Another great reason drones should be kept out of America's National Parks

[Marko9219]

Not the only reason just one of MANY.
FPV drone pilot burns two acres after crashing his quadcopter!

 

[macoman]

How many percentage of people own drones in the entire country? It's probably less than 1% out of 400 million people. Compare that to the amount of people visiting the national parks everyday. How drones can be a threat?

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Campfires, cigarettes, vehicles of all sorts, and lightning, are all a much greater threat, and ongoing.

Thousands of manned aircraft overfly NPs daily, any one of which, if crashed, could cause a fire much larger than a drone.

Besides, drones, like manned aircraft are not banned from flying over NPs, just taking off or landing there.

No, that is not a good reason for their ban. In fact there are NO good reasons for their ban, other than someone might be annoyed hearing one.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

The dog is more of a nuisance in the situation than the drone. Unleashed dogs are more of a threat.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

And what are the MANY other reasons?

 

[macoman]

In fact there are NO good reasons for their ban, other than someone might be annoyed hearing one.

The only reason that make sense will be because the noise can bother endangered species that live in the national parks.

 

[Marko9219]

How many percentage of people own drones in the entire country? It's probably less than 1% out of 400 million people. Compare that to the amount of people visiting the national parks everyday. How drones can be a threat?

Read the article. That's how drones are a threat. How many drones had flown over that particular dry spot before? But, this day it happened. Also, I'm not interested in what percentage owns drones. That number is growing exponentially every year and not in just the high end photography drones. The $40 mall specials will be under every Christmas tree every year and how many 12 year olds would be flying those pieces of crap around our National Parks if they could? Exactly

 

[Mr. Salty]

I predict this thread will contain the exact same arguments, repeated over and over again, as the last five threads on drones in national parks, and no one will yield an inch.

 

[Marko9219]

The only reason that make sense will be because the noise can bother endangered species that live in the national parks.

You mean exuding the instance of someone dropping their DJI into Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone?? That wasn't good enough for you? It certainly was good enough for the Park Service

 

[Marko9219]

I predict this thread will contain the exact same arguments, repeated over and over again, as the last five threads on drones in national parks, and no one will yield an inch.

Well luckily, the Park Service isn't about to yield either.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

Read the article. That's how drones are a threat. How many drones had flown over that particular dry spot before But this day it happened. Also, I'm not interested in what percentage owns drones. That number is growing exponentially every year and not in just the high end photography drones. The $40 mall specials will be under every Christmas tree every year and how many 12 year Olds would be flying those pieces of crap around our National Parks if they could? Exactly

You kinda sound like the crazy that confronts someone flying because they don't like drones.

There is no mention of national parks in the article you linked. Did you just decide that a fire anywhere was a good reason to trot out the national park card? I don't get it. What's your agenda?

 

[Thwyllo]

Not the only reason just one of MANY.
FPV drone pilot burns two acres after crashing his quadcopter!

What a complete crock. He acted responsibly and if this is about anything, it's about stupid, irresponsible dog owners.

1/10 for effort. Must try harder

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I wish people would just be honest and admit that they just don’t want them around in that environment, and stop with the nonsenses “reasons” for banning them.

Like everything else, you think long enough and you can think of many “reasons” for banning something you dislike.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

And what are the MANY other reasons?

Must be a lot of reasons. The list is taking forever to type.

 

[Marko9219]

You kinda sound like the crazy that confronts someone flying because they don't like drones.

There is no mention of national parks in the article you linked. Did you just decide that a fire anywhere was a good reason to trot out the national park card? I don't get it. What's your agenda?

My "Agenda"? Just last night, while flying my Mavic in the dark, my neighbor and I were having the discussion of where they are legal and not. Nothing contentious, just 2 guys chatting. I told him about the NP ban and he asked "why?"
I told him of some case histories that led to the decision. He agreed with the decision. Then this today in my news feed. So, I'm pointing out an actual incident that backs up my agreement with the NPS decision.By the way, it's called an "opinion" not an "agenda" It's funny how it becomes an "agenda" when someone doesn't like what you're saying. Too funny.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Well luckily, the Park Service isn't about to yield either.

Won’t matter much longer. With the capabilities and range of the coming generations of UAVs, their ban will become meaningless. That is unless they can convince FAA to TFR the airspace. That wouldn’t surprise me either because many won’t be happy until the government has complete and utter control over every aspect of anything that offends them.

 

[dewster]

I think more people start fires flicking cigarettes out of car windows. It’s just like more people drown vs. being eaten by a shark.

I’ve experienced a fire after a crash. Luckily for me it happened after a rain storm so the ground was wet.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

My "Agenda"? Just last night, while flying my Mavic in the dark, my neighbor and I were having the discussion of where they are legal and not. Nothing contentious, just 2 guys chatting. I told him about the NP ban and he asked "why?"
I told him of some case histories that led to the decision. He agreed with the decision. Then this today in my news feed. So, I'm pointing out an actual incident that backs up my agreement with the NPS decision.By the way, it's called an "opinion" not an "agenda" It's funny how it becomes an "agenda" when someone doesn't like what you're saying. Too funny.

Flying in the dark? Obviously you're not a Part 107 holder.

Again the story you linked had nothing to do with national parks.
I have no issue with you having an opinion. I'm just not a fan of the folks who use evidence not related to their opinion to support it. The article has nothing to do with national parks.

And please please share the other MANY reasons drone should be banned from parks.

 

[Marko9219]

I think more people start fires flicking cigarettes out of car windows. It’s just like more people drown vs. being eaten by a shark.

I’ve experienced a fire after a crash. Luckily for me it happened after a rain storm so the ground was wet.

Huh? More people have always died by handguns than bazookas too so shall we legalize bazooka. That defense NEVER holds water.

 

[Thwyllo]

Huh? More people have always died by handguns than bazookas too so shall we legalize bazooka. That defense NEVER holds water.

That's probably the most ridiculous argument I've heard on this entire forum and there have been some doozies.