US National Parks: up & land outside, but flying over...?

[ribjig]

(hobbyist)
(not a wildlife preserve)

assume road shoulder bordering national park;
after take-off, before landing, same spot, does one
need to mentally imagine park border extending
skyward & NEVER cross that aerial border???
if yes, does that conflict with concept of FAA
controlling ALL air above US ground?

assume if breaching that "aerial" park border,
not more than a couple hundred feet into a park
that might be dozens or hundreds of square miles...
thanks in advance.

 

[ryantrax]

All airspace over National Parks is a no fly zone. Flying the perimeter is fine as long as you don't cross the National Park lines.

 

[N017RW]

All airspace over National Parks is a no fly zone. Flying the perimeter is fine as long as you don't cross the National Park lines.

Can you link to the language you are referring to?


Your understanding seems to be in contrast to a common understanding here regarding the NAS, and this document/site:

Unmanned Aircraft in the National Parks (U.S. National Park Service)

Which in part contains the following:
"Policy Memorandum 14-05, released by the National Park Service (NPS) director in June 2014, directed each superintendent to use the authority under 36 CFR 1.5 to prohibit the launching, landing, or operation of unmanned aircraft, subject to the certain conditions and exceptions set forth in the memo. This is still in force with a very few exceptions.

This action applies to the launching, landing, and operation of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS. Jurisdiction by the NPS ends at the park boundary. The policy memorandum does not modify any requirement imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the use or operation of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System."

(underline added by me)

It then lists some other Statutes which could be used against you for harassment, public safety, etc.

So while I'm not saying: "Go for it, its legal to fly over", or wise to attempt, I am pointing out it is not explicitly forbidden (TFR, etc.) as you are suggesting.

 

[ryantrax]

Referencing Policy Memorandum 14-05 as well, many take the OPERATION of unmanned aircraft as flying into airspace above the park. It is definitely a gray area but not worth tempting fate or the interpretation of the NPS officers IMHO as they can site you for violating 36 C.F.R. § 2.2 for harassing wildlife or creating an intentional disturbance of wildlife nesting, breeding, or other activities. THIS is a good link to read, they do say Can I launch and land my unmanned aircraft outside the park boundary?
The NPS has no authority outside park boundaries; the unmanned aircraft operator would have to get the permission of the landowner.
So it is at your own risk for sure.

 

[sar104]

Referencing Policy Memorandum 14-05 as well, many take the OPERATION of unmanned aircraft as flying into airspace above the park. It is definitely a gray area but definitely not worth tempting fate or the interpretation of the NPS officers IMHO as they can site you for violating 36 C.F.R. § 2.2 for harassing wildlife or creating an intentional disturbance of wildlife nesting, breeding, or other activities. THIS is a good link to read, they do say Can I launch and land my unmanned aircraft outside the park boundary?
The NPS has no authority outside park boundaries; the unmanned aircraft operator would have to get the permission of the landowner.
So it is at your own risk for sure.

It's not a grey area. The NPS does not control the airspace. The section about airspace authority in the link that you posted makes it clear that they are not asserting that authority:

If I am flying my unmanned aircraft in the national airspace and do not take off, land, or operate from NPS lands and waters, is there anything the park could do to stop me?

Unless an unmanned aircraft pilot obtains special permission through the FAA, use of unmanned aircraft must remain line of sight. In addition, although they do not directly address unmanned aircraft, the following existing 36 CFR sections may apply under certain circumstances.

• If the unmanned aircraft pursuits or harasses wildlife or creates an intentional disturbance of wildlife nesting, breeding, or other activities, the user could be cited for a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.2.
• If the user of the unmanned aircraft knowingly or recklessly creates a risk of public alarm or nuisance by causing noise that was unreasonable under the circumstances or by creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition, the user could be cited for disorderly conduct under 36 C.F.R. § 2.34.
• 36 C.F.R. § 2.12(a)(3) prohibits, in non-developed areas, operating a device powered by a portable motor or engine, except pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

Note that nothing in that section claims airspace authority - they merely note other provisions that could apply to make such a flight illegal under 36 CFR.

None of which means that it is a good idea or that NPS LE may not attempt to intervene, but let's at least try to separate law from myth.

 

[ryantrax]

Again just saying once you drone crosses the park line if there are any issues NPS can step in. Best to stay out IMO $5k and 6 months jail time isn't worth it to me.

 

[flockshot]

No wonder we are getting more restrictive rules. Obviously, telling people not to fly in National Parks isn't conclusive enough for drone pilots.

 

[sar104]

No wonder we are getting more restrictive rules. Obviously, telling people not to fly in National Parks isn't conclusive enough for drone pilots.

These discussions are not simply about whether it's a good idea fly over NPS lands - they are also about what the law says on the matter. There is absolutely no point in trying to obfuscate the fact that the NPS does not have jurisdiction over the airspace - that is not going to help the cause of responsible flying.

This discussion has gone around in circles on many forum threads. Yes - the NPS doesn't want people flying in or over NPS land - that much is quite clear. But no - they do not have the authority to ban overflights, any more than you have the authority to ban people from flying over your property. Only the FAA has that authority and, for Part 101, it would currently have to be something like a TFR since Congress prevented specific legislation regulating hobby flight. Perhaps that will change now that Congress has seen the error of that approach.

 

[sar104]

Again just saying once you drone crosses the park line if there are any issues NPS can step in. Best to stay out IMO $5k and 6 months jail time isn't worth it to me.

Now that is true, and good advice.

 

[flockshot]

These discussions are not simply about whether it's a good idea fly over NPS lands - they are also about what the law says on the matter. There is absolutely no point in trying to obfuscate the fact that the NPS does not have jurisdiction over the airspace - that is not going to help the cause of responsible flying.

This discussion has gone around in circles on many forum threads. Yes - the NPS doesn't want people flying in or over NPS land - that much is quite clear. But no - they do not have the authority to ban overflights, any more than you have the authority to ban people from flying over your property. Only the FAA has that authority and, for Part 101, it would currently have to be something like a TFR since Congress prevented specific legislation regulating hobby flight. Perhaps that will change now that Congress has seen the error of that approach.

Every body knows that National Parts don't want drones in the parks. This is a discussion of how drone drivers can take what they want regardless of what the Park Service wants.

 

[sar104]

Every body knows that National Parts don't want drones in the parks. This is a discussion of how drone drivers can take what they want regardless of what the Park Service wants.

So in your opinion, the law is not relevant in this issue?

 

[flockshot]

So in your opinion, the law is not relevant in this issue?

The law is always relevant, in every issue. My point is that just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it is wise, or courteous, or proper. I don't expect agreement from this community.

 

[sar104]

The law is always relevant, in every issue. My point is that just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it is wise, or courteous, or proper. I don't expect agreement from this community.

Actually I think that you probably have broad agreement on that sentiment. There clearly are two different schools of thought on the NPS issue, but not centered on the relatively uncommon issue of overflights. It's much more related to the operational ban on UAVs and whether it is "fair" or "right". But that is the law, so it's a different debate.

 

[N017RW]

My point in my original reply was that there is not a (blanket) No Fly Zone associated with NPSs.
I do not condone testing the rules to prove a point or meant to play "Philadelphia Lawyer" to point out workarounds.

It's not a good idea and the Rangers will not appreciate it.

To be clear- Keeping the record straight was my intent.

 

[flockshot]

There is nothing wrong with keeping the record straight..