...to fly or not to fly...

[zander lane]

...so; I was poking around on google earth for dream places to fly and saw that the western border of grand teton national park is defined by a very high, very sharp ridgeline running north/south that overlooks a glorious canyon heading east past regal mountains to a gorgeous lake - now, TECHNICALLY, if one were to launch from this ridgeline, OUTSIDE the national park, could one LEGALLY, in the eyes of the FAA, overfly the park down that canyon and then fly back out and land outside the park boundaries? - I don't want to break the law, but look at that view AND the perfect place to transmit from - what does everyone think?!?

 

[CCrew]

Technically? It's legal. There's obviously a fine line between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

 

[Richard R]

There have been numerous posts on this and even some inputs from NP personnel. The consensus is (and imho the correct conclusion) that taking off and landing inside the park is a no-no, but overflying is not unless there is some specific nfz or tfr associate with the park. Of, course if there is any problem (e.g. Flyaway or emergency landing) that brings the bird down inside the park, you are in violation!

 

[C0ps]

If you stay it could be trouble, and if you go it could be double!

 

[Sagebrush]

That may be (legal) wilderness managed by the USFS and thus illegal to launch from. Something else you'd need to check on.

SB

 

[WetDog]

Part of this is the aesthetics. The reason that NPS doesn't want you buzzing around is because it is, wait for it, a park. Quiet, natural and all that. Of course, NPS is sometimes it's own worst enemy and doesn't always do things that even remotely make sense, but that's the general idea.

If I were hiking out there I might be a bit annoyed to have Bees From Hell appear and make me wonder if I out to get the Epi-Pen out. But that's probably a few minutes after I've griped about the sightseeing helicopter getting a bit too friendly or the moron with the portable boom box.

TL;DR - I'd have not problem doing it as long as I was pretty certain I wouldn't annoy somebody. Do unto others....

Sagebrush is also correct about Wilderness Areas but they don't usually border parks (I'm sure some of them do).

Also, there are plenty of pretty places in the West that are neither Wilderness areas or parks. There are too many pics of the Tetons anyway.

 

[zander lane]

...hmmm, I checked with all the "drone flight zone checking" apps (b4ufly, hover, etc.) and they say a-ok for the region next to the national park - shouldn't these apps tell you if a national forest/wilderness area/whatever has flight restrictions? - on that note; does anyone have a preference for which "flight zone checking" app is most reliably correct? - thanks!

 

[GMack]

Sagebrush makes an interesting point about the USFS areas that might surround some National Parks.

I see Yosemite NP is surrounded with four forests: Stanislaus, Humbolt-Toyabe, Inyo, and Sierra.

Sequoia & Kings Canyon NP to the south is also surrounded by Inyo and Sierra NF.

However, if you read paragraph four here: Unmanned Aircraft Systems FAQs | US Forest Service it appears the USFS has not yet implemented anything with hobbyists drones including taking off and landing on their land....yet. If a TSR is in place, you are toast to even fly there (e.g. Forest fire areas that have about a three month lock-out.).

I'm sort of surprised about this as I applied for a still photo permit this year on USFS land and gave up after it exceeded $2,000 and part of that was some idiotic $1,600 Parking Encroachment Permit from the local county whose roads dept. maintains the forest service roads where you can normally park for $5 per day. Some symbiotic relationship going on between the city, county, and the feds. There was some additional fee for aerial which also included a high liability of about $5 million too. Why the drone isn't in the above link with their a-la-cart fees I don't know, but in their permit process it sure is.

Entire law thing is a very gray area. Some say you can. Some say you can't. Some say you can if you pay us then you're okay. Depends on the po-po of the day you talk too I guess, and what side of the bed they got out of. Some seem to need "Public contact hours" so kicking you out of anything justifies their job if they cannot extort cash from your wallet.

Mack

 

[WetDog]

I'm sort of surprised about this as I applied for a still photo permit this year on USFS land and gave up after it exceeded $2,000 and part of that was some idiotic $1,600 Parking Encroachment Permit from the local county whose roads dept. maintains the forest service roads where you can normally park for $5 per day. Some symbiotic relationship going on between the city, county, and the feds. There was some additional fee for aerial which also included a high liability of about $5 million too. Why the drone isn't in the above link with their a-la-cart fees I don't know, but in their permit process it sure is.

That is interesting (and rather depressing). Never heard of the Forest Service asking for a still photo permit. Is this just particular to a special place or is this some new bizarre regulation?

 

[scootrkitz]

I would've done it. You don't pass up beautiful opportunities like that. State parks should allow drones. It gives us an advantage over peoole who don't have drones to get great pictures.