So I got ticketed by Federal Police Officers...(video included)

[AlecW]

I think they could have done a better job with the NP rules but it would added complexity. There are obviously some vast empty spaces in some of our NPs where we would pose little risk of hurting or upsetting people but you'd also get that bozo that wanted to fly over old faithful when it goes off. They could have said something like stay away from structures and viewing areas by 300 feet or something but enforcement would be hard.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

FAA ruling is clear ... NO FLYING in National Parks and Wildlife Preserves; FLYING OK in National Forests.

 

[ifixwell]

It seems that anywhere that would be interesting to take some nice pictures of is off limits. Really kills the enjoyment of the hobby

 

[sar104]

You are misinformed. This is an FAA restricted zone. The NPS does not control airspace.

This is the current sectional for that area. As you can see, there is no restricted area around Gateway Arch, and no TFR. There is no general FAA restriction at all on flying over NPS land (except for a few TFRs in some places). The only general restriction is an NPS rule that does not allow UAS operations (takeoff or landing) on NPS land.

 

[sar104]

FAA ruling is clear ... NO FLYING in National Parks and Wildlife Preserves; FLYING OK in National Forests.

Those are not FAA rulings. One arises from an NPS rule banning UAS operations, the other simply reflects the lack of any attempt by USFS to do anything similar, provided that it is not designated wilderness, where UAS operations are also banned.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

It seems that anywhere that would be interesting to take some nice pictures of is off limits. Really kills the enjoyment of the hobby

I have gotten permission anywhere drones were restricted by just discussing the perceived risks with authorities and then getting their OK for a specific time, date, and flight objectives.

 

[sar104]

I have gotten permission anywhere drones were restricted by just discussing the perceived risks with authorities and then getting their OK for a specific time, date, and flight objectives.

If it's an NPS or State Park restriction, for example, then they are able to give you authorization. The same applies to local county or city ordinances.

 

[Travels with Yoly]

I always ask permission at all the State Parks I visit. I explain that I am a hobbiest with an FAA registration certificate. I inform them of my intent to fly one time where there are no people what so ever and not for more than 5 or 10 minutes. I've done this a dozen times and never once been given permission

 

[Jsb CA]

$50 seems fair I suppose. I get banning drones in parts of NPs where you tend to get a lot of people congregating, old faithful in Yellowstone for example and probably the Arch. I really don't know why they had to make it outright, some of the huge parks are so vast you can hike all day and not see more than 20 people.

A big concern in national parks is disturbing wildlife and birds. I'm not sure how disturbing they really are to animals, but that's one of the reasons I've heard. And the drone noise can disturb people communing with nature, or so people think.

Also, the drone rules cover both quadcopters and winged craft with gas engines under 55 lbs, so a crash with a gas engine over a forest could be a fire hazard. So could a battery fire on a crashing quadcopter.

For those who are paid to worry about such things, I suppose these things are a concern.

It is a pain for drone users though!

 

[DanMan32]

Battery powered quadcopters causing a fire only seems to be with tigers.
OK, maybe also with lions and bears, oh my.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

A big concern in national parks is disturbing wildlife and birds. I'm not sure how disturbing they really are to animals, but that's one of the reasons I've heard. And the drone noise can disturb people communing with nature, or so people think.

Also, the drone rules cover both quadcopters and winged craft with gas engines under 55 lbs, so a crash with a gas engine over a forest could be a fire hazard. So could a battery fire on a crashing quadcopter.

For those who are paid to worry about such things, I suppose these things are a concern.

It is a pain for drone users though!

For Wildlife Preserves, the concern is the disturbance of any bird or animal. For National Parks, the claim is that people go to National Parks to get to a natural setting that is free of human disturbance. But, as has been discussed, a conversation with the local authority can usually succeed in finding a time and place within the park that would be allowed.

 

[danCER]

If this place is illegal to fly than how did Ken Heron manage to get permission to fly the Arch(he mentions he did without getting ticketed

I saw Ken's video, too, and wondered how he got permission to fly there.
Having seen many of his videos, the guy is a character and very personable PLUS he might be a local celebrity in TN. I'm sure he could persuade many officers with his charm.

Not that he should fly and the original poster can't.

 

[Ken Hanks]

Unmanned Aircraft Systems - Aviation Program (U.S. National Park Service)

 

[GMack]

This is Dept. of Interior's thoughts on sUAS: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/DOI_UAS_Integration_Strategy_2015-2020.pdf
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/DOI_UAS_Integration_Strategy_2015-2020.pdf
Interesting that they have bought the drones long ago, and price over $12K is considered a "Capital Asset" which might mean harder to purchase (Colleges have the same matter with their P.O. budgeting process too.)? No wonder outfits like FreeFly and Shotover U1 aren't on the list, too expensive for the DOI and maybe more so if they are having budget issues.

 

[dwallersv]

I have gotten permission anywhere drones were restricted by just discussing the perceived risks with authorities and then getting their OK for a specific time, date, and flight objectives.

^This.

Play nice, and the vast majority of the time, you'll be allowed to play.

Be a jerk, get treated accordingly.

 

[Darkydave]

Hi, I live in Australia and so far drones are not a big issue here yet but the actions of some idiots may change that. I read a lot of the comments and I have the following observation. Is there anyone that can tell me that you have complete control over their drones at all times??Young fellow here with a new P4(Christmas present) recently found out that you don't. Took three days to find his crashed P4.

 

[Andrei V]

I don't think this should be annoying you too much. Sure it would have corrected your behavior, but it wouldn't have emphasized to everybody who hears about your experience just how important it is to research every location they want to shoot. It would also contribute to the sense that one can just go fly in restricted areas and pretend they didn't realize that what they were doing was illegal in the unlikely event that they get caught.

In Canada, you can't fly in National Parks, but you can fly in some province's (but not mine's) Provincial Parks. Like the rules in your National Parks, the rules in Canada and my province provide for the loophole that a flight could be initiated outside the park and operations conducted inside, as long as no takeoffs/landings occur inside the park. I believe your rules would preclude you from walking into the park after takeoff, while mine do not. I knew that from my initial research before I even purchased my Phantom.

Note that if you're flying under the "takeoff outside and fly in" loophole, you should be prepared to be ticketed. The officers likely won't be as nice as these ones were either, because they might see you as being difficult when you start quoting the letter of the law. I'd have a printed copy of the relevant law if I were you, and be prepared to fight your case in court if you're planning to capitalize on any such loopholes.

After reading your OP, I decided to do some additional research in case any other areas I fly or plan to fly is restricted. What I didn't know is that there's a bylaw against me flying in city parks (whether or not that flight is initiated outside). I'm glad I wasn't caught the few times I unknowingly violated this, as any sort of record of bad flight practices could possibly impact future applications of mine for a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC), which is a requirement in Canada for any commercial operations. I also found that I was mistaken on the areas I couldn't fly in my area without applying for a SFOC due to small helipads, such as those attached to hospitals.

For any other Canadians, check out:
UAV Site Selection Tool - National Research Council Canada
But note that it's incomplete since provincial and municipal rules don't appear to be taken into account.

Thanks for posting your experience, as I was just about to fly in a city park with a nice downtown view that was technically also restricted airspace due to a nearby helipad, and the fact that our city's international airport has a specially extended restriction zone.

Given the apparent anti-drone climate, I think I would look for a different hobby if I was living in North America..

 

[Eirik Solberg]

Well, it could have been worse (imo): http://nypost.com/2015/04/29/park-ranger-tases-man-flying-drone-over-lava-lake/
I guess some rangers take it much more seriously than others.

 

[SteveMann]

It doesn't say that.

Quote:
"Closure Language:
Launching, landing, or operating an unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service within the boundaries of [insert name of park] is prohibited except as approved in writing by the superintendent."

Contained in the quote is language that states "launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft within the boundaries of [name of park] is prohibited..."

"within the boundaries" is self-explanatory. It means anywhere inside the park - doesn't matter whether it got inside from some point outside or not, it's just not supposed to in there at all - from anywhere. It's that simple.

The language is intended to be deceptive. The NPS knows that the FAA has exclusive jurisdiction over flight, so the NPS used easily confused terminology. According to the FAA, an aircraft "operation" is a take-off or landing. "Launching, landing or operating" all refer to take-off and landing.

Good luck getting a park ranger to appreciate the obfuscation.

 

[SteveMann]

The FAA stepped in fast and closed the airspace, yanked pilot licenses, and locked up the pilots, confiscated the planes."

Never happened. Show me the documentation.
Anyone flying a manned aircraft under the arch, or under most tall bridges, would be in violation of §91.119 - Minimum Safe Altitudes, and likely §91.13 Careless or reckless operation. No new rules required. Also, the FAA does not "lock up the pilots" as their authority is limited to certificate action and civil fines. The FAA does not have forfeiture (confiscation) authority. If anyone can provide a citation otherwise, I would like to see it. Local authorities may have jurisdiction via reckless endangerment laws already on the books, and those laws vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.