National Park story
- Thread starter Buk
- Start date
Interesting... they can fly their police heli right up to a drone but a police heli in NYC claims that several 100's of feet - 1000ft is so close they could of crashed. :roll:
Not to mention the cost of such an operation. Couldn't they just walk up to the guy and ask him to land? That is practically free.
Not to mention the cost of such an operation. Couldn't they just walk up to the guy and ask him to land? That is practically free.
Seems like they're sick of talking. I guess if you take your quad to a National Park against park rules and the law you're risking a lot.
If things keep going this way...maybe people will quit doing it? :shock:
If things keep going this way...maybe people will quit doing it? :shock:
CarlJ said:
This seems like a First Amendment issue to me. If flying for fun to take photos (i.e. express yourself), one could conceivably argue that First Amendment freedoms are being curtailed for no sound reason whatsoever.
I really hope someone comes along with the resources to smack down government agencies who force-feed killjoy policies to the public.
If he had only taken off from outside the park he would have been in the right, and the police would have had a harassment case on their hands.
damoncooper said:
Everything I can find online says that as of June 20th of this year the National Park Service has banned drones completely?
"Drones cannot be launched from, landed in or FLOWN over land or water overseen by the agency, which manages 84 million acres of land and 4.5 million acres of oceans, lakes, and reservoirs."
Do you have a link to something that says we can fly over NPs as long as we don't launch or land there?
Thanks
Paragraph 9:
The NPS has the authority to regulate or prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS. As a result, the compendium closures required by the Policy Memorandum only apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS within the boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on non-federally (e.g., private or state) owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the park. 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.
http://fenceviewer.com/site/index.php?o ... Itemid=938
The NPS has the authority to regulate or prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS. As a result, the compendium closures required by the Policy Memorandum only apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS within the boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on non-federally (e.g., private or state) owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the park. 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.
http://fenceviewer.com/site/index.php?o ... Itemid=938
Thanks for the link.
Sounds quite limited; I can fly over a national park as long as I launch the quad from outside the park, and I as the operator, remain outside the park while operating the quad within my line of sight at all times. Hardly worth it. And then if park officials feel I was a nuisance in any way (disturbing visitors or wildlife, etc.) I can still be fined.
Sounds quite limited; I can fly over a national park as long as I launch the quad from outside the park, and I as the operator, remain outside the park while operating the quad within my line of sight at all times. Hardly worth it. And then if park officials feel I was a nuisance in any way (disturbing visitors or wildlife, etc.) I can still be fined.
I have enjoyed the national parks all my life and I have known many people in the park service. All too often their attitude is that the park should be preserved and people using the park are a hindrance to that objective. I have many friends that are park rangers and I like and respect them, I'm just saying that the attitude is there in the administration.
damoncooper said:
Yes, and no. There has to be balance, and the rangers are aware of that. People that fly their quads in the Parks should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, because they conflict with that balance.
CRankin said:
I'd say you were right if we weren't talking about a National Park. People chase the animals with their quads, it's been documented. Express yourself with a handheld gimbal and camera, and leave the quad at home.
People have chased wildlife with their quadcopters, if everyone flew responsibly there would be no need for a ban by the NPS. I think it is a shame that we have lost that privilege because of the actions of a few.
It would be nice if there was a reasonable compromise that would address the park service's concerns and our desire to fly within the national park system. Perhaps quadcopter tours, a guided tour by a ranger or a person certified to give the tours which would allow tourists to bring and fly their UAVs under the supervision of the guide. The NPS could designate the areas that would be included in the tour.
Just a thought.
It would be nice if there was a reasonable compromise that would address the park service's concerns and our desire to fly within the national park system. Perhaps quadcopter tours, a guided tour by a ranger or a person certified to give the tours which would allow tourists to bring and fly their UAVs under the supervision of the guide. The NPS could designate the areas that would be included in the tour.
Just a thought.
The NPS allows guns in the park - and lots of people actually get harmed by guns everyday. There's no reason why these systems can't be flown responsibly in the park with some simple rules. Easy to say no. Real leadership looks at both sides and finds a way for a win-win. Aerial photography with the phantom allows for some amazing views simply not possible any other way. There's merit in bringing attention to the need for conservation and preservation. We all all sorts of things in the parks, this is about a broader issue of the FAA pushing policy on the park service.
And every dog lover is upset they can't take their dog hiking in NPs either.
But seriously, I think eventually as drones become more acceptable and common, we will regain the privilege of aerial photography in National Parks, with some restrictions and no fly zones. At least I'm hoping
As an aside, if anyone lost a Phantom 2 Vision in Washington State, specifically in a forest...you can retrieve it at RC Hobbies in Covington, WA. Just identify where you lost it and you can reclaim it. It was in the sun long enough that the decals have faded on the side that was up, but they said the battery still registered a charge. One motor is in bad shape too.
But seriously, I think eventually as drones become more acceptable and common, we will regain the privilege of aerial photography in National Parks, with some restrictions and no fly zones. At least I'm hoping
As an aside, if anyone lost a Phantom 2 Vision in Washington State, specifically in a forest...you can retrieve it at RC Hobbies in Covington, WA. Just identify where you lost it and you can reclaim it. It was in the sun long enough that the decals have faded on the side that was up, but they said the battery still registered a charge. One motor is in bad shape too.
I wonder what the FAA has to say about one aircraft intentionally trying to knock the other aircraft out of the sky? It is the FAA's contention that our drones are aircraft under their jurisdiction. If a helicopter intentionally attacked a Cessna there would definitely be an investigation. Does the FAA care to comment?
Similar threads
