San Fransisco Area Drone Bans and Regulations

[bhartwell]

Hi all,

I live in the Bay Area and am really surprised and disappointed by all the bans on drone use in the area. All of the East Bay Parks district, open spaces and preserves have banned drones. Along with most state parks (I.e. Mount Diablo), all national parks and various municipalities in the area. It's close to impossible to use a drone in any of the scenic areas in this region.

The reasons given include everything from supposed danger to aircraft to disturbing local wildlife. I wonder if there is an advocacy group I can work with to try to reverse this trend. It's just foolishness and lack of knowledge that leads a local park board or commission to ban drones, due to some supposed, yet completely unproven or supported, fear that drone pose some kind of danger. Most of these boards take the "we don't ever want to be blamed for anything, so let's just ban it", mentality. There has to be a voice on the other side of this argument. Does anyone know of a group or groups I could work with. I would hate to see this continue to the point in which general regional bans get imposed, which is the direction things are heading.

Thanks


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[GMack]

I've wondered if all the bans also help to prop up the need for more law enforcement being hired, i.e. grow the size of government with the claim: "The drones are out of control and we need more help!"

We are becoming a policing for profit nation with a strong push for asset forfeiture laws which go way above the reasonable fines set by the Constitution with a lot of departments in for the payoff. We used to have only park rangers, but now they added law enforcement to their park employees and added their marked vehicles too. Same for railway police. Drone police could be next with special vehicles to search and find errant fliers who oppose the rules with hefty fines to match.

May come to no drones in any city via a geo-fenced NFZ unless you pay for the permit at some point, along with a monitor assigned to you in the cost of the permit to make sure you do not do some flight violation that would be against the permit. Think Hollywood film permits that run from $660 to $2,500 per day.
.

 

[Scubamaniac]

I flew in one of the East Bay parks and didn't realize there was a ban. 7am, sunrise, not a soul around and all the cops are either on shift change or getting donuts.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[danno02]

Check this out: CA - CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM CONFIRMS: DRONE USE IS ALLOWED - NASPD


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[danno02]

Ahhh and here's the stuff on our East Bay Parks: Enjoy Your New Drones, Just Not in the Parks


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[MichaelS]

These "rules" amaze me since parks are probably the safest place to fly a drone. Common sense is not so common anymore.

 

[DanMan32]

The CA article was written August 2016, the East Bay article written December 2015. The EB may have changed.

Sent from my HTC 10 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[kennedye]

The AMA has been remarkably silent on this issue, which is kind of annoying as they're our biggest "voice" in helping to come up with sensible regulation.

 

[Richard R]

The AMA has been remarkably silent on this issue, which is kind of annoying as they're our biggest "voice" in helping to come up with sensible regulation.

Want to get the AMA on board with fighting these, go to those organizations and suggest that the FAA considers all all unmanned small aircraft to be the same (sUAS) and that even if their bans are legal, they might be discriminatory if they try to eliminate just quad copter type aircraft. Once it threatens their bread-and-butter membership, they'll start howling. That's why they were so involved with the FAA earlier! And BTW, I am an AMA member.

 

[jellofan]

As a newbie I've been looking at the regulations for the largest areas of public open space near me.

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is pretty clear:
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/District_Regulations.pdf
409.4 Model Craft. No person shall operate any self-propelled or remote controlled drones, model airplanes, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description on, over, or into any portion of District Lands or Water Areas of the District, except in Designated Areas, or by written permit. When allowed, model craft shall be operated in compliance with posted or adopted rules and regulations

The only designated area I'm aware of is at Rancho San Antonio which permits Model Aircraft but explicitly prohibits drones & helicopters:
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Model_Aircraft_Rules.pdf

• Remote control helicopters are prohibited.
• Drones are prohibited.

CIty of Cupertino is a little less clear:
Cupertino : Park Rules and Regulations

13.04.130 Behavior of Persons in Parks
No person in a park shall do any of the following:
...
L. Use or allow the use of powered model airplanes except in areas so designated by the department of parks and recreation;

Since MROSD classifies drones as something other than a model airplane, does the same hold true in Cupertino city parks? Are there any known "areas so designated by the department of parks and recreation"?

 

[bhartwell]

I didn't know that CA state parks allow drone use. I thought Mt. Diablo was a state park, but I could be wrong.

Does the AMA take up issues such as this? They might be able to help. Most local boards pass these rules without public comment, and mostly based on someone watching to much CNN or one "concerned" citizen. Getting with a group that advocates some common sense does usually work. It's just when no one says anything and there are no opposing views, that these rules get passed.

I was flying this last weekend in a Pleasanton park in the hills. No posted signs an no internet notice. After an hour or so, started heading back to the parking area and noticed a police helicopter circle over. Didn't think anything of it, except that he kept circling back and around. After about the 5th iteration I thought maybe someone had been hurt or there was a problem of some kind. Anyway, made it back to the parking area and noticed a cruiser parked at the base of the trail. The officer asked if I had seen anyone flying a drone that morning. I said, nope, put the backpack that I had my phantom in into the back of my car and went home. Apparently flying a drone in a scenic park, early in the morning is a high risk activity.




Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[danno02]

Diablo is a state park.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Scubamaniac]

Just like Prohibition with alcohol, the ban generated more drinkers and speakeasy places than anyone imagined. Make it illegal for everyone to do it and more will do it and more often not to mention at night. I see a lot of folks doing the Golden Gate at night and I am sure that's not allowed in a regulation. #unfair! LOL


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[GMack]

Seems the only way to fly without getting the po-po involved is to drone guerrilla style. Might involve droning when the po-po are busy with car accidents at rush hour or shift changes. That or pay for some film permit which could cost thousands and the time involved, as well as dealing with "Their rules" to do so.

A lot of these ordinances come about from some "City Managers" magazine where they all read about other cities laws and decide to operate on them too. Public has no input so they enact based on what they read and less on what we think or say.

I was reading another post about the drone ordinances in West Hollywood, CA where they mention something about drones in the airspace over private property as trespassing and some privacy expectations from landowners being part of it. "FAA rules be damned, 'cause we got laws and ordinances on the books."

Fly 'em while you still got 'em.

 

[Scubamaniac]

You'll always be able to fly. Just do it safely and stay high, not hovering over people's yards. Keep it movin and groovin. You can't even see a drone at 150 feet let alone 400ft (limit you should fly).


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[snowghost]

Seems the only way to fly without getting the po-po involved is to drone guerrilla style. Might involve droning when the po-po are busy with car accidents at rush hour or shift changes. That or pay for some film permit which could cost thousands and the time involved, as well as dealing with "Their rules" to do so.

A lot of these ordinances come about from some "City Managers" magazine where they all read about other cities laws and decide to operate on them too. Public has no input so they enact based on what they read and less on what we think or say.

I was reading another post about the drone ordinances in West Hollywood, CA where they mention something about drones in the airspace over private property as trespassing and some privacy expectations from landowners being part of it. "FAA rules be damned, 'cause we got laws and ordinances on the books."

Fly 'em while you still got 'em.

My office used to be in West Hollywood and coincidentally brought my Phantom to work on the very day the ordinance went into effect. A coworker warned me as she has a good friend at the FAA.

I would have challenged it, but that would entail an arrest and possible jail time, even if I were acquitted. The Feds need to weigh in on this as the FAA should be the sole determiner of air regulation. A guy in LA successfully challenged the LA ordinance in court after getting arrested, but not sure if the police are still trying to enforce it.