Has anybody ever flown in a national park?

[JDawg]

Point taken.... I will heretofore include a link to an online dictionary and thesaurus with my posts to guide the “simple minded” here. (Your words)

Note: if you’re going to troll my posts, please do everyone a favor and actually read and make an effort to comprehend them before commenting. You obviously have a lot of free time on your hands given you’ve averaged nearly 10 posts a day for almost 2 years. I suggest you use some of that time and take a reading comprehension class.

And a fair amount of those posts were Sar helping people find their drones when they went down or helping them figure out what happened when something went wrong. Doesn't take that long to post (for most) so 10 really isn't that many, as if it is relevant.

 

[sar104]

And a fair amount of those posts were Sar helping people find their drones when they went down or helping them figure out what happened when something went wrong. Doesn't take that long to post (for most) so 10 really isn't that many, as if it is relevant.

He brings up a good point though - I've likely wasted quite a bit of time responding to nonsense. I need to resist the temptation.

 

[bushie]

In Australia the situation with respect to NP varies by state from no problem in Queensland to (As i understand) complete ban in South Australia
Evidently in my home state of WA you can apply for permission but i have never tried.

The other issue is the park boundary.
My understanding is the state juristriction only extends to the high water mark on the coast. Thus i can launch on the beach and fly into the park or along the coast line. I have done this. Most parks have no rangers - I have never seen one out side city parks,- and very few UAVs -also never seen another one.

Thus i have flown in NPs

 

[Robert Mitchell]

What have you done to lobby for a change? Made a formal request? Written your political representatives? Anything proactive?

Yes actually. All of the above.

 

[halifax]

I flew at Acadia NP before the ban and pulled off some remarkable footage, and once since the ban by launching outside of the boundary and flying in (aircraft was a fixed-wing Skywalker). Shortly afterward (like on the ride home), I realized that regardless of my self-justification, I was violating the spirit of the NPS rule and this could have long-term implications for all pilots. Never did it again. And as a forest ecologist, I would never violate the ban on mechanized equipment in official Wilderness Areas, even if I was 20 miles into the backcountry because no-mechanized-equipment has been the rule since the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. There is so little truly wild land around anymore that we need to protect what we have from ourselves and others.

Having worked with NPS and USFS and USFWS over the past 20 years, I respectfully suggest that the best way to get a permit would be to get an appointment with a senior park or forest manager at your chosen locale and present your case in person. You might be surprised at how good they can be if they see that you have done proper planning and deliberately aren't going to fly around people and you're avoiding flying over the nesting grounds of some rare species. Flexibility and asking for locales with the least impact shows a sensitivity that helps your case. But going to see someone in person can really make all of the difference.

 

[ems12]

Yeah, it's a calculated risk, and illegal. Period.
Just because you have gone way into the back country doesn't mean a thing in this context. It's still a park, right? There's a reason it is.
Steal a car. Murder someone. Set a fire. Those are calculated risks too. But probably not things you would so.

Yes it is illegal as is speeding, jay walking and not waiting 5 seconds to change lanes when you indicate to do so.

I think I can say that most of us do not adhere to the strict speed limits posted again it's a calculated risk you accept the consequences if caught.

I get what your saying, but to make the argument that flying a drone in the middle of BFE in a National Park because it's illegal is the same as murder and setting fires is a just a tad of a stretch. That's sarcasm by the way. It's ridiculous, and it makes your otherwise cogent argument look pretty stupid.


The simple fact of the matter is the middle of Kodiak National Park far removed from people there is no way anyone will hear you break wind let alone fly a drone. The holy than thou amongst us have there opinion as do I, I would fly a drone.

=)

 

[m0j0]

i can't believe all these posts and all these threads on "why can't i fly in a national park" and they all read the same. listen, it has nothing to do with disturbing people, it has very little to do with disturbing wildlife, it has ALL to do with the potential risk of wildfires. you people just don't understand how easy it is to start one and how hard it is to fight one.

What? Are you serious..? You think the ban is to prevent fires? Holy friggin moly. So really what we need to do is ban people because FCOL an idiot on a picnic is 1,000,000 times more likely to start a fire.

 

[m0j0]

if they ever allow drone flying in national parks it would be disastrous.

So flying a drone at White Sands over hundreds of miles of sand would be disastrous? That's rediculous. The FAA rules would be more than sufficient to allow for flight in most of these areas. There are millions of acres where flying a drone would be no problem at all. To the folks saying they will cause fires... you realize that they aren't prohibited in National Forrest's? Far more likely to be an issue in a NF. Where exactly should we be able to fly? Over the water? Nope, because people crash them into the water right.

Correct.... here is a good reason.... because the NPS is in charge of the NPs, they have the authority to ban drones and they have. That is the best reason why there is a ban.

They actually don't have the authority to ban flight.

It's not only about noise. Its about the over all enjoyment of the area.

Who determines how someone should enjoy the park?

All of these 300 drones will be concentrated near the same pullouts, on the same roads as everyone else in the park that day. What a potential noisy mess.

So why not prohibit them from the areas where there are large populations of people or... where it could cause damage to the wildlife or park. e.g. Can't fly over the geysers.. That would actually make sense.

The reasoning and justification for totally banning flights by tiny, unobtrusive UAVs, on 52.2 million acres of public land, seems absolutely ludicrous to me.

A complete ban is the problem I have. If there were restrictions I would be more receptive but a complete ban seems excessive.

 

[m0j0]

So because you’re a professional and experienced means that you’re absolved from the rules? I have a Part 107 and I’m a professional firefighter. I see on a regular basis what happens when someone is given an inch of latitude and a mile is taken.

Not a good argument in my opinion..

So then we should ban cars that travel faster than the posted limit after all people could get hurt so ban them. We should ban boats because.. we should ban drinking alcohol because..The list goes on and on and on. Give a person an inch and who knows what will happen.

 

[m0j0]

All I can say, is if I'm ever in a NP and see a drone in the air, I'm documenting it up and doing everything in my power to identify the pilot and help the Park Service bring charges. We drone pilots have a responsibility to help police our own, being as we are the ones that are losing the freedoms to fly. We drone pilots also have a better understanding of drones and how to find and identify the operator.

Oh boy. Here take this with you. Present this to the guy when you detain him.

 

[tcope]

They actually don't have the authority to ban flight.

Yes... we all know this and I never said they did.

Who determines how someone should enjoy the park?

The NPS.... I thought that was obvious. It is the main reason why the are called the National Park Service.

So why not prohibit them from the areas where there are large populations of people or... where it could cause damage to the wildlife or park. e.g. Can't fly over the geysers.. That would actually make sense.

I don't disagree completely with this statement. However, it is one thing to say it and another to implement it. Take Zion National Park. Where would you put this line? Within 3 miles of any place of interest? After all, any less would amount to no limit as people could fly their drones that far (yes, it would be illegal but see my next statement). Also, and this is _very_ important, any allowance for flight would further tax a limited ranger service. It would take them away from more important service.

 

[m0j0]

Yes... we all know this and I never said they did..

Then why do you support them controlling flights they don't have the authority to govern.

The NPS.... I thought that was obvious. It is the main reason why the are called the National Park Service.

That's not truly a complete answer. Congress enacts laws and the Director of the Parks institutes policy. Which means he has the authority to enact a policy, for example, that says no kids in the park? He won't because people might think that his policy was an over reach and possibly unlawful. Same here, I think the intent of the policy has some merit. The blanket ban is an overreach. There is absolutely no reason White Sands National Monument should have a no drone policy... They don't need it.

Take Zion National Park. Where would you put this line? Within 3 miles of any place of interest?.

Why not just set a reasonable limit. One based on real issues. Not just an arbritrary "All."

Also, and this is _very_ important, any allowance for flight would further tax a limited ranger service. It would take them away from more important service.

Not any more than they are taken away from regulating any other issues that come up in the NP. Just like they have to stop dummies from fighting, riding dune buggies where they shouldn't. Hunting where they shouldn't.. etc.

 

[Marko9219]

Oh boy. Here take this with you. Present this to the guy when you detain him.
View attachment 55498

Cute answer. Where did you come up with the "you detain him" thing by the way? I'm pretty darn sure I just said I'd document and assist them in identifying and bringing charges. Do you typically interpret things you read wrong and interject your own words into something someone has said? Interesting behavior.

 

[JDawg]

Oh boy. Here take this with you. Present this to the guy when you detain him.
View attachment 55498

And

 

[Bobby Brown]

There is plenty of room in parks for everyone! I’m hugging my pet tree as I type this. Lol

 

[Bobby Brown]

Anger issues! You need a little Zoloft.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I flew at Acadia NP before the ban and pulled off some remarkable footage, and once since the ban by launching outside of the boundary and flying in (aircraft was a fixed-wing Skywalker). Shortly afterward (like on the ride home), I realized that regardless of my self-justification, I was violating the spirit of the NPS rule and this could have long-term implications for all pilots. Never did it again. And as a forest ecologist, I would never violate the ban on mechanized equipment in official Wilderness Areas, even if I was 20 miles into the backcountry because no-mechanized-equipment has been the rule since the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. There is so little truly wild land around anymore that we need to protect what we have from ourselves and others.

Having worked with NPS and USFS and USFWS over the past 20 years, I respectfully suggest that the best way to get a permit would be to get an appointment with a senior park or forest manager at your chosen locale and present your case in person. You might be surprised at how good they can be if they see that you have done proper planning and deliberately aren't going to fly around people and you're avoiding flying over the nesting grounds of some rare species. Flexibility and asking for locales with the least impact shows a sensitivity that helps your case. But going to see someone in person can really make all of the difference.

The "spirit of the rule" isn't the point here.

Some would argue that the rule was not well thought out, knee jerk, and overly onerous and restrictive in the first place. If there is truly a legitimate safety and/or reasonable justification, then the FAA can, and often will, establish a TFR over NPS lands. They don't and they won't. The reason they haven't and the reason this airspace is still legal for any and all aircraft including drones, is that the NPS has no good reason, other than disturbing someone's personal opinion of utopia, which has already been debunked with tons of evidence from others.

I've had conversations with several NPS officials who have no interest in allowing anything, even though they generally agree with me that the ban is silly.

I simply cannot condemn someone who chooses not to beg for permission to fly over millions of acres of uninhabited land where nothing or no one would be negatively impacted.

 

[sar104]

The "spirit of the rule" isn't the point here.

Some would argue that the rule was not well thought out, knee jerk, and overly onerous and restrictive in the first place. If there is truly a legitimate safety and/or reasonable justification, then the FAA can, and often will, establish a TFR over NPS lands. They don't and they won't. The reason they haven't and the reason this airspace is still legal for any and all aircraft including drones, is that the NPS has no good reason, other than disturbing someone's personal opinion of utopia, which has already been debunked with tons of evidence from others.

I've had conversations with several NPS officials who have no interest in allowing anything, even though they generally agree with me that the ban is silly.

I simply cannot condemn someone who chooses not to beg for permission to fly over millions of acres of uninhabited land where nothing or no one would be negatively impacted.

I doubt that the NPS ever considered requesting TFRs, and that would be a misuse of the TFR mechanism anyway. TFRs are not intended for permanent restrictions. Simply prohibiting sUAS operations on NPS land achieved their goals.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I doubt that the NPS ever considered requesting TFRs, and that would be a misuse of the TFR mechanism anyway. TFRs are not intended for permanent restrictions. Simply prohibiting sUAS operations on NPS land achieved their goals.

That is essentially what I was saying. But I was referring to his comment of not violating the "spirit" of the rule by not overflying from outside the boundaries. For those who don't agree with the "Ban" that is their only solution, and I cannot find fault with them.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Simply prohibiting sUAS operations on NPS land achieved their goals.

If you accept that the rule isn't being violated by significant numbers... the evidence seems to contradict that.