No Drones in state Park?
- Thread starter Gadgetking
- Start date
US Code 40103 a 1
Why is it poor and costly advice? Even National Parks know it's correct. This is why their rule is worded the way it is. Not because of a mistake. They know the actual laws and their jurisdiction.
The Code you refer to provides for navigable airspace at an elevation of greater than 500 ft.
It has nothing to do with flying RC craft in National or State Parks.
Talk to a ranger at Bryce, Zion, or Arches and ask him what I have asked them. See my post above for their response.
They feel you are a danger in the park, it doesn't matter where you launched from or where you land.
Again, if you want to risk having your drone confiscated until after a court date, and can spend the money to defend yourself, you may get off with a slap on the wrist and get your drone back. Was the 5 minutes of video you captured worth it? You choose.
But when you play armchair attorney and hand out advice that is based on personal assumptions coupled with what some guy posted on a drone forum, then indeed that can be bad advice.
State parks have their own rules which vary from park to park and state to state.
Do your own research, ask the rangers and make up your own mind. If you listen to advice on a forum from a stranger and take it as law without doing further research, then be prepared for the consequences, which could be costly.
One thing about the US I like. One size doesn't always fit all. What you say in Washington may not apply to me in Ohio and Vice versa.
What changes that are made in some future date ill apply then, not now so grey in your mind or not it truly is not TODAY!
The rules you fly under at your club are not applicable to all.
Those rules and sanctions are a result of a contract of some type, lease , rent ,etc that the park and club agreed to.
Thus the power to sanction !
"One thing about the US I like. One size doesn't always fit all. What you say in Washington may not apply to me in Ohio and Vice versa."
Yes, I made that clear in my second post regarding State parks. National Parks laws and ordinances do not vary from state to state.
"What changes that are made in some future date ill apply then, not now so grey in your mind or not it truly is not TODAY!"
I've no idea what you are saying here.
"The rules you fly under at your club are not applicable to all.
Those rules and sanctions are a result of a contract of some type, lease , rent ,etc that the park and club agreed to.
Thus the power to sanction !"
Yes, our club has a lease and an agreement with the state park service which defines what we can fly (class, weight, gas vs electric, etc.), where we can fly, and at what times we can fly.
Whether I am a member of the flying club or not, I cannot fly where ever I want to inside the park. If I fly outside of the RC club bounds (whether I am a member or not), I will have my RC aircraft confiscated and I will be fined. If I am a member of the club, my behavior could also effect the club's standing in the park. If I go to another State Park in Washington and fly my drone or my fixed wing aircraft, I risk having them confiscated and risk receiving a fine.
The State Park law has nothing to do with our club's lease agreement.
Yes, I made that clear in my second post regarding State parks. National Parks laws and ordinances do not vary from state to state.
"What changes that are made in some future date ill apply then, not now so grey in your mind or not it truly is not TODAY!"
I've no idea what you are saying here.
"The rules you fly under at your club are not applicable to all.
Those rules and sanctions are a result of a contract of some type, lease , rent ,etc that the park and club agreed to.
Thus the power to sanction !"
Yes, our club has a lease and an agreement with the state park service which defines what we can fly (class, weight, gas vs electric, etc.), where we can fly, and at what times we can fly.
Whether I am a member of the flying club or not, I cannot fly where ever I want to inside the park. If I fly outside of the RC club bounds (whether I am a member or not), I will have my RC aircraft confiscated and I will be fined. If I am a member of the club, my behavior could also effect the club's standing in the park. If I go to another State Park in Washington and fly my drone or my fixed wing aircraft, I risk having them confiscated and risk receiving a fine.
The State Park law has nothing to do with our club's lease agreement.
LOL, just thought this post was funny.
The Park in Question is The Valley of Fire, which is not a National Park, and in a part of Nevada not shown on this map.
What you show is Yosemite National Park (which is fully contained in the state of California), but I guess I have no business flying a drone, because on that map, I can't see where Yosemite starts or ends. Yosemite is surrounded by Stanislaus National Forest and Sierra National Forest (both are legal to fly in), but where does the park end and the NFs start? I guess it takes a more detailed map than Google Maps to answer that?
Please point out where it's limited to 500 feet. If you go looking, you will be wasting your time. The 500 foot mark brings in establish regulations from the FAA, the does no mean they don't have sole jurisdiction over all airspace. Who is charged with coming up with regulations for drones? The FAA. What to know why? Who charged Pikner in his flight in VA when he was under 500 feet? The FAA. Want to know why?
National Park Rangers are seldom aviation attorneys. If they tell to that they can regulate airspace, they are incorrect. Again, this is why Nation Park rules on drones only control where you take off, land and stand when flying a drone. The people who made that rule understood the US Code. Unlike many lawmakers who understand but choose to ignore US law.
Feel free to read some drone law websites published by attorneys. It's faster to get at the whole truth. But US law backs up what I'm saying.
Are you an Attorney?
Pirker wasn't flying in a National Park. Are you aware Pirker was fined $400 and had his memory card conviscated for flying over the Grand Canyon long before the case you refer to happened?
Are you an attorney?
Andreas Meissner was sentenced to a one-year ban from the park, a year of unsupervised probation, and more than $1,600 in fines for flying his drone in Yellowstone park. Was it the FAA who charged him?
What about the tourist who is facing charges also at Yellowstone for crashing his drone into Grand Prismatic Spring? FAA?
Is it the FAA who is confiscating drones and fining pilots at Yosemite?
Are you an attorney?
Was it the FAA who tazed the drone operator at Volcano National Park?
What about the drone pilots who are facing fines at Zions? Was it the FAA who fined them?
What about the pilot at Mount Rushmore who was fined and had his drone confiscated?
You are certainly free to follow your own advice and your own theories.
Others may want to think twice about flying where they clearly are not welcome.
Are you an attorney?
In all of those cases the person launch and controlled the drone from within the park. I've stated all along that they have control over people standing on their property. I have been clear that they don't have control over airspace. There is a huge difference.
I don't need to be an attorney to read US law and statements from attorneys on this subject. You asked for the code and I posted it for you to review if you'd like. I also pointed out that you can read statements from many attorneys on this same subject.
You appear to be basing your opinion on what a park ranger said. I'd think US Code, specific examples directly on point and attorneys versed of the subject might hold a little more weight. All of this has been discussed in these forms many times (supports on the subject).
Do I condone flying over a National Park? No. I also don't totally disagree with the ban. I'd like to see it less restrictive but I don't know if that would be practical. People, including myself, don't want drones buzzing around them while they are trying to enjoy nature. I would like to see rangers being able to be more open to granting permission to people to fly when asked. This is just not going to happen right now. I also think it's important for people to know and understand their rights. Once we allow someone to violate those rights, we start to give them up.
Wouldn't it be a good idea for the parks to arrange 'drone days' where enthusiasts would be given licence to fly in a specific area and under sensible flight restrictions? They could even set a reasonable fee for the privilege, much like some buildings do for regular photography.
It might... and perhaps that is a good idea. However, given the light of things today I don't see that happening any time soon. The head person of National Parks sent out a memo to all park ranger stating that they would be enforcing the rules. So I doubt any certain ranger would want to put their neck in a noose right now.
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea where I'm coming from... I'm just putting out the facts. I don't condone flying over a National Park and I don't think it's at all practical.
I've already posted the US Code citing this. Do you now what the code T appoints the FAA as the regulating agency for the National government? Personally I think enough information has been posted on this already. I've also mentioned that you only need to search a few sites where attorneys have already broken or all down and explained that this information I correct. So it should only take you 10 minutes tops to confirm all of those. You'd also than gave the information from an attorney as you indicate you'd need.
Following your advice is it legal to fly over stadiums?
Over military installations?
Over a cliff face full of Bighorn Sheep in Glacier National Park (as long as I launched from Wyoming of course!)?
Following your advice, DJI's no fly zones are actually illegal censorship of our right to fly anywhere?
I'm not going to continue to argue with you.
People can research and make up their own minds on where they wish to fly safely and legally. And if they want to challenge the Feds and fly over and through National Parks across the nation, and end up being prosecuted for endangering visitors or wildlife, I hope they have deep pockets.
What did it cost Pirker to prove he was right?
Here's what one California county has put into its ordinances for its recreation areas, such as beach and lake parks:
Sec. 26-22.1. - Model aircraft.
No person shall land, launch or operate any model aircraft, whether gas-powered or electric or other propulsion, within any county recreation area except in posted designated areas or with prior written permission of the county director of community services or deputy director.
(Ord. No. 4781, § 1, 3-12-2011; Ord. No. 4833, § 1, 4-10-2012)
Sec. 26-22.1. - Model aircraft.
No person shall land, launch or operate any model aircraft, whether gas-powered or electric or other propulsion, within any county recreation area except in posted designated areas or with prior written permission of the county director of community services or deputy director.
(Ord. No. 4781, § 1, 3-12-2011; Ord. No. 4833, § 1, 4-10-2012)
You are now mentioning unrelated things to support your point of view.
If you now want to talk about restricted and prohibited airspace, we can do that. However it's obvious that you don't care to see the facts given to you are even look at the answers you have asked for. But I'll leave a link to the things you mentioned in your prior post to show how they are completly different, still regulated by the FAA and how the information I'm posting is correct.
Though I'm not sure you are paying attention to what I'm saying as you seem to think I will fly in National Parks and suggesting that others do. Twice now I've stated the opposite.
Prohibited airspace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What did it cost Pirker to prove he was right?
I'm not sure you are paying attention to what I'm saying.
It was never proven he was right or wrong. He entered into a settlement. He admitted no guilt and the possible about of the fine was reduced. Buy again, different then what the are talked information about. That goes more to my point as the - FAA- pursued him. They had every legal right (after drones were ruled an aircraft) to pursue him.
