Don't Be This Guy
- Thread starter tcope
- Start date
No. He was flying from an area that was a little difficult to get to easily. He launched from that area and flew up to several people near the arch (about 20' away from them). he then flew through the arch and away. He stayed away until he landed. After he landed he packed up and walk the opposite direction as the people.
Video shows a clearly dangerous guy. Out with a mate getting sone video. Bloody terrorist.
Flying near people was probably best avoided but no harm was done. Why make such a big deal?
Flying near people was probably best avoided but no harm was done. Why make such a big deal?
Many (most) laws are made to _prevent_ harm, One person does it, many more will think it's okay and do it as well. In this case people were trying to enjoy some great nature. We all hiked a mile up rock to enjoy one of the best views. Then we have a drone buzzing around us and ruining our view, photos and video. No harm done? But lets set all of that aside. It's 100% ILLEGAL to launch, land or operate a drone within a US National Park. So there was harm done and its simply illegal. We don't get to pick and choose the laws we go by or determine for ourselves if we think someone else was harmed from an illegal act. We should also not be doing things that will create even more restrictive regulations against drone flying.
Think about this... you ever fly over a huge crowed of people? If you do it and the drone does not fall in anyone, what harm? So why simply not do it? No one was hurt, right.
Although I agree its the law and I wouldn't do it. Man do i wish I could fly in a lot of our national parks because you could get some unreal footage! On one hand, I hate this guy because hes the kind of guy who gets these things banned, on the other hand I am super jealous as I want to fly there too
Look. I appreciate the point your trying to make, I do....but you make your point from the mindset of a brain washed "sheeple". !!!My point!!! Is no harm was done! You have no more right to enjoy the moment in silence without the buzzing drone than he had to fly it. We are equal. Now to your illegal point....why is it illegal? Drone falls from sky and lands in national park, tree injured.....hardly front page news now is it. So its illegal, but why? I didnt vote for it to be this way, to be fair I'm sure we'd all vote opposite. Stop being a sheep and preaching illogical laws.
Last edited:
As a young 30 year old in the UK who enjoys his tech but also enjoys the natural beauty our planet has to offer, i can see both sides of the argument in regards to flying sUAV in National Parks,
sUAV pro:
Quadcopter's have come along way since they were first introduced to the general public in regards to fly-ability and safety. No longer do we have to rely on expensive production companies to provide us with the spectacular views of our planet from above ground level, we can control what we want to see from what ever perspective we want to see it and with this we can capture great quality video footage.
National Parks pro:
National Parks are protected by law to protect the natural beauty from hungry business men who want to make money with developments or attractions which could damage the areas eco system and wild life growth etc etc..... there is also a population of people including myself out there who enjoy our local national parks because the air is clean and free from polluting sounds of a busy city. The last thing people want is several sUAV hovering over them and disturbing their peaceful walk.
There is then the population of people who buy these sUAV but don't fully understand the power they have in their hands when flying them and this is when people get injured. These are the idiots who will ruin this hobby for the rest of us, these are the idiots the law is trying to discourage from taking risks.
As much as i hate rules and being dictated too about what i can and cannot do with my drone, i also understand that unfortunately not everyone with a drone is as careful and respectful as i am when it comes to flying it. This is why the laws are in place and as humans we can only blame ourselves because of the way society is today.
Anyway this is my take on it.
HTH
Regards.
sUAV pro:
Quadcopter's have come along way since they were first introduced to the general public in regards to fly-ability and safety. No longer do we have to rely on expensive production companies to provide us with the spectacular views of our planet from above ground level, we can control what we want to see from what ever perspective we want to see it and with this we can capture great quality video footage.
National Parks pro:
National Parks are protected by law to protect the natural beauty from hungry business men who want to make money with developments or attractions which could damage the areas eco system and wild life growth etc etc..... there is also a population of people including myself out there who enjoy our local national parks because the air is clean and free from polluting sounds of a busy city. The last thing people want is several sUAV hovering over them and disturbing their peaceful walk.
There is then the population of people who buy these sUAV but don't fully understand the power they have in their hands when flying them and this is when people get injured. These are the idiots who will ruin this hobby for the rest of us, these are the idiots the law is trying to discourage from taking risks.
As much as i hate rules and being dictated too about what i can and cannot do with my drone, i also understand that unfortunately not everyone with a drone is as careful and respectful as i am when it comes to flying it. This is why the laws are in place and as humans we can only blame ourselves because of the way society is today.
Anyway this is my take on it.
HTH
Regards.
You're legally not allowed to fly where he was flying. Pretty much that's it. I agree kind've nonsense but that's the law, I really wish it wasnt because I would be buzzing all around that place!
In general the NPS is responsible for keeping the site enjoyable for _all_ people. In most case this is the ability for people to enjoy nature in it's current state.
So picture this... you are sitting with your family enjoying view of the Delicate Arch and the surrounding rolling hills and foliage. You understand the deep history of the arch and that it's the arch on the UT license plate. You are taking pictures of the arch so that you can enjoy and recount the time you visited this historic place. Then, 10 drones start buzzing around your head and flying around the arch. You can no longer obtain a photos or video without several drones in view.
Or picture this.... you are watching and waiting for one of the most famous geysers to erupt. Right before this happens 10 drones all buzz out and over around the geysers. You can't get any photos of video of the eruption without a drone in the shot (which is going to look really cool when you go back and view them). A few of these drones get hit by the geyser and fall into the water surrounding the famous geyser. You then noticed several drones are laying around in the pool of water.
But it's cool to get a photo from the air above these natural settings. To those thousands of other people who enjoy nature.... well, they can buy a postcard in the local store.
Partially. There is also a time and place for done use. In and around such things as arches in a National park with hundreds of people attempting to enjoy the site is not one of them. When there is a law that does not allow it, it's not the place or time either. I'd no more tolerate someone cranking up a boom box with loud music either. Would you enjoy that? I mean, what's the harm.
Mainly because it's the whole reason the National Park Service made this rule and keep it on the books. You think people should be able to fly in certain areas of a US National Park? This is another reason why that's not going to happen. So if you want to agree it causes no harm, please don't complain that you should be allowed to fly in a US National Park.
Last time I visited the arch that's exactly what was happening. Have you heard how loud some of these portable radios are? The sad thing is attractions like this are no longer "off the beaten path." You go on a Wednesday and they are still slammed. Take Havasupai falls, beautiful place but my first trip it was like solitude, exactly what we wanted. My last trip we walked in a single file line with probably 40 other people. As someone who enjoys nature, and enjoys the silence and the sounds and actually live in the woods I agree I fully understand why they are no drone policies, that doesn't exclude the fact under the right circumstance that I would love flying there.
I agree. Yup, there is a time and place for flying a drone (even if it's not 100% illegal). This was not the place and was also 100% illegal.
National Parks are not my cup of tea (though, hiking Angels Landing was worth it.. why that place is open to the general public I'll never know). Personally, I think the NPS does a very good job.
Perhaps allowing flights in certain areas at certain times in national parks would keep drones away from busy cities and people and allow people to get the shots they so desire. Parks could charge for a drone pass which could help pay for the areas. Just a thought.
This is why I have an Adventure bike and 4x4 fully set up and self sufficient to get as far away from people as possible 
Bro, you nailed it. 100% dead-to-rights. It's like those stupid "can't buy beer before 1pm on Sunday" laws. WTF? Who benefits from that? Who voted for that?
About two years ago, the FAA finally admitted that cell phones and wifi hotspots DO NOT cause interference to aircraft while in flight. Yet for decades, the flight attendants were militantly unforgiving to customers who didn't shut them down quick enough. Those flight attendants were brainwashed/trained/taught that having a phone on (never mind whether in airplane mode or not) would cause the flight to crash - and the reacted accordingly.
Once they admitted that there is no interference risk, the FAA tentatively allowed the airlines to devise their own implementation of how to restrict the use of these electronics. Fine.
And recently, the FAA was reviewing whether to allow people to actually use their cell phones to make phone calls WHILE IN FLIGHT. Mind you, they've already admitted that there is no SAFETY ISSUE to operating a cell phone. But, according to the FAA head at the time, they were considering banning the practice because of "the aggravation factor for passengers who don't want to listen to someone on their phone for the entire trip." I kid you not. The FAA was considering banning something, not because it's unsafe (either due to interference or distraction) but rather because it's ANNOYING. Get that?
So as @tcope is suggesting, a justifiable reason to ban drones at NPS is due to the annoyance factor.
Well, how about this... Let's ban children under 10 from flying on airplanes and visiting national parks too - because, quite frankly, they annoy me. And if we're all about making the world less annoying, heck, let's ban it all.
Finally, what to do about that large, loud, single-engine plane that is dragging a football field-sized banner advertising Geico Insurance that's constantly flying around where I happen to be? Can we ban that too? I would just love some quiet, natural setting without that loud plane shoving advertising in my face while I'm relaxing at the park.
Anyone else see the slippery slope when we start blindly accepting laws that have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with annoyance?
Troncat
Member
I totally understand airspace safety and need for those regulations, but it's almost impossible to fly in the LA area. Im currently sitting at Santa Monica beach watching a guy standing in the middle of he beach/directly behind a life guard tower, flying his Phantom low and all around people. Just waiting to see if anything will actually happen. I'm sure if I was that guy, I'd get a hefty fine...
This would be a cool idea....Maybe a lobbying group with a lot of funds could make it happen. It could be sold as free advertisement for the NP. Some a-hole would end up flouting the rules and ruining it for everyone eventually tho....
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
3 Discovering The Charm Of Gili Air before we sail off-grid
- Started by Vernon
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Air 3 Gandia ( Spain ) RH Hotel Study and Gandia Beach
- Started by Pacefast
- Replies: 0
-
Forum statistics
