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

[Rosey]

I saw nothing in the quoted post that was directed at you. There are plenty of other posts in this discussion and elsewhere by anti-authority types who refuse to accept that there are, and always will be, limitations on things they think they have a right to do. These are people who go through life thumbing their noses at laws, regulations, and societal customs the rest of us accept and comply with.

THAT'S what the post was about. I totally agree with it.

I misinterpreted the original post in discussion here. Me and...(now I can't think of his name) have had multiple posts since and I think it is all cleared up. Like I said, I misinterpreted the original content and didn't respond in the most appropriate manner. It is all good now.

 

[Rosey]

I tried flying there about a year ago with my P4 and the app stated it was in a no fly zone. P4 would not start-wonder how you got yours to start?

Someone else said this as well...I have no idea! I was in GPS mode the whole time. My P3 turned on and locked many satellites pretty quick...So I have no idea why it did not warn me and just took right off.

With that said however, knowing what I know now...I should have still double checked that I was able to fly there. I am still kicking myself for this whole incident.

 

[Rosey]

It is very unfortunate that you got ticketed, and how often can we get to see park rangers? I got a feeling that quite a few drones has flew through the Arch.

I have two law degrees, and have been keeping up with a lot of emerging drone regulations. To put a conclusion to your experience, FAA is only one of the authorities that pilots can in trouble with. As far as legal complaints goes, pilots can be in trouble through other legalities such as trespass (reasonable distance from ground up), nuisance (noise complaints etc.) which local police has the authority enforce. So we might need to watch out for more than just the FAA.

It is a good policy to have no drone flying in national park because there are many people visiting a park at any given time, and that a drone accident and damages it can cause can easily be foreseeable. That's why a lot of good pilots often suggest flying over water/lakes for sake of safety as well as avoidance of signal interference. Hope this helps.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Rosey]

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.

Good to know, thanks for the input. Maybe next time instead of just avoiding an area "off limits" all together (like I have been since this event) I will try and contact the authorities for permission.

 

[Rosey]

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

wow, that's really unfortunate.

 

[Rosey]

More specifically, the rules and guidelines are about flying over traffic and people, not about flying anywhere where a flyaway could potentially take the UAV over traffic or people. If that were the case then there would be virtually nowhere regarded as safe.

That would not fit the scenario either then, as I never flew over people or traffic...or even close to either one for that matter.

 

[Rosey]

I appreciate all the feedback and input everyone has had on this thread. I was hoping to gain some clarity as well as educate others that were not aware of this law as well as to help them learn how to take extra steps to make sure everything is on the up and up. I wish I would have realized all this before, and it has definitely been an education experience for me...even though I still really wish it would have never happened!

Personally, I want to be a positive Drone pilot for the community and help us work towards less laws..not more ridiculous laws. So while I understand some trying to "find the loopholes" in the system and why they are mad, I can't say I would ever do this (ie take off somewhere else and fly over). I would rather work towards the community giving off a responsible vibe and work towards less government oversight that works well for everyone.

Thanks again for all the input everyone has provided to this thread.

 

[sar104]

I don't see where NPS has any authority over drone operations outside their boundaries. They DO, however, have control over what goes on inside those boundaries. And I think it's silly to posit that if it's on the ground, NPS can regulate it, but if it's 6' off the ground, they have no say. Silly.

If someone wants to make the argument that it's FAA that controls airspace, fine, but I don't think it would be unreasonable for NPS to ask FAA to intervene if drone incursions were to become an issue. We already have FAA regulating drones; do people want to precipitate FAA's involvement in this?

Memo to the uninitiated: As a former aircraft owner and licensed pilot, I'm acutely aware that FAA has the capability to implement rules which, if I choose not to comply with them, can make it illegal to even operate my airplane. Is that how you want this drone drama to end? Keep it up with the challenging federal rules crap. Keep trying to find what you think are "loopholes" in the regs, and it won't end well.

The point is, they've made THEIR position clear, and even if it's not realistic to expect NPS to interdict a drone flyover, their intent is unmistakable.

It would be a demonstration of malicious intent for a drone owner to intentionally ignore their "no operation inside park boundaries" policy. Who thinks it's a good idea to challenge it? What kind of people want to do that? And which of all the other NPS regs does this segment of society want to challenge? Is this full-on anarchy, or does it end somewhere?

Maybe my post was not clear, or maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. I agree - NPS has no jurisdiction over operations outside their boundaries - I was simply commenting on the practicality of them trying to exercise jurisdiction even if they thought they had it, in response to your comment about "launching outside the park and flying in not ending well".

I'm also a bit confused by your argument regarding on the ground vs. 6 inches off it. This is essentially the same issue as how low can one fly an aircraft or UAV over any property before it becomes in breach of nuisance or other safety laws. Presumably, by overflight, we are not referring to 6 inches AGL. NPS is claiming jurisdiction over aircraft operations (takeoff and landing). I cannot see how that is ambiguous either in meaning or in how that manifests in actual operations. You cannot launch (and/or land) your UAV from within NPS boundaries. That much is simple. It's the question of overflights that is less clear or simple.

NPS does ask the FAA to implement flight restrictions, in the form of TFRs, for certain events and locations, but I can't think of a good mechanism for the FAA to put in place a non-temporary ban on UAVs overflying parks. Controlled airspace would not be appropriate (that's for aviation safety), and nor would restricted airspace (hazards to aviation). Prohibited Areas are really only for national security or similar concerns.

But back to the original point - if someone launches from outside a park an overflies some of it, how is NPS going to try to enforce their "intent", as you put it, independent of whether or not it would survive a legal challenge?

 

[sar104]

That would not fit the scenario either then, as I never flew over people or traffic...or even close to either one for that matter.

That was my point.

 

[sar104]

True, but I suspect if enough people irritate the public this way the rules will simply change to give NPS that jurisdiction.

All it takes is legislation, and maybe not even that (i.e. regulatory change).

Well yes - but surely that would be a substantial legislative change for the FAA to cede airspace authority in certain areas to other agencies. Right now, aviation flight planning is simple, because the FAA controls it all. Changing that would potentially complicate things considerably. I think that instead, the FAA would look for ways to further control sUAS operations - something that they probably would have done already had they not been somewhat stymied by Section 336.

 

[dwallersv]

Well yes - but surely that would be a substantial legislative change for the FAA to cede airspace authority in certain areas to other agencies. Right now, aviation flight planning is simple, because the FAA controls it all. Changing that would potentially complicate things considerably. I think that instead, the FAA would look for ways to further control sUAS operations - something that they probably would have done already had they not been somewhat stymied by Section 336.

Agreed.

The point is not so much the details of how further control will be implemented, but rather that it will, if pilots ignore the will of the community.

 

[drone636]

We fly at the arch all the time you take off outside arch grounds even just the sidewalk which is public property of the city and state fly in your fine just don't do stupid stuff while there.

 

[GMack]

..if someone launches from outside a park an overflies some of it, how is NPS going to try to enforce their "intent", as you put it, independent of whether or not it would survive a legal challenge?

Easy pickings if you flew it into the Park and "Beyond visible line of sight with the unaided eye" FAA rule from your take-off point outside the park.

How far that is is gray, but if the ranger can't see it from 1/2 mile away then you might have a costly legal issue in some federal courthouse to argue your way out of.

 

[drone636]

Easy pickings if you flew it into the Park and "Beyond visible line of sight with the unaided eye" FAA rule from your take-off point outside the park.

How far that is is gray, but if the ranger can't see it from 1/2 mile away then you might have a costly legal issue in some federal courthouse to argue your way out of.

Park police can't enforce FAS laws the FAA compliance officer would have to observe this and it's not a criminal matter but a fined infraction

 

[sar104]

Easy pickings if you flew it into the Park and "Beyond visible line of sight with the unaided eye" FAA rule from your take-off point outside the park.

How far that is is gray, but if the ranger can't see it from 1/2 mile away then you might have a costly legal issue in some federal courthouse to argue your way out of.

You're really on a roll today about regulation. Obviously, as you pointed out in the other thread, an unholy conspiracy between Samsung, Google and DJI will lead the FAA to your door. Anyway, post #154 answered your question.

 

[GMack]

Park police can't enforce FAS laws the FAA compliance officer would have to observe this and it's not a criminal matter but a fined infraction

But they (Park rangers as well as some city police.) have confiscated drones for evidence of infractions. At that point they could forward it to the FAA if you read some of the FAA info on the police interactions here: https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/law_enforcement/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf

Fwiw, there is a good article by a lawyer who specializes in drone law in the March/April 'Rotor Drone' magazine (Page 86) about the upcoming Sept. 2017 Reauthorization Act. He's pushing for an (quoting) "Express federal preemption in the new ruling so that when a legal challenge is filed against a state or local drone law, there is little to no discretion by the judge hearing the case." "So far, Congress has not given the FAA express preemption in the field of aviation as it relates to drones/UAS." "Otherwise, we will have a patchwork of inconsistent state and local drone laws across the country that are not easily defeated." Amen to that.

 

[qtonic]

Quite right.

Unfortunately, mostly owing to parenting which fails to teach some children at a young age the difference between right from wrong and proper respect for authority, there is a growing segment of society that believes they have a right to challenge everything that stands between them and self-gratification. They refuse to accept the reality that there are restraints on their behavior, from whatever the source - standards of decency, governmental regulations, laws, etc. Their anti-social tendencies spoil it for the rest of us.

Curious if you (or anyone else) feels that municipalities should have the authority to restrict operation, meaning take off and landing, within their boundaries?

What about 'violating the spirit of their law' by flying into the airspace above the municipality?

If so, couldn't such a law itself be considered something of an end-run around the spirit of a different law or regulation, that being the FAA controlling airspace with their own restrictions?

 

[sar104]

Curious if you (or anyone else) feels that municipalities should have the authority to restrict operation, meaning take off and landing, within their boundaries?

What about 'violating the spirit of their law' by flying into the airspace above the municipality?

If so, couldn't such a law itself be considered something of an end-run around the spirit of a different law or regulation, that being the FAA controlling airspace with their own restrictions?

Are you not over-complicating this? Local authorities can certainly control what happens on the ground in their jurisdiction. UAV operations (takeoff and landing) are ground operation. Flying in the airspace above is not a ground operation and so, primarily, is under FAA jurisdiction, although it could violate noise or other local ordinances.

Violating the "spirit of the law" is not a meaningful term if it refers to a law that the "spirit" of which is attempting to regulate something beyond the authority of the lawmaker.

 

[Mike2A]

Last summer I wanted to film a short segment for a client over Fort McHenry. Being a national park, I approached the park service for the site and outlined my desire, provided them all the detail they asked and was granted a waiver and scheduled a specific time to perform the flight (outside normal park hours in my case). They seemed to be very understanding and willing to work with me due to the way I approached them. So if you are a licensed UAV pilot and approach the folks running a National Park, you may get clearance for a flight and sidestep any potential drama.

 

[macoman]

Last summer I wanted to film a short segment for a client over Fort McHenry. Being a national park, I approached the park service for the site and outlined my desire, provided them all the detail they asked and was granted a waiver and scheduled a specific time to perform the flight (outside normal park hours in my case). They seemed to be very understanding and willing to work with me due to the way I approached them. So if you are a licensed UAV pilot and approach the folks running a National Park, you may get clearance for a flight and sidestep any potential drama.

Do you possess a 107 license?