UAV Flying in National Parkss

[MtManDavey]

In a nutshell, here is a brief snippet from Federal Law 36 CFR 1.5 (Code of Federal Regulations):

"(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities, the superintendent may:

(1) Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity.

(2) Designate areas for a specific use or activity, or impose conditions or restrictions on a use or activity.

(3) Terminate a restriction, limit, closure, designation, condition, or visiting hour restriction imposed under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section."

The visitor experience in my own nearby Lassen Volcanic National Park is of high importance, without having someone, especially some inconsiderate individual, flying over the head of visitors who are there for the scenic value, peace and quiet of the exquisite landscape unique to this area. In a long discussion one day, the Chief Ranger told me that the park itself, nor the Superintendent, is unable to allow any drone use other than scientific research when all other resources are unable to provide the same info and even then they must have permission granted from the Western National Park District.

I further contend that just because any of us have a device that is extremely cool to operate over a beautifully scenic place, we don't just have the right to do so if it impacts other values of that place. To do so without consideration of the public and their right to the whole purpose of a park such as this is pretty selfish. I love using my drone for personal and commercial purposes, but that does not give me the right to invade public privacy just because I want to.

 

[furthertofly]

Note that the NPS policy is not about national parks specifically, but about lands administered by the NPS, which includes many national monuments and national recreation areas. Lands administered by the BLM and USFS, which includes some national monuments, have different policies. You've got to do a little homework before you fly.

The tenor of this thread reminds me of a child denied a cookie by Mom, and looking for every loophole and maneuver to get that cookie. Unboxing a drone doesn't entitle you to diddely. The are 7 billion other opinions about the rights of your drone, and a good-faith process that tries to sort it out needs to be respected.

 

[kissmyace]

I was at a park(national or state, don't know which), 4th July for fireworks & was asked by an employee if I wanted to take some pics. So I flew around & got some great shots. I guess that would be ok

 

[cpieper]

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

It’s illegal to take off and land in a NP. If you can find a close enough property not part of the NP you can fly from there and fly over the park. The FAA controls the airspace. Property owners control surface permissions.

 

[GadgetGuy]

It’s illegal to take off and land in a NP. If you can find a close enough property not part of the NP you can fly from there and fly over the park. The FAA controls the airspace. Property owners control surface permissions.

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.

 

[Just_nick]

It’s illegal to take off and land in a NP. If you can find a close enough property not part of the NP you can fly from there and fly over the park. The FAA controls the airspace. Property owners control surface permissions.

Doesn't work that way, but you can try to argue that if the park rangers and police come. Then you get to spend x number of hours explaining why you thought your loophole was so brilliant, and maybe you'll get away with it, or maybe the fine will stick. And maybe they'll take your drone for evidence.
There are very few things working in your favor when you think you're clever, but the other side holds all the power.

 

[RocUAV]

Doesn't work that way,

We beg to differ. Please see this document published by the NPS To: Exhibit C, Section 9: To: (Note: Click on the "To" as the Forum software automatically gets the html page title and I don't see a way to override it)

9. 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.

 

[Brojon]

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

"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."
There is no mention of launching, landing and operation over a NPS property from non-NPS -property and they specifically say they must derive their authority from "the best way at this time for superintendents to address the use of unmanned aircraft is to exercise their authority pursuant to 36 CFR 1.5".
.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It’s illegal to take off and land in a NP. If you can find a close enough property not part of the NP you can fly from there and fly over the park. The FAA controls the airspace. Property owners control surface permissions.

I know, never said anything to the contrary.

 

[Nightwolf]

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.

This is my understanding

 

[Phantom Pirate]

Once again, one needs to read the memorandum completely, certain sections several times. While the NPS and LEO can do pretty much "whatever they deem necessary for the.........", they can not deny the part in the memorandum that says, "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."

Read that as, "the NPS can not prohibit you from FLYING OVER the NPS airspace." Plain and simple! Now....... never mind that we all would probably be fools to push this little inclusion, the fact remains........ they said it, and they published it! End of story!

I, for one, am not willing to spend thousands of dollars on attorney fees just to prove I'm right however!

 

[N017RW]

I, for one, am not willing to spend thousands of dollars on attorney fees just to prove I'm right however!

I’m there with ya.

Remember that many people talk tough anonymously [here] and I suspect very, very, few would do so either despite the ‘talk’ espoused.

 

[ussvertigo]

My son and I shot Red Rock Canyon awhile back from inside and outside, but was asked to leave and found we were lucky not to get fined. Paid closer to regs after that. I wish there was a permit system where ie you had to prove no drone was lost during filming, if so operator liable for extraction(that could hurt). Anyway the video has views most visitors would never see.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Best of Red Rock Canyon

 

[Russ43Phantom]

My understanding is that the NP service wants visitors to be able to escape noise that is not natural. Admittely, drones don’t come close to being quiet or natural. Too bad. NP’s provide such good photograhic content.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

My son and I shot Red Rock Canyon awhile back from inside and outside, but was asked to leave and found we were lucky not to get fined. Paid closer to regs after that. I wish there was a permit system where ie you had to prove no drone was lost during filming, if so operator liable for extraction(that could hurt). Anyway the video has views most visitors would never see.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Best of Red Rock Canyon

Really nice content and sync with music; color balance somewhat unnatural. But back to the question at hand ... flying in NP’s is totally illegal. Personally, I can see why those who visit NP’s don’t want noisy drones to interfere with their enjoyment of the solitude nature brings in our NP’s. BUT ... I do think we all pay taxes to contribute to our parks so maybe the NP Service should consider openning the NP’s one day a week for drones.

 

[ussvertigo]

I’m with ya, .......color? I’m on a learning curve with PremPro, and video from two different drones with right and wrong filters was a challenge. I was thinking of a permit system for licensed operators with sufficient liability coverage(whatever that would be) for periods of low public traffic(if ever), but closely monitored, but a free for all day sounds exciting, who’s watching who

 

[Nesher]

I have one of these. Technically, it is a kite not a drone. It is also tough to control, with no image stabilization. Still kind of fun to fly, though! I'm not sure if you can still buy one.
Fotokite Phi: Aerial Videos Made Easy

 

[furthertofly]

Once again, one needs to read the memorandum completely, certain sections several times. While the NPS and LEO can do pretty much "whatever they deem necessary for the.........", they can not deny the part in the memorandum that says, "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."

Read that as, "the NPS can not prohibit you from FLYING OVER the NPS airspace." Plain and simple! Now....... never mind that we all would probably be fools to push this little inclusion, the fact remains........ they said it, and they published it! End of story!

I, for one, am not willing to spend thousands of dollars on attorney fees just to prove I'm right however!

Photo I took last year at Devil's Tower National Monument, WY (administered by National Park Service), -- takeoff and landing outside park boundaries, after carefully consulting a map. Devil's Tower boundaries are pretty compact, so it all worked out well. No problems at all from NPS or public.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I’m with ya, .......color? I’m on a learning curve with PremPro, and video from two different drones with right and wrong filters was a challenge. I was thinking of a permit system for licensed operators with sufficient liability coverage(whatever that would be) for periods of low public traffic(if ever), but closely monitored, but a free for all day sounds exciting, who’s watching who

I'd stick with the original edited footage, without the color grading, which seriously detracts from the epic footage captured. It's well worth re-editing!

 

[Melvoid]

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

And it's harder to harass wildlife with a kite.