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

[Jkagapo]

If a drone crash in the NF, it won’t cause a fire, unless you started the fire,then you will say, banned the drone flying into NF.

 

[GeorgeMavic]

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.

One rule that comes to mind is that you should not fly in the dark, another is to keep tje drone in sight, difficult to do in the dark.
The many suffer for the few.

 

[lmel2005]

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.

I never said that all problems are equal.
I said that if noise is a problem in some area, motors are a problem, people are a problem, cellphones are a problem, and of course low flying drones are a problem.
I never said that they are making the same noise, or the volume of the noise is the same.
But if we want some place to be quiet, we must ban every noisy factor.

So, if noise is a problem in parks, we should regulate all noisy factors, and not only one.

Machines using thermal engines, are way more hazardous for the environment, than drones. And they are more dangerous for human life too. If they are allowed in the parks, or in some areas of the park, drones should be allowed too (not necessarily in the same areas), as they are more environment and human friendly.

Also, i wonder once more, how is it possible, some drone user, to find his drone noisy and hazardous for wildlife and people in the parks, and at the same time to fly his drone in forests, over beaches, over whales, over rivers and lakes, in the mountains, and over his neighbourhood.

I would like to make clear, that all these are questions to be answered by rule-makers, and only subject of discussion between us.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

Sorry forum software is so hard for you.

No one is talking about your big loud helicopter and you know it.

 

[OldBlueHeron]

I’m ok with not flying over NP, there is enough stuff to fly over without breaking the rules. Also, having visited a few over the last summer, I really don’t need photos of hundreds and thousands of people walking around some nature. They do enough to remove any of the serenity, I don’t need to add to that.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

The title of the thread spells it out pretty well, I think.

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

Besides those aren't flying cameras and I suspect most of us who would want to fly over any park, would want to do so for the purpose of filming and getting a perspective unavailable from the ground.

 

[demme]

Wow this thread... got no words for you op.

 

[YsniperY]

Nope not 107. No need for me. OK, here's reasons that work for me: Fire risk. Nuisance noise.Safety around crowds. Wildlife disruption. Wildlife harassment Environmental concerns. Resource usage. Law enforcement costs. Trying to figure out how to retrieve drones from a small lake full of boiling water. Shall I continue

Well the idiotic drone operators shouldn’t be flying them at all. Those of us that are responsible and have thousand dollar drones that use them for photography should be exempt. Maybe there needs to be advocation for a “this drone pilot” certificate can fly in these areas.

 

[YsniperY]

Drones causing damage to the park itself
Tens of drones buzzing around people attempting to enjoy nature
People causing injury to another person while in the National Park
Drones harassing wildlife

That’s just silly. A drone isn’t following around some person at ear level. Screaming kids and airplanes flying over make more noise. Most drones have a sound frequency that isn’t annoying to most sane people or animals.

 

[YsniperY]

I don't think this is a difficult problem to resolve. The National Parks can designate an area for a limited amount of drone flyers, who will buy a permit (helping with NP expenses.) This areas will be a distance from heavy tourist areas. The times this is allowed can also be limited.

Dead Horse Point State Park in Utah has a very similar policy which works quite well. Quoting from their web page:

Between November 1st and February 28th/29th of each year, drone use is permitted by permit only. Permits cost $10 and must be filled out at the visitor center (open daily 9am-5pm) before operating.

Permits are valid for one calendar day from 9am of the date of purchase until 9am of the date after. Additional permits must be acquired for more days.

Permitted operators must follow special regulations to respect the traditional visitor experience of Dead Horse Point State Park and protect sensitive wildlife resources. These regulations are:

The unmanned aircraft:
will not fly higher than 400 feet
must be kept in eyesight at all times
will not fly over people and vehicles (moving or parked) and remain a minimum of 25 feet from individuals and property
will not intentionally disturb or harass wildlife
will not be flown over park buildings or structures
will not be flown in high winds or adverse weather conditions
will not interfere with park rescue operations or programs
will not fly below the canyon rim
Park staff has the authority to enforce regulations and check permits at any time and violations of the rules can result in a revocation of permit privileges.

NOTE: Because of the high use by visitors and concentration of structures, drone operation at the main viewpoint of Dead Horse Point is illegal. Operators must hike at least a short distance and get away from the developed rim to comply with regulations.

Quite an intelligent policy. Tourists are kept away from the drones, and the noise. Drone operators get to take some pictures of the scenery. The park makes some money, because they will have some expense administering this.

I doubt drone flyers are any worse than pet owners, campers leaving litter and starting fires, etc etc. I think there's something rather nice about drone flyers being able to capture the wonder of our national parks from perspectives not usually seen. I could envision a program where the National Parks get to share the best videos to run in the Visitors Center.

As I say, this isn't all that complicated, and everyone would benefit. My $.02

Hmmmmmm, this seems to be about the only post on here that helps come up with a solution instead of just arguing back and forth which has never solved anything in the history of the planet. Maybe you should submit this to the FAA I’m sure you would have a lot of backers.

 

[tcope]

That’s just silly. A drone isn’t following around some person at ear level. Screaming kids and airplanes flying over make more noise. Most drones have a sound frequency that isn’t annoying to most sane people or animals.

As I mentioned in prior posts... people have different priority then drones. The NPS is charged with maintain the park for the use of _people_. So the ban on kids is not an option. As far as planes, the NPS does not have any authority over planes. This is up to the FAA.

The noise from a drone is not annoying? Odd... because DJI even sells props that make DJI products more quite. Bottom line... drone noise _is_ annoying. Even drone fliers agree. Every fly a drone directly over a horse? Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[beachcombing]

Well the idiotic drone operators shouldn’t be flying them at all. Those of us that are responsible and have thousand dollar drones that use them for photography should be exempt. Maybe there needs to be advocation for a “this drone pilot” certificate can fly in these areas.

Please refrain from name-calling in posts on the forum.

 

[YsniperY]

Drones have no place in a National Park as people want to enjoy nature. In addition, drones can impact wildlife. Surprising that some disagree.

Have you ever flown a drone that has an amazing video camera on it and used it to see and enjoy stuff you would never be able to see other wise? I highly doubt it or you wouldn’t feel this way. Go out with someone that has a high quality one and fly it and experience it. You will change your mind.

 

[pftarch]

My problem isn't that we should be able to fly ANYWHERE at ANYTIME with ANYTHING in a National Park. I Understand that there should be SOME restrictions.

My problem is with the blanket ban. I have an issue with an extensive overreach of authority by the National Park Service.

In 2014, one decision, by one unelected official, the director of the National Park Service, banned ALL drone flights in ALL National Parks.

At first glance, one can understand this to a degree. 300 drones buzzing around Old Faithful in Yellowstone would be distracting and dangerous. However most of our National Park Land is NOT Old Faithful. In fact, almost 3 percent of the ENTIRE United States is a National Park. One can not fly a drone over the ENTIRE Cape Cod National Sea Shore, MOST of the San Francisco Bay area, ANYWHERE on the Appalachian Trail which is over 2000 miles long, etc. Many of the areas that ban my 2 pound drone allow the following:

Helicopters
Airplanes
Snowmobiles
Portable Radios
Cameras
Bonfires
Dune Buggies/ATV's
Etc.

It is ironic that at the Cape Hatteras light house within 30' of the "NO DRONES" sign is a map showing where you can drive your off road vehicle. Is it asking too much to let me fly my drone where you can take your SUV/ATV/Snowmobile, etc? So my Mavic (which you can’t hear when I have it up 300' in the air) makes too much noise, but a snowmobile is quiet enough? My Mavic crashing into a park is an environmental travesty, but a private plane full of fuel crashing is an acceptable risk?

This total ban was a “temporary” measure. That was FOUR YEARS ago and yet the ban still stays in place.

What is to stop the National Park Director’s concern for the pristine and safe nature of our parks from banning any of the following throughout all Nation Parks:

Helicopters
Planes
Jets
Snowmobiles
Cars
Radios or music playing devices of any type
Cameras of any type
Off road vehicles of any type
People over 275 lbs in weight
Bright colored clothing as defined by the Park Service
Loud talking as defined by the Park Service
Unattractive people as defined by the Park Service


Common sense rule are reasonable. A (what now appears to be) permanent outright ban on 3 percent of the United States is not.

 

[PandaCheese]

In my view there's no reason small UAVs can't share the airspace over national parks or any public space with reasonable rules in place. Blanket ban is just the easy way out.

I once read this blog that I wish I could find again from a professional helicopter pilot who began to fly a DJI drone as a hobby. She observed the irony that she was banned from flying a tiny drone that no one would even notice over a NP while no rule prevents her from taking a helicopter there, noticeable from a much higher altitude, other than the basic flight plan filing perhaps.

In the US especially, just look at how we worship gun ownership. Sure we have a sky high shooting death rate but you are still allowed to carry or concealed carry into a lot of places, and people are managing not to kill each other more often than not. The hypocrisy of only respecting freedoms that matter to some is just too much.

 

[tcope]

I once read this blog that I wish I could find again from a professional helicopter pilot who began to fly a DJI drone as a hobby. She observed the irony that she was banned from flying a tiny drone that no one would even notice over a NP while no rule prevents her from taking a helicopter there, noticeable from a much higher altitude, other than the basic flight plan filing perhaps.

It seems that the pilot does not understand how national airspace works.

The NPS has no authority over the airspace above the park. Again, it appears that the pilot you mention does not understand this. So they cannot make any ruling on what happens in the airspace above the park.

In the US especially, just look at how we worship gun ownership. Sure we have a sky high shooting death rate but you are still allowed to carry or concealed carry into a lot of places, and people are managing not to kill each other more often than not. The hypocrisy of only respecting freedoms that matter to some is just too much.

Gun ownership in the US is governed by the US Constitution.... last time I looked, drone use was not. So comparing the two is way off base. Not even close.

 

[tcope]

Have you ever flown a drone that has an amazing video camera on it and used it to see and enjoy stuff you would never be able to see other wise? I highly doubt it or you wouldn’t feel this way. Go out with someone that has a high quality one and fly it and experience it. You will change your mind.

Within a National Park I (and everyone) can see _everything_ a drone can see. The only difference is the perspective. Drones are not needed in order to enjoy all the beauty of National Parks.

I'm not against the NPS reviewing the entire ban but I don't see it happening as drone use and abuse is only increasing.

 

[Air Beetle]

Panda, that is the most idiotic thing I've read in a long time. What is a sky high death rate to you? Other than criminals killing other criminals, the gun death rate is very low. The gun free zones you invented are the worst areas for violence. I carry concealed EVERYWHERE and will protect you if the need arises. You're welcome.

You should read this: On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman to understand.

Your hypocrisy is laughable! I will bet $1 million that you are also a person who respects freedoms that matter to you. Lets try this - do you drink alcohol? do you smoke tobacco? do you drive a car? are you overweight?

Alcohol, cigarettes, cars, and junk food all kill millions more per year than guns. (11,000 gun homocide deaths vs 1.3 million auto deaths and 435,000 smoking and 111,000 die from being overweight) Yes, its millions more. So, you are 10 times more likely to die from being fat than being shot! Get a grip on the facts before you talk about scary guns.

As far as the "allowed public use" of a public space, its a rigged system. Bicycles, humans, and horses can use most trails but not dirt bikes. Why not? If its all about the noise then why are we allow to speak in a nat park? It is all complete bs from the tree huggers as they drive their prius with bikes on the roof to ride in a nat park and ruin it. If they like to ride bikes, what's wrong with their neighborhood? I moved to Nevada from California recently because your type has ruined MY state. I am a native born Californian and my rights are gone. Let's assign some of the hours for drone flights and some for quiet walking in the nat parks. Let EVERYONE use the space.

 

[sar104]

In my view there's no reason small UAVs can't share the airspace over national parks or any public space with reasonable rules in place. Blanket ban is just the easy way out.

I once read this blog that I wish I could find again from a professional helicopter pilot who began to fly a DJI drone as a hobby. She observed the irony that she was banned from flying a tiny drone that no one would even notice over a NP while no rule prevents her from taking a helicopter there, noticeable from a much higher altitude, other than the basic flight plan filing perhaps.

A small correction here - the rules for drones are exactly the same as the rules for helicopters or any other aircraft - you can fly over the park but you cannot takeoff or land (except in a flight emergency) without NPS permission.

 

[PandaCheese]

It seems that the pilot does not understand how national airspace works.

The NPS has no authority over the airspace above the park. Again, it appears that the pilot you mention does not understand this. So they cannot make any ruling on what happens in the airspace above the park.

Gun ownership in the US is governed by the US Constitution.... last time I looked, drone use was not. So comparing the two is way off base. Not even close.

I feel that given the size of NPs and the limited range of most UAVs banning takeoff/landing effectively prevent overflights. Bigger aircraft certainly don't have that problem, but their noises are a lot more noticeable. My comparison to guns is that even for something inherently dangerous we are allowing it with rules.