UAV Flying in National Parkss

[sar104]

Well said and I agree completely.

I also broadly agree, but with one specific reservation. Overflying NPS land after taking off from outside its boundaries is not exploiting a loophole in the law - it is explicitly following the law. It is no more exploiting a loophole than flying your helicopter over NPS land. And the fact that given the option, NPS might well choose to ban overflights (of drones and helicopters), is not relevant. They do not have the authority to do that and so arguing that it is against the spirit of the law is also flawed.

 

[ravedog]

Then you missed my point. Perhaps it’s not a loophole to you but again it’s the spirit. They don’t want drones and carefully finding a workaround that still places you in the park, albeit legally, still is a-holish

 

[sar104]

Then you missed my point. Perhaps it’s not a loophole to you but again it’s the spirit. They don’t want drones and carefully finding a workaround that still places you in the park, albeit legally, still is a-holish

Which is partly why I mentioned that I broadly agree with your post. I did not miss your point however - your point was simply incorrect. A loophole is a technicality in the way a law is written that allows something that the law intends to prohibit. Since the NPS does not control the airspace (and that situation is not a loophole either - it's deliberate Federal law), they can have no expectation or intention of prohibiting overflight. It's not their jurisdiction, and so it cannot be called a loophole - it's something that they have no authority to regulate and they specifically point that out in their order. So it's not even against the spirit of the law, which is very specific. It might be contrary to their concept of an ideal world, and it is contrary to mine, but that's a different matter.

 

[ravedog]

Sar I cannot argue any of your points. Well said. I’m just projecting my own thoughts on why they have their laws. They don’t want drones in the park and because they CAN’T regulate airspace, they did what they could without superseding an FAA law. I approach this as they don’t want them and I will honor that by not leveraging everything to my legal advantage. My intent was not to misuse vocabulary to misclassify the situation. I’m acknowledging the shortcomings of the NPS legal limitations and honoring their intent.

 

[sar104]

Sar I cannot argue any of your points. Well said. I’m just projecting my own thoughts on why they have their laws. They don’t want drones in the park and because they CAN’T regulate airspace, they did what they could without superseding an FAA law. I approach this as they don’t want them and I will honor that by not leveraging everything to my legal advantage. My intent was not to misuse vocabulary to misclassify the situation. I’m acknowledging the shortcomings of the NPS legal limitations and honoring their intent.

Agreed - and for those reasons I too would avoid flying over NPS land. Of course there are undoubtedly plenty of other landowners who, given the option, would prohibit overflights. We mostly don't worry about that, however.

 

[GadgetGuy]

...and the right lighting. Lighting will either make or break your photos/videos.

Indeed! That's why I refuse to even put the bird in the air outside of the Golden Hour at sunset! Any time I have, the overhead lighting of the sun produces a flat boring Google Earth view. Need to get up earlier, so I can get the lighting from the other side, during the other golden hour at sunrise!

 

[THECaptainKirk]

NP’s are photographic gold mines. It IS shameful that the NPS isn’t creative enough to come up with an acceptable solution for those who really wish to put in the effort to plan around a trip where they want to do some filming. Why couldn’t parks charge a daily permit fee - say 3 or 4 times a month on the slowest days - or even perhaps only permissible during those golden hours of sunrise and sunset when the park is less crowded? The reason is they don’t have to and they don’t want to. And just like when we were kids in junior high some idiot would do something so unbelievably stupid and end up ruining it for everyone. I have always hated those instances in life - it doesn’t stop for us as adults either because adult and responsible are clearly not synonymous. Nevertheless, these are OUR national parks - if we want the laws changed we need to work toward that instead of just citing legal code and policy and immediately just giving in to it and saying oh well I’m the little guy I can’t effect change on “authority”. overreaching laws bad regs are foolishly passed every single day. That will always happen. It’s up to the level headed and fair minded to work out a rational and reasonable compromise if a blanket ban is eventually judged to continue to be necessary. I don’t buy the argument about noise. There aren’t any noise or digs bees in NP’s that are directed at the three kids screaming bloody murder because they’re bored while Mom & Dad are also bickering about this and that. The ban was put into place because they saw the potential management of drones / “safety” (the most important **** word in the world today) as something they’d rather not even deal with. That’s easier. We don’t want to think outside the box so we won’t. You can’t bring them in the parks. There. Problem solved. Typical government “solution”. For those of us who would be willing to pay a permit fee and prove some sort of aptitude in piloting (ex 107) there absolutely should be exceptions made within reason. But that requires extra thought and effort on their part. Unless you yourself are a drone pilot you’re more than likely going to agree with their blanket policy. Why? It’s easier to agree with something like that when you’re not required to put much thought into it. Oh yeah ...great rule. I hate those noisy things! That’s ridiculous. As if hundreds of drone pilots would takeover the park and follow crowds of people like swarms of insects? It’s amazing to me the hypotheticals we come up with in our minds - are just not anywhere near what reality would be. All it took was one incident of one person causing a problem and national ban. As moronic and stupid as that person was - prosecute the fool and make an example out of them. But knee jerk reacting with a blanket ban was lazy, and required - clearly almost no thought. Unfortunately it’s what we expect from our government which includes the sacred FAA, unfortunately.

 

[ravedog]

I’m curious what the mythological bad actor you’re referring to. I just want to be reading the same book here.

Also you saying that I don’t put any thought into things?

I’m curious.

So let’s take Zion. Last year there were 4.4 million visitors in 2017. FOUR POINT FOUR MILLION. let that sink in.

Now. How many UAV pilots (let’s just say the good ones, like you) are there vs that total number. You really think your RIGHT to fly around with a noisy, potentially dangerous, certainly disruptive to the wildlife and peace and quiet, electro-mechanical device, matters to anyone?

You’re right. The parks are photographically a goldmine. Go grab a DSLR and start hiking. They are the National Park system of ALL the people not just you. And just because you think that you have the right to... because you are a tax payer... and you think the government... laws... freedom... skies... rights. Step outside your so-called god given constitutional rights for one second and look at the greater good.

No. Just because you exist as an American you are not entitled to whatever you think you want.

And if you think law as we’re enacted because if this unicorn bad actor then believe what you want or go educate yourself on the National Park System and their mission statement. I think you missed that chapter.

 

[THECaptainKirk]

Spirit of the law - mission statement...yeah, yeah. Yawn. I am as frequent a visitor of NP’s as anyone as I have Colorado, Wyoming & even one in Nebraska just a short three hours drive away. Mythical actor? Not sure what you’re talking about there, but I wasn’t even addressing you directly with my post to begin with. I never said anything about God-given const. rights or my perceived right to fly - never even intimated such. I was commenting on how the law says what it does - fine. If we judge as equal taxpayers and financial supporters of said parks then isn’t it our DUTY to at least try to reason and push back on what we believe are overreaching laws and / or regulations. Whether you like it or not even the US Departjebt of Interior, which includes the NPS is, by law and sworn oath, in fact required to govern and administer those protected lands within the limits of the constitution of our country. Last time I checked the very concept of simply changing civic codes abs rules at all levels of government goes right back to the three words that so famously started this human experiment - We The People. Our own government often needs to be reminded of that as do, unfortunately too many of its inhabitants. Is it not better to be involved and effect charge than to just lay down your hobby, throw up your arms and walk away ONLY because someone you perceive who has authority over you told you do so? Or are you just really worked up because you’re of the opinion that National Parks should be completely UAV free? You’re entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else is as I contend the argument could easily be made that if leaving nature as it is is MUCH more doable via a responsible UAV pilot who flies within rational, reasonable given guidelines as opposed to thousands or millions, I guess in California - mostly in their cars by the way driving through it and never stopping - maybe for a pic opp at the side of the road. It’s the same at Yosemite (exception Old Faithful). Look, we’re what 19 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt - would it not make sense for the uppers at interior to consider a reasonable and rational solution for exceptions given to those willing to pay and prove their acumen in order to fly there? Sounds rational and reasonable to me. I was just trying to argue on that side. I wasn’t addressing one person or putting words in anyone’s mouth. Your reaction to my post really surprised me.

 

[BigAl07]

One thing I think many of us on this forum miss is that we "Think" we are many and our #'s should help get our "Cause" more attention and in turn "cause change" in the legal system. Fact of the matter this is a DRONE forum and we are all "drone enthusiasts". While on this forum our perception is slightly (ok heavily) skewed to feel we are Big FISH in a national pond. We are all "mostly" like minded and feel confident and strong in our efforts.

Reality is our numbers are not "that big" when you get outside of our forum and even less so if you step outside of the sUAS industry completely. Reality is sUAS have a bad name to begin with and if you add them into the NPS (Nature) you get a double bad stigma.

If John Q. Public were to get a hint that the NPS was going to potentially "Open Up" to sUAS they are going to write letters, sign petitions, call their representatives, create protest rallies and literally "pitch a fit" in order to put an immediate halt to such processes. The public outcry would be mind boggling to say the least and IMHO rightfully so. If you want to garner a LOT of public support, a LOT of funding, and get a lot of media attention you can do one of two (or both) things:

A) Start a program to support some type of animal or natural habitat (people eat that up and throw $$ right and left at them)
B) Start an Anti-Drone program of any kind (people eat that up and throw $$ right and left at them)

See my point(s) above?

I'm NOT saying the NPS should allow sUAS to fly from them (or even over them but that's a whole other ball of wax to content with) but to think that John Q. Public is going to be ok with and silent about sUAS in the NPS is a bit delusional and unrealistic. I don't see it happening.

 

[tcope]

So let’s take Zion. Last year there were 4.4 million visitors in 2017. FOUR POINT FOUR MILLION. let that sink in.

Now. How many UAV pilots (let’s just say the good ones, like you) are there vs that total number. You really think your RIGHT to fly around with a noisy, potentially dangerous, certainly disruptive to the wildlife and peace and quiet, electro-mechanical device, matters to anyone?

You’re right. The parks are photographically a goldmine. Go grab a DSLR and start hiking. They are the National Park system of ALL the people not just you. And just because you think that you have the right to... because you are a tax payer... and you think the government... laws... freedom... skies... rights. Step outside your so-called god given constitutional rights for one second and look at the greater good.

Really hits the nail on the head. Some people just don't get it. They think, I'd be perfectly fine flying my one drone in a National Park. What they fail to understand is that it would not be just them and their one drone. It would be the 50 or 100 people who just bought a drone that morning and mustered up enough smarts to charge the batteries. You then have these 50 people all flying their drones around people who were attempting to enjoy the sites offered in the National Park. As mentioned... want a photo? Simply break out your hand held camera and take all the photos you want. A response may be, but the National Parks are huge and there are many places away from people that we should be able to fly in. Good point. However, the problem is how do you define these areas. Once you allow dones into National Parks people are going to fly them every place as they think they are "allowed". They will hear that they are allowed and not understand where they can be flown and where they cannot be flown. The NPS has the responsibility to make sure _everyone_ can enjoy the National Parks. If this means a couple of people can't fly a drone so that _MILLIONS_ can enjoy the parks.... so be it.

 

[THECaptainKirk]

I agree that some people just don’t get it. I never called for a drone free for all in National Parks. And nor do I think we’re a lobbying group to be contended with, either. However. The discussion of this thread is titled “UAV Flying In National Parks”. I am trying to throw out a reasonable rational idea that, to me would not effect John Q. Public and wouldn’t even apply to your average park patron that perhaps owns a camera drone if some sort. You’d have to know the dates available, apply for and purchase a permit of considerable cost (say $100 for the day or two day timeframe), only be able to fly in designated areas and only if you’re licensed 107 or something similar. Yeah, why put any effort into something to get what you want? It’s easier to just sit back, do nothing and say you don’t blame them for continuing to needlessly just ban more and more areas where we are not allowed to launch or land - all in the name of “safety”. I suppose they’ll use the same undebatable excuse when we begin to send men to Mars. In the name of safety Mars will certainly be a no drone zone, too. If we can’t fly them “safely” out in nature then exactly where is this safe destination that has yet to be found that isn’t out in....nature? I can’t think of a single place on this planet that is outdoors that wouldn’t be classified as nature. But I guess all we need to remind ourselves of is that we are dangerous, unsafe people and it is not only better but right for us, although small in number to sit back and allow others to trample on our rights...all the while patting them on the back and telling them that you don’t blame them. Keep up that attitude and it won’t be long before there won’t be any need at all for a forum such as this. You’ll have yourselves to congratulate for that.

 

[sar104]

I agree that some people just don’t get it. I never called for a drone free for all in National Parks. And nor do I think we’re a lobbying group to be contended with, either. However. The discussion of this thread is titled “UAV Flying In National Parks”. I am trying to throw out a reasonable rational idea that, to me would not effect John Q. Public and wouldn’t even apply to your average park patron that perhaps owns a camera drone if some sort. You’d have to know the dates available, apply for and purchase a permit of considerable cost (say $100 for the day or two day timeframe), only be able to fly in designated areas and only if you’re licensed 107 or something similar. Yeah, why put any effort into something to get what you want? It’s easier to just sit back, do nothing and say you don’t blame them for continuing to needlessly just ban more and more areas where we are not allowed to launch or land - all in the name of “safety”. I suppose they’ll use the same undebatable excuse when we begin to send men to Mars. In the name of safety Mars will certainly be a no drone zone, too. If we can’t fly them “safely” out in nature then exactly where is this safe destination that has yet to be found that isn’t out in....nature? I can’t think of a single place on this planet that is outdoors that wouldn’t be classified as nature. But I guess all we need to remind ourselves of is that we are dangerous, unsafe people and it is not only better but right for us, although small in number to sit back and allow others to trample on our rights...all the while patting them on the back and telling them that you don’t blame them. Keep up that attitude and it won’t be long before there won’t be any need at all for a forum such as this. You’ll have yourselves to congratulate for that.

A regulated, limited approach to flying in these kinds of locations sounds fine in principle, but enforcement would likely be a huge problem.

 

[BigAl07]

Let's take just a few of your points and look how each one opens up it's own "Pandora's Box"


You suggest the "requirement" idea of:

only be able to fly in designated areas and only if you’re licensed 107 or something similar.

Your "Average Park Patron" may not have the Part 107 requirement so you've left a good portion of your "possy" out in the cold. Why does the Average Joe not deserve the same right to take aerial pics as the rest of us?

apply for and purchase a permit of considerable cost (say $100 for the day or two day timeframe)

You and I both know that so many people are going to "balk" at such an expense. A couple of potential "reasons" might be: A) Why should a Govt Funded area require a tax payer to pay more for something that should be free B) Why should it be $100 just to take pictures when John Boy with his DSLR can do it for free?

....trample on our rights...all the while patting them on the back and telling them that you don’t blame them. Keep up that attitude and it won’t be long before there won’t be any need at all for a forum such as this. You’ll have yourselves to congratulate for that.

LOL! Rights? I don't recall "flying your toy drone" a right. I for one feel very strongly against flying in NPS because I spend a great deal of time in the NPS getting away from technology and modern conveniences. The very LAST thing I want to see/hear is some bozo with his brand new drone bouncing around taking pictures/video out in the wilderness. We are there to enjoy nature not pollute it with our toys and devices.

For the record I wouldn't say " I don't blame them".... I would say I FULLY SUPPORT them to keep NPS off limits to sUAS unless it's an Emergency Services type of situation (Search & Rescue).

I'm all about personal rights as much as anyone (and more than many) but your "right" to fly your toy drone does not TRUMP my right to go out into the NPS and enjoy nature quietly and in peace.

 

[Nightwolf]

In Arizona we have miles and miles of National Forest that is off limits to drones but open to shotguns and loud drunks speeding around on ATVs.

 

[sar104]

In Arizona we have miles and miles of National Forest that is off limits to drones but open to shotguns and loud drunks speeding around on ATVs.

Are you sure about that? National Forest is explicitly open to UAV use unless designated wilderness, in which case no motorized vehicles are allowed. Have they implemented a specific rule counter to general USFS policy in that location?

 

[Cellblock776]

Interesting conundrum. You launch from outside the NP, fly over it, but then you crash or are required to ditch land on the NP land, so you are unable to land outside the NP from where you legally launched. You can walk away, or attempt to legally recover your aircraft. Discuss. Include emergency landings in your analysis.

I don't see any reason to worry about fines or harassment if your sUAS crashes or is forced to ditch on the NP land. Everyone on this forum makes a big deal over treating and piloting our UAVs as legitimate aircraft. I registered my aircraft and have a FAA Part 107 certification. I am required to follow FAA rules. So if my sUAS develops a sudden mechanical failure and ditches while flying over a NP, how is that different than any other aircraft, manned or unmanned? If I had launched a high altitude balloon for scientific research and it comes down in a NP and I show up to retrieve it would I be facing fines and trespass charges? If I was flying a small general aviation fixed wing plane and suddenly had to put down in a NP am I trespassing?
I don't fly drones. I pilot small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. I fulfilled all of the FAA requirements to operate as the Remote Pilot in Control and my UAV is registered with them. If I am forced to land or crash in on NP that should be no different than if my high altitude balloon experiment decided to pick that spot to come down.
So, No, I would not walk away. Of course I am going to recover my aircraft. If there are any damages over $500 I will file the appropriate paperwork with the FAA or NTSB or whomever. The NP ranger can type up whatever incident report they are required to have on file when something like this happens. But other than that, no, I'm not going to just walk away and I'm not going to let some NP rangers or political appointees try to prosecute me for something like that.

 

[Nightwolf]

Are you sure about that? National Forest is explicitly open to UAV use unless designated wilderness, in which case no motorized vehicles are allowed. Have they implemented a specific rule counter to general USFS policy in that location?

I am not sure. In fact I was hoping someone would contradict. My understanding is that all the green areas on Google maps were off limits

 

[sar104]

I am not sure. In fact I was hoping someone would contradict. My understanding is that all the green areas on Google maps were off limits

No. USFS (National Forest) that is not designated wilderness is generally open to UAV operations. National Parks, and other land controlled by NPS (National Monuments, Preserves etc.) is closed to operations, although you can still legally overfly them. State Parks vary.

 

[AndrewCCM]

Hypothetical... what if there was a MINIMUM flight altitude? Not sure a drone at 200-300 ft would disturb animals or visitors... Just a thought..