UAV Flying in National Parkss

[D Greg]

I have a question, and maybe the FAA can address this. Maybe I missed something and this might be stretching it. The FAA says UAV Flying in National Parks is prohibited.
I was in a NP and saw a huge box kite flying at around 100 feet over a group of people walking along the beach. My question is this. If a kite, which is not near as controlable as a "drone", can fly in a NP, why can't we fly our UAV drones in NP's?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have a question, and maybe the FAA can address this. Maybe I missed something and this might be stretching it. The FAA says UAV Flying in National Parks is prohibited.
I was in a NP and saw a huge box kite flying at around 100 feet over a group of people walking along the beach. My question is this. If a kite, which is not near as controlable as a "drone", can fly in a NP, why can't we fly our UAV drones in NP's?

That restriction is not coming from the FAA

NPs prohibit drone ops, it's in their rules and regulations. They allow kites. Probably because a few knuckleheads did some dumb things at NPs, like flying a drone into Old Faithful.

Drone crashes into famed hot spring at Yellowstone

 

[N017RW]

A kite tethered to a string is less controllable than a wireless-ly controlled Chinese toy with no safety redundancy?

 

[BigAl07]

The Kite offers a little bit less danger and a lot less "John Q. Public" criticism.

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

I have a question, and maybe the FAA can address this. Maybe I missed something and this might be stretching it. The FAA says UAV Flying in National Parks is prohibited.
I was in a NP and saw a huge box kite flying at around 100 feet over a group of people walking along the beach. My question is this. If a kite, which is not near as controlable as a "drone", can fly in a NP, why can't we fly our UAV drones in NP's?

You can read the National Park System policy memo about prohibiting drones here. As others have noted, it's not an FAA ban. NPS Policy Memo

 

[Yenrab]

For me, the most obvious reason is, a kite falling from the sky is going to be a lot less dangerous than a 1/2 or more pound drone. Also a kite is a bit less noisey. You have given me an idea though. Years ago I did attach my slr to a large balloon. Maybe I'll revisit that idea. With the wireless features now in dslr cameras and the lighter wieght???

 

[Nightwolf]

You can read the National Park System policy memo about prohibiting drones here. As others have noted, it's not an FAA ban. NPS Policy Memo

Thanks for posting that. I guess the superintendents have the authority to allow drone access. Has anyone propositioned a superintendent for permission?

 

[Yenrab]

Thanks for posting that. I guess the superintendents have the authority to allow drone access. Has anyone propositioned a superintendent for permission?

I did call/request permission to fly at Point Reyes in Marin County, CA, I did receive a really nice call from the superintendent there. He explain their policy and why. I have also requested locally in Maricopa County, AZ to fly in country parks which are pretty large and unacupied. He just said no and hung up. I think in some cases there is no good reason it is just easier to say no.

 

[BigAl07]

Thanks for posting that. I guess the superintendents have the authority to allow drone access. Has anyone propositioned a superintendent for permission?

We have gotten approval to fly in the NPS under Emergency Situations. In those times we had to provide our Commercial Credentials as well as proof of insurance. It's a case by case issue or it has been for us.

 

[D Greg]

For me, the most obvious reason is, a kite falling from the sky is going to be a lot less dangerous than a 1/2 or more pound drone. Also a kite is a bit less noisey. You have given me an idea though. Years ago I did attach my slr to a large balloon. Maybe I'll revisit that idea. With the wireless features now in dslr cameras and the lighter wieght???

For me, the most obvious reason is, a kite falling from the sky is going to be a lot less dangerous than a 1/2 or more pound drone. Also a kite is a bit less noisey. You have given me an idea though. Years ago I did attach my slr to a large balloon. Maybe I'll revisit that idea. With the wireless features now in dslr cameras and the lighter wieght???

The box kite I saw flying was very large being held my two guys and also pretty noisy. If it fell on anyone, it wouldn't be as severe as a Phantom 4, but I certainly wouldn't want it hitting on me!

 

[AndrewCCM]

Question.. So if it’s a NPS rule, they don’t own airspace. So technically if you take off and land outside of NP, you wouldn’t be violating their rules correct? Just curious about the gray area here since they technically can’t write law for airspace correct?

 

[BigAl07]

Question.. So if it’s a NPS rule, they don’t own airspace. So technically if you take off and land outside of NP, you wouldn’t be violating their rules correct? Just curious about the gray area here since they technically can’t write law for airspace correct?

That's correct but you could face other issues (unsafe flight, nuisance etc) and if the aircraft were to land on NPS land you'd likely be cited for trespassing and anything else they could find to throw at you.

 

[AndrewCCM]

Which i guess leads to another subjective rule/law (unsafe flight). What exactly defines this legally? Kinda like the argument I made with my homeowners association about keeping trees pruned to be “esthetically pleasing”. You’re hassling me with that subjective rule...but ignoring all the cut and dry violations I can see from my front porch all up and down the street? ARGH.. Don’t get me started.. LOL

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

Question.. So if it’s a NPS rule, they don’t own airspace. So technically if you take off and land outside of NP, you wouldn’t be violating their rules correct? Just curious about the gray area here since they technically can’t write law for airspace correct?

Yes. In fact, the policy memo specifically addressing this. There's no grey area.

 

[AndrewCCM]

Yes. In fact, the policy memo specifically addressing this. There's no grey area.

I’m sure it does. My question is how do they enforce a rule when you’re not technically in the park? The airspace is not owned by the park. Totally understand how they could if you were in park. Just trying to understand from a legal standpoint. I have zero intention of doing this. Just curious how it could be enforced if you never once stepped foot inside the park.

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

I’m sure it does. My question is how do they enforce a rule when you’re not technically in the park? The airspace is not owned by the park. Totally understand how they could if you were in park. Just trying to understand from a legal standpoint. I have zero intention of doing this. Just curious how it could be enforced if you never once stepped foot inside the park.

Again, it can't be. The policy states this. It DOES NOT APPLY if you do not launch or land inside NPS property.


Does it matter where an unmanned aircraft is used for the required closures to apply?

Yes. The NPS has the authority to regulate or prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS. As a result, the compendium closures required by the Policy Memorandum only apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS within the boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on non-federally (e.g., private or state) owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS.

 

[AndrewCCM]

So I misunderstood your reply. Cool. Thanks for the info.

 

[Jason2018]

Again, it can't be. The policy states this. It DOES NOT APPLY if you do not launch or land inside NPS property.


Does it matter where an unmanned aircraft is used for the required closures to apply?

Yes. The NPS has the authority to regulate or prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS. As a result, the compendium closures required by the Policy Memorandum only apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS within the boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on non-federally (e.g., private or state) owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS.

Uasually UAVs are not prohibited on National Forest and BLM lands except for Desiganated Wilderness areas. The same rule described for NPS lands applies for Wilderness. If you are taking off and operating outside the Wilderness you can fly over them.

However, anywhere there are fires, stay away. Drone can be very unsafe for manned aviation fighting the fire. Usually larger fires will have a TFR in place. Drones interfering with fires a reason they could be banned on more public lands.

 

[len750]

For me, the most obvious reason is, a kite falling from the sky is going to be a lot less dangerous than a 1/2 or more pound drone. Also a kite is a bit less noisey. You have given me an idea though. Years ago I did attach my slr to a large balloon. Maybe I'll revisit that idea. With the wireless features now in dslr cameras and the lighter wieght???

Dji Phantom 4 Pro = 3.08 lbs. MUCH more than 1/2 pound.

 

[xmtrdr]

I remember reading about knuckleheads trying to get pictures of animals and scaring them! It just takes a knucklehead drone pilot to ruin things for the rest of us!