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

[Flynz]

In our country you require a permit to fly over a National Park or Conservation land as we call it. They like to have a chat before you apply. Some ares are identified as suggested drone sites. Others not. I thinks it about staying away from the popular tourist sites and sensitive wild life like beach nesting birds. But drone photograph Lyons recognized so long as it’s not a hazard.
The fire sounds like a rear event.

 

[beachcombing]

YES INDEED! There is a "NO FLY ZONE" from the FAA over every National State Park. That mean that it is "ILLEGAL" or "AGAINST THE LAW" to fly in "any" FAA NO FLY ZONE.

All of the latest sUAS that are manufactured by DJI has built into the computer core, an electronic Geo-Fencing that does not allow the sUAS motors to even start up if the sUAS in located inside perimeter of an FAA NO FLY ZONE! Please realize that this Geo-Fencing system tracks every moment of every flight of every drone that DJI manufactures. Fly safely and fly legally.......

Actually, no.

There is an National Park Service policy that prohibits landing and launching drones from NPS property.

NPS has no authorization to control the airspace over those properties. That is spelled out in the policy memo.

The FAA has not created a NFZ over National Park Service properties.

 

[ac0j]

I'm very happy that my right to take pictures do not depend on whether they might be of interest to you. I must also inform you that as a very active photography hobbyist, have taken tens of thousands of pictures all over the world. Photography is a very personal love of mine. Quite a few of my photos are better than any I could have bought in the form of postcards and photo books, etc. There is a tremendous difference between purchased photos and ones you took yourself. Reasonable accommodations, such as permits could be instituted and do away with total bans which are among the most unreasonable of regulations.

You will always have the right to take pictures. You can fill thousands of boxes with your photos, you can fill every room in your house with boxes of pictures. That will most likely end up in a land fill at your passing. I am not trying to be mean here, I have seen it happen with a lot of "prize collections". I understand that this photography is important to YOU, but that changes nothing. Peace and tranquility is important to people too. Flying a noisy TOY with a cell phone quality camera on it does not earn you any special privileges based on Photography. Use your SLR to you hearts content.
Just because you cant fly your toy in parks, doesn't mean you cant take your camera.

 

[lmel2005]

You will always have the right to take pictures. You can fill thousands of boxes with your photos, you can fill every room in your house with boxes of pictures. That will most likely end up in a land fill at your passing. I am not trying to be mean here, I have seen it happen with a lot of "prize collections". I understand that this photography is important to YOU, but that changes nothing. Peace and tranquility is important to people too. Flying a noisy TOY with a cell phone quality camera on it does not earn you any special privileges based on Photography. Use your SLR to you hearts content.
Just because you cant fly your toy in parks, doesn't mean you cant take your camera.

I can't hear a Mavic flying high, but I can hear very clearly 100 SLRs clicking all together, at the same time.
Also, the noise produced by decades or hundreds of people in an area, is very loud and annoying.

Everyone is bothered by something else. And everyone wants to ban what bothers him.

It would be logical for NP's authorities, if they banned every piece of technology, even all the people from certain places.

But it's not logical to ban drones, and let cellphones (for example) ringing all over the park.

 

[sar104]

I can't hear a Mavic flying high, but I can hear very clearly 100 SLRs clicking all together, at the same time.
Also, the noise produced by decades or hundreds of people in an area, is very loud and annoying.

Everyone is bothered by something else. And everyone wants to ban what bothers him.

It would be logical for NP's authorities, if they banned every piece of technology, even people from certain places.

But it's not logical to ban drones, and let cellphones (for example) ringing all over the park.

But that's cherry picking. No one is going to be bothered by one or two Mavics flying high. How about a Mavic flying low? How about multiple Mavics buzzing around one of the popular park locations. Imagine if just one in every 50 (for the sake of argument) visitors wanted to fly their aerial camera to get great photos and selfies. How many drones might be in the air at any given time at a tourist hot-spot? At which point it isn't just the noise - it's also the danger of many low-flying aircraft over crowds.

 

[ted35]

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

You're right! One data point determines a trend. Based on that approach we should also ban cars (because of a rollover accident that started a large wildfire in southern Utah). Also cigarettes, lighters, etc...and most of all...people! <sarc>

 

[JDawg]

When they ban snowmobiles from NP's I will understand banning drones, maybe. I used to snowmobile with a group of friends a couple times each year and I finally had to stop, I felt guilty every time we came upon a group of snowshoer's or country skiier's, it just felt so invasive.
Maybe at some point they have a launch area for drones and they have to fly at an altitude that can't be heard from the ground.

 

[lmel2005]

But that's cherry picking. No one is going to be bothered by one or two Mavics flying high. How about a Mavic flying low? How about multiple Mavics buzzing around one of the popular park locations. Imagine if just one in every 50 (for the sake of argument) visitors wanted to fly their aerial camera to get great photos and selfies. How many drones might be in the air at any given time at a tourist hot-spot? At which point it isn't just the noise - it's also the danger of many low-flying aircraft over crowds.

I think flying over crowds is not legal, regardless flying inside or outside a NP.

It's not cherry picking, but it was an example. And i tried to make my thoughts clear.

Low flight of one or more Mavics? If they aren't flying over somebody, then who is bothered? If there are many of them flying low, who's bothered?

If you (or me) think they are noisy enough, the same should be the SLRs, cellphones, the planes and helicopters, the motorcycles, and the crowds of people.

And that is my point. If someone wants to protect nature and wildlife, and banned technology, it could be logical. Banning drones only, and leaving all other disturbing stuff free, is a little "cherry picking", and suspicious too.

 

[sar104]

I think flying over crowds is not legal, regardless flying inside or outside a NP.

There is no specific law in the US preventing hobby flights over crowds.

It's not cherry picking, but it was an example. And i tried to make my thoughts clear.

Low flight of one or more Mavics? If they aren't flying over somebody, then who is bothered? If there are many of them flying low, who's bothered?

You see no problem with the scenario of lots of low flying drones at one of the popular tourist locations? In that case I doubt that you will ever understand the concerns of the NPS.

If you (or me) think they are noisy enough, the same should be the SLRs, cellphones, the planes and helicopters, the motorcycles, and the crowds of people.

Are you seriously suggesting that SLRs and cellphones are as intrusive or potentially hazardous as multiple low-flying drones? Motor vehicles are restricted to roads, so those are somewhat controlled already. Sightseeing aircraft are something of a blight on many locations, no argument there, but at least operated by qualified pilots in certified aircraft flying regulated routes, and not a significant safety hazard to other tourists.

And that is my point. If someone wants to protect nature and wildlife, and banned technology, it could be logical. Banning drones only, and leaving all other disturbing stuff free, is a little "cherry picking", and suspicious too.

Well they can't really ban people, since that would defeat one of the main purposes of National Parks. They can't ban motorcycles because those are legal on public highways. They are not going to ban cell phones and cameras because they don't present a significant noise or safety hazard. They do ban other activities perceived to be antisocial or hazardous, so drones are not the only target of restrictions.

 

[Guy Driver]

What Mr. Salty said times a bajillion

 

[lmel2005]

There is no specific law in the US preventing hobby flights over crowds.



You see no problem with the scenario of lots of low flying drones at one of the popular tourist locations? In that case I doubt that you will ever understand the concerns of the NPS.



Are you seriously suggesting that SLRs and cellphones are as intrusive or potentially hazardous as multiple low-flying drones? Motor vehicles are restricted to roads, so those are somewhat controlled already. Sightseeing aircraft are something of a blight on many locations, no argument there, but at least operated by qualified pilots in certified aircraft flying regulated routes, and not a significant safety hazard to other tourists.



Well they can't really ban people, since that would defeat one of the main purposes of National Parks. They can't ban motorcycles because those are legal on public highways. They are not going to ban cell phones and cameras because they don't present a significant noise or safety hazard. They do ban other activities perceived to be antisocial or hazardous, so drones are not the only target of restrictions.

If in us, flying over crowds is not illegal, it seems that people don't bother.
If they ban drones flying above people, they must do it regardless of flying in NP airspace, or outside it. What's the difference between crowd in a park, and crowd on a beach?

Of course I see a problem in the "lots of low-flying drones" scenario, but I see problems too, in "lots of ringing cellphones", "lots of people speaking loudly", and "lots of planes and helicopters flying around", and some more noisy factors I mentioned or not.

If drones are antisocial and hazardous, they should be banned from every place on earth, not only parks. I see no difference of a drone disturbing wildlife in a park, or in a forest, or even in a desert.

But I don't think drones are a threat for humanity or the planet. With simple rules, as for every invention, we can afford them, as we afford all other machines, and as we afford all other people around us.

 

[sar104]

If in us, flying over crowds is not illegal, it seems that people don't bother.
If they ban drones flying above people, they must do it regardless of flying in NP airspace, or outside it. What's the difference between crowd in a park, and crowd on a beach?

Of course I see a problem in the "lots of low-flying drones" scenario, but I see problems too, in "lots of ringing cellphones", "lots of people speaking loudly", and "lots of planes and helicopters flying around", and some more noisy factors I mentioned or not.

If drones are antisocial and hazardous, they should be banned from every place on earth, not only parks. I see no difference of a drone disturbing wildlife in a park, or in a forest, or even in a desert.

But I don't think drones are a threat for humanity or the planet. With simple rules, as for every invention, we can afford them, as we afford all other machines, and as we afford all other people around us.

Congress prevented the FAA from regulating hobby flight. Flying over people is only called out as prohibited under Part 107, not Part 101, which most people haven't even heard of anyway.

The fact that you continue to insist on equating the problem of cell phone ring tones with the nuisance and danger of low flying drones makes it difficult to advance this discussion.

Drones are not universally antisocial and hazardous, but they are in some situations. Large numbers of people (crowds) at locations that are incredibly tempting to use drones is one such situation.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

Whose then, yours?
They are after all public parks.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

Kind of amazing that you can hug the tree so tightly and still type all that.

Nature by it's very definition is the entire planet. I appreciate your point and perspective, but to suggest that you, merely by nature of your opinion, would be a better steward than anyone else is a trifle presumptuous.

I won't pick apart every sentence because I'm about to go fly over some nature, but I'll comment on one.

You want to hike it, fine. Want an aerial shot, toss your camera or phone on the air.
Don't like it, tuff. This is nature's turf.

People and all of their baggage, habits, flaws etc on the ground in your nature is just fine, but flying over and taking a photo from 100' plus (because most of the trees in NP are freaking tall), while touching nothing is a problem? What?

I am amused by people who have more of a love for undisturbed nature (no such thing) than other people. Only because the beauty of a thing is only remarkable if someone sees it and comments on it. If there were no people exploring, observing, photographing (and sometimes plowing, paving and cutting) how would anyone else be able to appreciate it?

If the NPS hadn't been established BY PEOPLE who did all the things I just mentioned, you'd just be hugging that tree and not communicating your love for it. See the contradiction?

 

[Robert Mitchell]

And yes, since my opinion, or any others opinion that takes the National Parks and the reasons it was established in the first place first and foremost, would indeed be a grand candidate as a steward.

I've already stated in previous posts, hey I'd love to fly a NP. At first I was for it, after reasoningr i chose not to.
Not because of the law, rule or reg. Because that's not what the Parks were designated for.

They didn't set aside these small treks of land for snowmobiles or dirt bikes to run through. They didn't set them aside for oil and gas to start drilling in. Or loggers to deforest. Or planes and choppers to run tourist through. Or for tourist to fly RC craft through.

If you don't get that then what do think they created the NPs for?

Because I chose to stick to the parks initial intended purpose and design. Doesn't make me not like technology. Even if I were a hard core tree hugger that's way off track thinking.

Working with nature doesn't mean lack of development. Of anything.

You do know how little forests are left in the USA don't you?

Here's how it looks past to present:

In reality, as you can clearly see, "the people/public" don't have that many trees left to hug.

So yeah, I'd kick everyone out of the NPs that doesn't have the parks interest in mind.

Just because some parks are allowing snowmobiles in doesn't make it right for snowmobiles to be there. That's a for profit interest not a preserve the park interest.

It doesn't matter whether or not your bird is 100 get in the air, runs perfectly silent, or has a hyper alloy combat chassis air frame undetectable by only the most eagle of eyes.

It doesn't follow the parks intended use.

I could see park rangers flying them for various reasons... But not tourist.

Don't miss construe my point. Just because other things are allowed now doesn't mean they should've been allowed. I'll bet some came about as payoff to the people so they wouldn't raise heck about other goings on.

One of those government slight of hand gestures. We'll give you this, cause like it or not we're doing that.
I've seen it dozens of times.

Oh did you want to party? Goodie. We'll look the other way, party it up.
Don't mind us, we're passing a law to put an oil rig in your back yard.

Which btw, drilling for oil is an antiqued technology and methodology.[/QUOTE]
Given the variety of activities allowed in NPs, I think it would be somewhat arrogant to define the "parks intended use" for the rest of us.

Edit: I would argue, documenting pristine landscapes by whatever means available, especially one as impact friendly as a small drone, actually IS one of their intended purposes.

And BTW, it's 84 million acres, not huge compared to the entire US, but not an insignificant amount.

Now, add bans in state parks, municipal parks, military and critical infrastructure, private property and state property in states where actual permission is mandated, and the recent tendency for every state, county, and town hall to attempt either bans or regulation.

NPs are just the tip of an iceberg, whereas your hobby is concerned. You might want to begin advocating for your hobby if you want it to survive.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

So much here. You have it all figured out.

Sounds like your road trips could use a little better planning. Denver is a city, not a forest. Same with San Fran.

Love the video though. The forest from the air in 1620 was especially interesting. I'd have to label that depiction as environmentalist propaganda just due to the fact that there was no aerial photography then and I think anyone would be hard repressed to find documented tree remove stats anywhere. But hey if it's the internet, it must be true.

Intended use. Nice concept. Virtually everything morphs from it's original intended use. I guess the roads in Yellowstone that allow access to the park really get your goat. Going to the Sun Road in Glacier probably makes your blood boil. Do you get excited when you see a plane or a helicopter fly over a national park too?

Maybe you should just buy a nice plot of forest land and not allow anyone but you to enjoy it. Sounds kinda like that's your goal.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

You go for it. I'm fine with flying over the existing stuff. Within the law of course.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Love the video though. The forest from the air in 1620 was especially interesting. I'd have to label that depiction as environmentalist propaganda just due to the fact that there was no aerial photography then and I think anyone would be hard repressed to find documented tree remove stats anywhere.

You have to pretty thick to think that video of the entire continental United States was claiming to be "aerial photography."

You also have to be pretty thick to not know there are maps of the United States and its natural resources going back to the earliest European settlements here and how the land has changed over the centuries.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

You have to pretty thick to think that video of the entire continental United States was claiming to be "aerial photography."

You also have to be pretty thick to not know there are maps of the United States and its natural resources going back to the earliest European settlements here and how the land has changed over the centuries.

Careful with the personal attacks.
Are there? Those resources would be far more convincing.

 

[Jkagapo]

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.