Basic kindness and common-sense rightly mentioned this thread. Your perspective (visibly and repeatedly supported by others names here), clearly establishes where you folks exist on that spectrum.
Yellowstone NP cracking down on Illegal drone use....
- Thread starter furthertofly
- Start date
Basic kindness and common-sense rightly mentioned this thread. Your perspective (visibly and repeatedly supported by others names here), clearly establishes where you folks exist on that spectrum.
Your “individual rights” end exactly and completely where they meet mine/ours. If our representatives decide there are more of us with a shared vision of what we want as our “right”, than tough.....you lose. Your crying about it is unseemly and is embarrassing.
I have one (an Anafi). I love it! That said, out of respect for others I don’t fly it in NPs when the experience of the obvious intrinsic value of the place (untrammeled “original condition”, pure nature, exquisite beauty, etc.), would be ruined by the appearance of a drone. All the imagining and appreciation of “this is how it used to be, I’m so glad there’s still some left”, would be instantly shattered and an immediate snap back to reality with an accompanying thought, “so much for that, there’s always THOSE kinds of people who just don’t get it,: everywhere....always”.
Thanks for posting the information on the fireflies at Elkmont your right it did make it a better experience but I've been trying to go for many years and never lucky enough to win a pass!
Maybe next year but maybe they should change one of the things to bring with you from bug spray to bug repellent lotions! A lottery couldn't hurt with the right rules! .cheers
I guess where I get lost is the assumption that these loud, annoying devices are somehow going to be allowed to fly though densely populated camp grounds or popular trails and as a result become an instant nuisance to all.
This is the same knee jerk reaction that gets drones banned. Yes, we should have regulations, and off limit areas, especially sensitive areas that could be impacted by a drone crashing into it. Perhaps a reasonable permit program can be established allowing for the use of a drone in certain places at and certain times for a small fee.
It doesn’t have to be black and white. We just keep going there. Either we ban all or it’s the apocalypse and total chaos. The ban as it stands assumes chaos, do you all think it unreasonable the we could propose an alternative that works for all parties?
This is the same knee jerk reaction that gets drones banned. Yes, we should have regulations, and off limit areas, especially sensitive areas that could be impacted by a drone crashing into it. Perhaps a reasonable permit program can be established allowing for the use of a drone in certain places at and certain times for a small fee.
It doesn’t have to be black and white. We just keep going there. Either we ban all or it’s the apocalypse and total chaos. The ban as it stands assumes chaos, do you all think it unreasonable the we could propose an alternative that works for all parties?
e
NPS has been pretty tardy coming up with a proposal. Part of the problem is that where most people will want to fly are the congested tourist spots, lookouts etc., because that's where most people go - and that's going to create hazards as you mention. Can you suggest some examples of where a compromise arrangement might work in allowing flights?
NPS has been pretty tardy coming up with a proposal. Part of the problem is that where most people will want to fly are the congested tourist spots, lookouts etc., because that's where most people go - and that's going to create hazards as you mention. Can you suggest some examples of where a compromise arrangement might work in allowing flights?
See my post #30 above - maybe the NPS can open some/all of its parks a day or two (or more, or less) a month for drone flying, specifying regulations particular to that park, such as no annoying the bison in Yellowstone.
Options might include:
1. Guidelines that restrict use near people, camp grounds or wildlife.
2. Areas of the park that allow for drone use given the above conditions.
3. A permitting process that allows for access to given areas for a set period of time for a reasonable fee (I.e. not thousands of $).
4. Insurance and registration requirements.
5. Exclusion from certain highly populated areas or road turnoffs.
Each park may need to set local guidelines, as they differ vastly. For example, I climb/hike/photograph Kings Canyon in the Serra Nevada all the time. There are vast spaces here were you won’t see a person or even an animal larger then a squirrel for miles. Contrast this to Yosemite Village and very different rules should apply (I would ban completely from such a populated area as Yosemite Village, but allow access in the Kings Canyon back country where their are very few people).
A blanket policy would make little sense given the diversity of landscape and usage. That’s also why I believe a blanket ban makes no sense.
1. Guidelines that restrict use near people, camp grounds or wildlife.
2. Areas of the park that allow for drone use given the above conditions.
3. A permitting process that allows for access to given areas for a set period of time for a reasonable fee (I.e. not thousands of $).
4. Insurance and registration requirements.
5. Exclusion from certain highly populated areas or road turnoffs.
Each park may need to set local guidelines, as they differ vastly. For example, I climb/hike/photograph Kings Canyon in the Serra Nevada all the time. There are vast spaces here were you won’t see a person or even an animal larger then a squirrel for miles. Contrast this to Yosemite Village and very different rules should apply (I would ban completely from such a populated area as Yosemite Village, but allow access in the Kings Canyon back country where their are very few people).
A blanket policy would make little sense given the diversity of landscape and usage. That’s also why I believe a blanket ban makes no sense.
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Au contraire. Luddites were definitely not anti-tech.
What the Luddites Really Fought Against
The label now has many meanings, but when the group protested 200 years ago, technology wasn't really the enemy
www.smithsonianmag.com
Au contraire. Luddites were definitely not anti-tech.
What the Luddites Really Fought Against
The label now has many meanings, but when the group protested 200 years ago, technology wasn't really the enemy
Thanks. I was under the same ,misconception about the history of Luddites. Or rather I guess I never knew what the history was, and just assumed that the common usage was accurate.
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
I happened to look it up when a friend called another friend a Luddite for not agreeing with him about a controversial technology topic. He intended to insult him, but, in fact, it was a compliment, and showed his own ignorance of the history of Luddites.
Based on my reading the gist of it is contained this statement...
"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."
No launching and landing is pretty straight forward. Operating in my mind would mean you can launch the aircraft from outside the NP and then come into the part and operate it from within the park. This would not cover launching from outside the park and flying over the park while operating the drone from outside the park and I couldn't find anything specific from the FAA about flying over national parks.
"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."
No launching and landing is pretty straight forward. Operating in my mind would mean you can launch the aircraft from outside the NP and then come into the part and operate it from within the park. This would not cover launching from outside the park and flying over the park while operating the drone from outside the park and I couldn't find anything specific from the FAA about flying over national parks.
I live near a conservation area administered by the NPS and covered by the same restrictions as national parks. Their website specifically says that it’s OK to fly drones over the park, just not launch from within the boundaries.
The wording in the memo is:
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.
The critical words are operating from or on lands and waters. If your not standing on NP grounds you are not operating "from or on" NP land, you're operating from or on the ground you happen to be standing on.
Not exactly. A majority does not dictate was is right or Constitutional. The NPs don't become the playground of the majority because a majority agree on a certain issue.
It clearly states:
"Launching, landing, or operating an unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters... is prohibited"
How in the world could you misconstrue it to mean you CAN operate from said land?
Launching from, landing on, or operating from are all denied activities from NPS land/waters etc.
The ONLY thing you can do is launch from NON-NPS land and fly from NON-NPS land and then land on NON-NPS land.
I did say you could operate "from" said land. If you launch outside of NP land and land outside NP land you are not operating "from" NP land. If I launch outside a NP, fly over NP land and then land outside the NP I'm not operating "from" the NP.
Manipulating the controls, flying, programming etc is OPERATING THE AIRCRAFT! You're trying to find a loophole where none exist.
Yes, I'm operating the aircraft but I'm not operating it "FROM" or "ON" national park land.
Similar threads
