000 feet or higher unless they have a special permit for the day. Nonetheless there are private planes and helicopters that routinely fly at 500 feet or lower over the sanctuary and on weekends there are pilots with stunt planes pulling hammerheads and doing barrel rolls at 1000 feet or less over both the sanctuary and over nearby residential areas.

Between 2008 and 2012, there were 7,502 general aviation accidents in the United States. That averages out to 5 crashes a day somewhere in the United States. No one gets excited when a plane crashes, even into houses, but heaven forbid that a 2lb. drone flies over a park. There is also currently no federal requirement that the owner or pilot of a private aircraft carry insurance to cover injuries to passengers or a third party on the ground.

I was not aware there is no insurance requirement. Doesn’t make sense given there is such a requirement in most states in order to drive a car, and those that don’t require insurance do require the driver to be financially responsible.

The reaction to drones is oddly visceral, maybe it’s the idea of a flying camera, or a “robot” flying around, it’s hard to say. The most commonly stated basis of a ban seems to be noise, impact on wildlife and risk of damage from crashes. However, these issues have no factual data to back up the concern.

A DJI Phantom 4 puts out roughly 60 dB to 50 dB at 50 to 100 feet away (depending on conditions), about the same noise level as the sound of a heavy to mild rain. So, establishing rules around locations available to fly, times allowed, etc. would likely make sense. But assertions that a device that is about as loud as a rain storm is going to cause stress or injury to wildlife is just not substantiated by any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.

As to injury to wildlife, I am unaware of any incident in which an animal or wildlife has been injured or impacted due to a drone, drone strike or the drone activity. I have heard of far more damage caused by people, cars, airplanes, hikers, etc. Yet these don’t seem to be arbitrarily banned. Yes, areas are set aside and rules applied, as is appropriate, but out right bans, never.

As to crashes, yes drones can crash and appropriate precautions should be in place to avoid damage to people or property. That’s why the FAA put out a set of regulations and these should be enforced. But again, does a ban make sense, of course not.

That’s why I’m asking people to sign my petition. I would like to work with all of you to start pushing back on some of these bans and to press for reasonableness in the guidelines that are put in place.

I’ve gotten a much larger response then I had though I would, so it seems I’m not the only one with this concern. If you want your voice heard, sign up.

Sign the Petition

 

[Travels with Yoly]

58 dBa is considered the level of normal human conversation or comparable to a small Honda EU2000 generator (commonly used in National Park campgrounds). Another individual started a petition in 2016 when Canada enacted even stricter regulations. They had hoped to gather the required number of signatures and ended up with 3 times that amount. By July of last year, the Canadian government had revised and relaxed the original regs to a very realistic compromise so these kinds of "push back" efforts can be effective.

 

[P3$E pilot]

You might look into the AOPA for advocacy and support. They have a UAS division and a seat on the FAA Drone Advisory Committee. They are a powerful voice for all of GA, and seem to be taking a strong stand on UAS issues. *Disclaimer: I am a member of AOPA, but have no other connection.*

The best way to stave off all these silly rules will be to organize and create a strong voice.

 

[bhartwell]

You might look into the AOPA for advocacy and support. They have a UAS division and a seat on the FAA Drone Advisory Committee. They are a powerful voice for all of GA, and seem to be taking a strong stand on UAS issues. *Disclaimer: I am a member of AOPA, but have no other connection.*

The best way to stave off all these silly rules will be to organize and create a strong voice.

I haven’t heard of the AOPA, would appreciate any contact info you might have. I did join the FAA UAS pilot program as an interested participant. I am open to all avenues of communication.

 

[BigAl07]

I haven’t heard of the AOPA, would appreciate any contact info you might have. I did join the FAA UAS pilot program as an interested participant. I am open to all avenues of communication.

Your Freedom to Fly - AOPA