DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

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

Do people still smoke?
Strange, but yes. It does seem the younger generation in the United States is picking the habit back up. I honestly don't think the risk of a fire from a drone is a higher risk than the hundreds (or thousands) of people who are smoking in a park. Camp fires are USUALLY restricted to fire pits and are monitored. The ban of drones is probably purely aesthetics. There are already rules concerning flying over groups of people, so that doesn't need additional regulation. People who are out enjoying nature don't want to hear drones buzzing around and don't want them spoiling their own photographic experiences.
 
Strange, but yes. It does seem the younger generation in the United States is picking the habit back up. I honestly don't think the risk of a fire from a drone is a higher risk than the hundreds (or thousands) of people who are smoking in a park. Camp fires are USUALLY restricted to fire pits and are monitored. The ban of drones is probably purely aesthetics. There are already rules concerning flying over groups of people, so that doesn't need additional regulation. People who are out enjoying nature don't want to hear drones buzzing around and don't want them spoiling their own photographic experiences.
I agree whole heartedly... but the younger generation really needs to hed the warnings about smoking... be safe, fly smart
 
So why not just keep this thread going some more after a couple of months of lying low. Read to the end though or you will get pissed really fast. Which for some it won't matter you will be pissed period. You just can't please everyone.

I understand why the NPS put a ban in place, but I think it was a knee jerk reaction to an emerging technology and was a rush to get something in place that wasn't tought out very well. However a ban was necessary in lieu of nothing in place at all.

Let's Ban Drones! 1) people go to parks to see scenery and wildlife, monuments, ect. and they don't want to see swarms of drones. 2) some parks have endangered species that may be affected by the noise of drones. 3) some parks have a huge concentration of people and flying in those areas could pose a real danger in the event of a failure. 4) some parks have limited sight distances so VLOS would be affected. 5) some parks are relatively small so there may not be enough safe space to set up launch and recovery sites or have alternative sites in case of emergency. 6) every person right down to that 12 year old kid with a toy would want to fly it in the park and not knowing what their experience might be presents a huge liability to the park if they let them fly. All it would take is one person getting hurt and the law suits would never end. The parks are already under funded, so all it would take is a few million dollar payouts in a law suit to really hurt the budget of a park.

So Drones would have a huge negative impact on a National Park. It could change the landscape, it could hurt the environment, it could endanger people in multiple different ways, and it could cost the taxpayers (US) huge amounts of money to keep them operating. SO what is the solution?

Let's Ban People! 1)People go to parks to see scenery, wildlife, monuments, ect. How many of you have been to Yellowstone and followed the herds of people around and sat in a traffic jam while everyone jumps out to trample grass, plants, flowers and insects trying to get a picture of a mama bear with cubs that is a half mile away on a ridge? Don't think it happens? Never seen that happen? WELL you have never been to Yellowstone or if you have, you haven't been in June! We go to parks to get away from cities with congestion and get out in nature, but when we get there what do we find, crowds of people and traffic jams. 2) All wildlife (not just endangered species) are affected by crowds of people going to parks. It changes their eating habits, it changes their migration habits, it exposes them to dangers from trash and other things that are not a part of their natural environment. What about that mama with cubs, she was just trying to have a nice day out with the kids but then she sees this crowd of cars and people encroaching on her space and it drives her away. 3) Tens of Millions of people from all over the world come to our National Parks every year. When I went to Yellowstone I (an average American) was the minority. There were more people there from China and Japan than anywhere else. BUS loads every single day at every single place that a bus could get pulled over beside the road. I went to see the painted pots one day and I swear there were more people there with cameras with telephoto lenses as long as my arm. You couldn't even walk around without worrying about blocking someone's shot of their family beside a fence. You think a swarm of drones make a lot of noise, just go stand at any overlook at Yellowstone with 50 to 75 people with cameras all snapping away at 30 frames per second constantly! I have not heard a drone yet that makes that much noise. 4) Yep some parks have limited sight distance. You can't see what you went there to see for all the people crowding in. You wait in a line, to wait in a line, to stand in that perfect spot where you can see what you went there to see. 5) Yep some parks are really small. You get a crowd of people in one of them that has all these fences around to herd people in and out and what if something bad happens. A bear walks into the immediate area, a rock falls off a cliff and starts a small land slide, a stray ember from a campfire starts a wildfire, all of which are very real problems that could cause a rush to the exit where people get trampled, injured and maybe even die. 6) every person in the park represents a liability to not only the park but to others in the park. There are germs, colds, flu, selfie sticks, people leaving food out at night in areas prone to bears presents a real danger to everyone in the park.

SO people present a real problem in the National Parks. They change the landscape, they hurt the environment, they present a danger to wildlife and other people and they cost us the taxpayers huge amounts of money every year.

But, we can't ban people, we are the reason that the parks were created and established in the first place so we can enjoy them. So we can get away from our everyday surroundings and out into nature. So we can pull out our cameras no matter how big the lens is and take pictures so we can pull them out and remember the trip once we get back home. The parks are for us, that's why they were established.

But times and technology have changed. Forget the 1.5 lb Mavic I carry with me most everywhere I go, and think about what is coming up next. Autonomous drone taxi? If you don't think so then you aren't staying up on technology. We will most likely see more wide spread autonomous flight than we will autonomous cars in the short term. Are they going to be banned from flying over parks? If that happens are they then going to go back and ban other aircraft? So what is the solution?

Compromise! 1) People go to parks to see scenery and wildlife. Why not use a drone. From 400 agl, most wildlife wouldn't hear or see a drone. I was just at a workshop and they were using an octocopter and from 200 agl and 200 yds away we couldn't hear it. So the whole noise factor is over rated. Of course we do not want swarms of drones over any of our national parks just like we don't want millions of people trying to raft through the grand canyon each year. So put some limit in place. Let the park give out a limited number of passes each day for people to fly a drone. You can limit the flight time, the location, the height and distance from other people. Have a specific site set up for launch and recovery. Most important, put rules in place that require you to fly away from people and at a set distance from wildlife. I know birds are the wild card but where you have endangered species of birds you can put absolute ban in place for specific areas where you know they are present. 2) Again where you have endangered species that could be affected, look at it a little closer rather than in general. If it is birds, sure you can't say where they may fly, but if we are talking about mountain lions and most of your park is water, then you can have a good separation. If you have endangered fish, they aren't going to hear a drone. 3) There are a lot of people in parks, but there are some parks that don't have a lot of people or are just so vast you don't see them. When I went to the Badlands we drove 50 miles and didn't see a single other person. There are places like that in other parks as well. You can't tell me that flying over people or being an interference to others enjoying the park is a problem if there is no one else around. I have walked on the Appalachian Trail for a whole day in some places and didn't see anyone else. North Carolina's Outer Banks? I go out there all the time and there are times of the year that you don't see anyone else out there in some places. Why not allow some flight in places like that. 4) Some parks do have limited site distances, but then there are others that are wide open. What about The Statue of Liberty, it is surrounded by water and you can see for a long ways. I don't need to fly right in front of the statue nor do I need to fly over land. Set us up an area where you can launch from that carries you over the water, then let us fly an orbit to get shots. And all you real pilots I have seen on here arguing that everything on the Hudson River is in controlled airspace that is BS. None of the airspace from Newark, JFK, LaGuardia or Teterboro is over the Statue. Closest is Newark and the outer edge is 1.8 miles away from the statue. There is a heliport about the same distance away, but it isn't in controlled space. 5) Some parks are relatively small that is true. But what about one day a month where you let drones fly under supervision and for limited time flights. Or how about early morning or late afternoon when the capacity of the park is low or on a few days during an off season of the park. There are ways to compromise on something. 6) Yes everyone that has a drone even the 12 yr old kid would want to fly if it was open to them, but why not some restriction. Maybe limit it to only 107 pilots. Even if you were flying for your own enjoyment, you could still require them to have a 107 certificate to do so. Or require them to be a certain age or use a certain type of drone. Kids toys might not be as safe as a Prosumer drone and may not be allowed. The biggest thing here is require the person flying to show proof of liability insurance commensurate with the flying they want to do. Just having to pay for insurance before flying will cut out 85% or better of the people who think they want to fly.

Bottom line is there are compromises that could be made. Total bans aren't the way to go, and it just incites people to try and find ways to do it that may be dangerous anyway. The more drones become commonplace the more you will see things start to open up. The genie is out of the bottle now and the government can't stuff drones back in so they are going to have to find more ways to make them inclusive. The FAA has already realized that, just look at the 2018 reauthorization to see how that is going to happen. What we need to do as commercial and recreational pilots is to help them find ways to include us by offering compromises rather than looking at it from only one perspective.

I am keeping my fingers crossed because already our State Parks folks are starting to ask how they can look at ways to integrate them into the park system. They see the value of using them for mapping, inspection, search and rescue and even advertising. It may not open them up completely to the average drone flyer but could to commercial pilots. So who knows where it all may go.
 
Last edited:
So why not just keep this thread going some more after a couple of months of lying low. Read to the end though or you will get pissed really fast. Which for some it won't matter you will be pissed period. You just can't please everyone.

I understand why the NPS put a ban in place, but I think it was a knee jerk reaction to an emerging technology and was a rush to get something in place that wasn't tought out very well. However a ban was necessary in lieu of nothing in place at all.

Let's Ban Drones! 1) people go to parks to see scenery and wildlife, monuments, ect. and they don't want to see swarms of drones. 2) some parks have endangered species that may be affected by the noise of drones. 3) some parks have a huge concentration of people and flying in those areas could pose a real danger in the event of a failure. 4) some parks have limited sight distances so VLOS would be affected. 5) some parks are relatively small so there may not be enough safe space to set up launch and recovery sites or have alternative sites in case of emergency. 6) every person right down to that 12 year old kid with a toy would want to fly it in the park and not knowing what their experience might be presents a huge liability to the park if they let them fly. All it would take is one person getting hurt and the law suits would never end. The parks are already under funded, so all it would take is a few million dollar payouts in a law suit to really hurt the budget of a park.

So Drones would have a huge negative impact on a National Park. It could change the landscape, it could hurt the environment, it could endanger people in multiple different ways, and it could cost the taxpayers (US) huge amounts of money to keep them operating. SO what is the solution?

Let's Ban People! 1)People go to parks to see scenery, wildlife, monuments, ect. How many of you have been to Yellowstone and followed the herds of people around and sat in a traffic jam while everyone jumps out to trample grass, plants, flowers and insects trying to get a picture of a mama bear with cubs that is a half mile away on a ridge? Don't think it happens? Never seen that happen? WELL you have never been to Yellowstone or if you have, you haven't been in June! We go to parks to get away from cities with congestion and get out in nature, but when we get there what do we find, crowds of people and traffic jams. 2) All wildlife (not just endangered species) are affected by crowds of people going to parks. It changes their eating habits, it changes their migration habits, it exposes them to dangers from trash and other things that are not a part of their natural environment. What about that mama with cubs, she was just trying to have a nice day out with the kids but then she sees this crowd of cars and people encroaching on her space and it drives her away. 3) Tens of Millions of people from all over the world come to our National Parks every year. When I went to Yellowstone I (an average American) was the minority. There were more people there from China and Japan than anywhere else. BUS loads every single day at every single place that a bus could get pulled over beside the road. I went to see the painted pots one day and I swear there were more people there with cameras with telephoto lenses as long as my arm. You couldn't even walk around without worrying about blocking someone's shot of their family beside a fence. You think a swarm of drones make a lot of noise, just go stand at any overlook at Yellowstone with 50 to 75 people with cameras all snapping away at 30 frames per second constantly! I have not hear a drone yet that makes that much noise. 4) Yep some parks have limited sight distance. You can't see what you went there to see for all the people crowding in. You wait in a line, to wait in a line, to stand in that perfect spot where you can see what you went there to see. 5) Yep some parks are really small. You get a crowd of people in one of them that has all these fences around to herd people in and out and what if something bad happens. A bear walks into the immediate area, a rock falls off a cliff and starts a small land slide, a stray ember from a campfire starts a wildfire, all of which are very real problems that could cause a rush to the exit where people get trampled, injured and maybe even die. 6) every person in the park represents a liability to not only the park but to others in the park. There are germs, colds, flu, selfie sticks, people leaving food out at night in areas prone to bears presents a real danger to everyone in the park.

SO people present a real problem in the National Parks. The change the landscape, they hurt the environment, they present a danger to wildlife and other people and they cost us the taxpayers huge amounts of money every year.

But, we can't ban people, we are the reason that the parks were created in the first place so we can enjoy them. So we can get away from our everyday surroundings and out into nature. So we can pull out our cameras no matter how big the lens is and take pictures so we can pull them out and remember the trip once we get back home. The parks are for us, that's why they were built.

But times and technology have changed. Forget the 1.5 lb Mavic I carry with me most everywhere I go, and think about what is coming up next. Autonomous drone taxi? If you don't think so then you aren't staying up on technology. We will most likely see more wide spread autonomous flight than we will autonomous cars in the short term. Are they going to be banned from flying over parks? If that happens are they then going to go back and ban other aircraft? So what is the solution?

Compromise! 1) People go to parks to see scenery and wildlife. Why not use a drone. From 400 agl, most wildlife wouldn't hear or see a drone. I was just at a workshop and they were using an octocopter and from 200 agl and 200 yds away we couldn't hear it. So the whole noise factor is over rated. Of course we do not want swarms of drones over any of our national parks just like we don't want millions of people trying to raft through the grand canyon each year. So put some limit in place. Let the park give out a limited number of passes each day for people to fly a drone. You can limit the flight time, the location, the height and distance from other people. Have a specific site set up for launch and recovery. Most important, put rules in place that require you to fly away from people and at a set distance from wildlife. I know birds are the wild card but where you have endangered species of birds you can put absolute ban in place for specific areas where you know they are present. 2) Again where you have endangered species that could be affected, look at it a little closer rather than in general. If it is birds, sure you can't say where they may fly, but if we are talking about mountain lions and most of your park is water, then you can have a good separation. If you have endangered fish, they aren't going to hear a drone. 3) There are a lot of people in parks, but there are some parks that don't have a lot of people or are just so vast you don't see them. When I went to the Badlands we drove 50 miles and didn't see a single other person. There are places like that in other parks as well. You can't tell me that flying over people or being an interference to others enjoying the park is a problem if there is no one else around. I have walked on the Appalachian Trail for a whole day in some places and didn't see anyone else. North Carolina's Outer Banks? I go out there all the time and there are times of the year that you don't see anyone else out there in some places. Why not allow some flight in places like that. 4) Some parks do have limited site distances, but then there are others that are wide open. What about The Statue of Liberty, it is surrounded by water and you can see for a long ways. I don't need to fly right in front of the statue nor do I need to fly over land. Set us up an area where you can launch from that carries you over the water, then let us fly an orbit to get shots. And all you real pilots I have seen on here arguing that everything on the Hudson River is in controlled airspace that is BS. The none of the airspace from Newark, JFK, LaGuardia or Teterboro is over the Statue. Closest is Newark and the outer edge is 1.8 miles away from the statue. 5) Some parks are relatively small that is true. But what about one day a month where you let drones fly under supervision and for limited time flights. Or how about early morning or late afternoon when the capacity of the park is low or on a few days during an off season of the park. There are ways to compromise on something. 6) Yes everyone that has a drone even the 12 yr old kid would want to fly if it was open to them, but why not some restriction. Maybe limit it to only 107 pilots. Even if you were flying for your own enjoyment, you could still require them to have a 107 certificate to do so. Or require them to be a certain age or use a certain type of drone. Kids toys might not be as safe as a Prosumer drone and may not be allowed. The biggest thing here is require the person flying to show proof of liability insurance commensurate with the flying they want to do. Just having to pay for insurance before flying will cut out 85% or better of the people who think they want to fly.

Bottom line is there are compromises that could be made. Total bans aren't the way to go, and it just incites people to try and find ways to do it that may be dangerous anyway. The more drones become commonplace the more you will see things start to open up. The genie is out of the bottle now and the government can't stuff drones back in so they are going to have to find more ways to make them inclusive. The FAA has already realized that, just look at the 2018 reauthorization to see how that is going to happen. What we need to do as commercial and recreational pilots to help them find ways to include us by offering compromises rather than looking at it from only one perspective.

I am keeping my fingers crossed because already our State Parks folks are starting to ask how they can look at ways to integrate them into the park system. They see the value of using them for mapping, inspection, search and rescue and even advertising. It may not open them up completely to the average drone flyer but could to commercial pilots. So who knows where it all may go.
Nice post. Appreciate your time to think this through and put it down. Glad to see, not all of us are all-or nothing. Perhaps eventually, wiser heads will prevail.
 
So why not just keep this thread going some more after a couple of months of lying low. Read to the end though or you will get pissed really fast. Which for some it won't matter you will be pissed period. You just can't please everyone.

I understand why the NPS put a ban in place, but I think it was a knee jerk reaction to an emerging technology and was a rush to get something in place that wasn't tought out very well. However a ban was necessary in lieu of nothing in place at all.

Let's Ban Drones! 1) people go to parks to see scenery and wildlife, monuments, ect. and they don't want to see swarms of drones. 2) some parks have endangered species that may be affected by the noise of drones. 3) some parks have a huge concentration of people and flying in those areas could pose a real danger in the event of a failure. 4) some parks have limited sight distances so VLOS would be affected. 5) some parks are relatively small so there may not be enough safe space to set up launch and recovery sites or have alternative sites in case of emergency. 6) every person right down to that 12 year old kid with a toy would want to fly it in the park and not knowing what their experience might be presents a huge liability to the park if they let them fly. All it would take is one person getting hurt and the law suits would never end. The parks are already under funded, so all it would take is a few million dollar payouts in a law suit to really hurt the budget of a park.

So Drones would have a huge negative impact on a National Park. It could change the landscape, it could hurt the environment, it could endanger people in multiple different ways, and it could cost the taxpayers (US) huge amounts of money to keep them operating. SO what is the solution?

Let's Ban People! 1)People go to parks to see scenery, wildlife, monuments, ect. How many of you have been to Yellowstone and followed the herds of people around and sat in a traffic jam while everyone jumps out to trample grass, plants, flowers and insects trying to get a picture of a mama bear with cubs that is a half mile away on a ridge? Don't think it happens? Never seen that happen? WELL you have never been to Yellowstone or if you have, you haven't been in June! We go to parks to get away from cities with congestion and get out in nature, but when we get there what do we find, crowds of people and traffic jams. 2) All wildlife (not just endangered species) are affected by crowds of people going to parks. It changes their eating habits, it changes their migration habits, it exposes them to dangers from trash and other things that are not a part of their natural environment. What about that mama with cubs, she was just trying to have a nice day out with the kids but then she sees this crowd of cars and people encroaching on her space and it drives her away. 3) Tens of Millions of people from all over the world come to our National Parks every year. When I went to Yellowstone I (an average American) was the minority. There were more people there from China and Japan than anywhere else. BUS loads every single day at every single place that a bus could get pulled over beside the road. I went to see the painted pots one day and I swear there were more people there with cameras with telephoto lenses as long as my arm. You couldn't even walk around without worrying about blocking someone's shot of their family beside a fence. You think a swarm of drones make a lot of noise, just go stand at any overlook at Yellowstone with 50 to 75 people with cameras all snapping away at 30 frames per second constantly! I have not hear a drone yet that makes that much noise. 4) Yep some parks have limited sight distance. You can't see what you went there to see for all the people crowding in. You wait in a line, to wait in a line, to stand in that perfect spot where you can see what you went there to see. 5) Yep some parks are really small. You get a crowd of people in one of them that has all these fences around to herd people in and out and what if something bad happens. A bear walks into the immediate area, a rock falls off a cliff and starts a small land slide, a stray ember from a campfire starts a wildfire, all of which are very real problems that could cause a rush to the exit where people get trampled, injured and maybe even die. 6) every person in the park represents a liability to not only the park but to others in the park. There are germs, colds, flu, selfie sticks, people leaving food out at night in areas prone to bears presents a real danger to everyone in the park.

SO people present a real problem in the National Parks. The change the landscape, they hurt the environment, they present a danger to wildlife and other people and they cost us the taxpayers huge amounts of money every year.

But, we can't ban people, we are the reason that the parks were created in the first place so we can enjoy them. So we can get away from our everyday surroundings and out into nature. So we can pull out our cameras no matter how big the lens is and take pictures so we can pull them out and remember the trip once we get back home. The parks are for us, that's why they were built.

But times and technology have changed. Forget the 1.5 lb Mavic I carry with me most everywhere I go, and think about what is coming up next. Autonomous drone taxi? If you don't think so then you aren't staying up on technology. We will most likely see more wide spread autonomous flight than we will autonomous cars in the short term. Are they going to be banned from flying over parks? If that happens are they then going to go back and ban other aircraft? So what is the solution?

Compromise! 1) People go to parks to see scenery and wildlife. Why not use a drone. From 400 agl, most wildlife wouldn't hear or see a drone. I was just at a workshop and they were using an octocopter and from 200 agl and 200 yds away we couldn't hear it. So the whole noise factor is over rated. Of course we do not want swarms of drones over any of our national parks just like we don't want millions of people trying to raft through the grand canyon each year. So put some limit in place. Let the park give out a limited number of passes each day for people to fly a drone. You can limit the flight time, the location, the height and distance from other people. Have a specific site set up for launch and recovery. Most important, put rules in place that require you to fly away from people and at a set distance from wildlife. I know birds are the wild card but where you have endangered species of birds you can put absolute ban in place for specific areas where you know they are present. 2) Again where you have endangered species that could be affected, look at it a little closer rather than in general. If it is birds, sure you can't say where they may fly, but if we are talking about mountain lions and most of your park is water, then you can have a good separation. If you have endangered fish, they aren't going to hear a drone. 3) There are a lot of people in parks, but there are some parks that don't have a lot of people or are just so vast you don't see them. When I went to the Badlands we drove 50 miles and didn't see a single other person. There are places like that in other parks as well. You can't tell me that flying over people or being an interference to others enjoying the park is a problem if there is no one else around. I have walked on the Appalachian Trail for a whole day in some places and didn't see anyone else. North Carolina's Outer Banks? I go out there all the time and there are times of the year that you don't see anyone else out there in some places. Why not allow some flight in places like that. 4) Some parks do have limited site distances, but then there are others that are wide open. What about The Statue of Liberty, it is surrounded by water and you can see for a long ways. I don't need to fly right in front of the statue nor do I need to fly over land. Set us up an area where you can launch from that carries you over the water, then let us fly an orbit to get shots. And all you real pilots I have seen on here arguing that everything on the Hudson River is in controlled airspace that is BS. The none of the airspace from Newark, JFK, LaGuardia or Teterboro is over the Statue. Closest is Newark and the outer edge is 1.8 miles away from the statue. 5) Some parks are relatively small that is true. But what about one day a month where you let drones fly under supervision and for limited time flights. Or how about early morning or late afternoon when the capacity of the park is low or on a few days during an off season of the park. There are ways to compromise on something. 6) Yes everyone that has a drone even the 12 yr old kid would want to fly if it was open to them, but why not some restriction. Maybe limit it to only 107 pilots. Even if you were flying for your own enjoyment, you could still require them to have a 107 certificate to do so. Or require them to be a certain age or use a certain type of drone. Kids toys might not be as safe as a Prosumer drone and may not be allowed. The biggest thing here is require the person flying to show proof of liability insurance commensurate with the flying they want to do. Just having to pay for insurance before flying will cut out 85% or better of the people who think they want to fly.

Bottom line is there are compromises that could be made. Total bans aren't the way to go, and it just incites people to try and find ways to do it that may be dangerous anyway. The more drones become commonplace the more you will see things start to open up. The genie is out of the bottle now and the government can't stuff drones back in so they are going to have to find more ways to make them inclusive. The FAA has already realized that, just look at the 2018 reauthorization to see how that is going to happen. What we need to do as commercial and recreational pilots to help them find ways to include us by offering compromises rather than looking at it from only one perspective.

I am keeping my fingers crossed because already our State Parks folks are starting to ask how they can look at ways to integrate them into the park system. They see the value of using them for mapping, inspection, search and rescue and even advertising. It may not open them up completely to the average drone flyer but could to commercial pilots. So who knows where it all may go.
I hear you sir, however I have yet to see a "swarm" of drones anywhere, ever...just saying...fly smart, fly safe
 
Very well thought out and very well written. Total bans are a big problem in this and many other areas. There are ways to accommodate and some of your ideas are excellent. The government, unfortunately is kind of ban crazy. That's always their first answer and it's usually the worst answer.
 
It’s what government does best and worst, regulate. I get your sarcasm so let me take it a step forward. I put forth a proposal for population control via the following methods.

1. Deportation
2. Sterilization
3. Euthanasation (Not sure if that’s even a word but my point is made.)

Realistically you’ve got two options. Obey the laws or not and take your chances. I too agree that this hobby is over regulated, but it is what it is. I’d suggest contacting your congressman but I don’t feel immediate action would be taken.

Here’s what I do. Find a locally sanctioned model rocket launch in your area and go fly there. Talk to the coordinator if they’re cool with it. I’ve yet been refused so as long as I fly way clear of they launch area.

It’s getting ridiculous anymore but fighting the bureaucracy for is even more so unless you got deep pockets and even more free time. This is supposed to be a fun hobby. If it’s causing you grief, may be time to take up fishing.

Oh, by the way, try flying at a public beach. You’d think public means all inclusive of everyone to enjoy. I flew my drone at Myrtle Beach this summer and was threatened for invading people’s privacy, on a public beach. See the irony here? So I moved down beach and flew there. No sense in getting pissed over it. I had every right to fly but it’s not worth being threatened. After all, I truly believe that most people are just waiting to be offended. Trying to reason with such a person is utterly pointless.

Drone On!
 
Last edited:
It’s what government does best and worst, regulate. I get your sarcasm so let me take it a step forward. I put forth a proposal for population control via the following methods.

1. Deportation
2. Sterilization
3. Euthanasation (Not sure if that’s even a word but my point is made.)

Realistically you’ve got two options. Obey the laws or not and take your chances. I too agree that this hobby is over regulated, but it is what it is. I’d suggest contacting your congressman but I don’t feel immediate action would be taken.

Here’s what I do. Find a locally sanctioned model rocket launch in your area and go fly there. Talk to the coordinator if they’re cool with it. I’ve yet been refused so as long as I fly way clear of they launch area.

It’s getting ridiculous anymore but fighting the bureaucracy for is even more so unless you got deep pockets and even more free time. This is supposed to be a fun hobby. If it’s causing you grief, may be time to take up fishing.

Sarcasm? Ok so yes I was being sarcastic about banning people from National Parks but to be honest there are some groups out there than have proposed just that and they were dead serious about it!

You know honestly the drone hobby isn't regulated as much as it could be. The vast majority of airspace in the country is Class G and under the new Reauthorization law you can pretty much fly anywhere with some exceptions, parks and other things of the like being some of those areas. Even under the new rules you won't have to notify a non controlled airport if you are within 5 miles which is a HUGE help because it wasn't the controlled airspace you had to deal with it was every small strip, heliport and private landing strip that was the real hindrance. But for the most part anyone can find somewhere close to them to fly. You are right, there are AMA flying fields everywhere and an AMA membership isn't all that expensive. There are some city parks that do allow you to fly. We have one right here close to where i work that a lot of people go to fly in. Heck several State agencies actually go out to this same park to do drone training. I personally live in a semi rural area so I can step out in my back yard and fly just about anywhere I can see. But even if I couldn't do that there are still plenty of places I can find to fly. A lot of times it might be private property, but if you ask people in the right way I have found they really don't care and actually are interested in what you are doing. Now that I have my 107 I am going to go back and ask them to fly again and maybe share some pictures with them of things on their property that they said they wish they had pictures of.
 
I understand why the NPS put a ban in place, but I think it was a knee jerk reaction to an emerging technology and was a rush to get something in place that wasn't tought out very well. However a ban was necessary in lieu of nothing in place at all.
I'd completely agree with this.

So what is the solution?

Compromise! 1) People go to parks to see scenery and wildlife. Why not use a drone. From 400 agl, most wildlife wouldn't hear or see a drone.
1) not true. 2) why do you think people would take off, land and fly... all above 400'? I can hear my Phantom 4, Mavic Pro and Mavic Air all at about 800' away.

I was just at a workshop and they were using an octocopter and from 200 agl and 200 yds away we couldn't hear it. That is a lot father then 400'. Also, in the near future, 400' above ground will be a law. That will be the max altitude. Still, most will be flow a lot lower... a _lot_ lower.

So the whole noise factor is over rated.
I'm disagree with this 100%. You will have 10's of drones being flow 50' from people. I've _personally_ seen this at Arches. Person flew at Delicate Arch this close to people sitting next to the arch itself. This was done when drones were not allowed. You think noise won't be an issue when there are 10-20 drones doing the same thing?

Let the park give out a limited number of passes each day for people to fly a drone. You can limit the flight time, the location, the height and distance from other people. Have a specific site set up for launch and recovery.
How do you expect the NPS to enforce this? Hire hundreds of more rangers? They can't even afford the overwhelmed rangers that they employ now. Permit revenue won't come close to the additional expenses. The other problem is once drones are "allowed", people will see this and many will not bother to look at the restrictions. You then further tax the limited rangers and bother people attempting to enjoy the area.

Bottom line is there are compromises that could be made. Total bans aren't the way to go, and it just incites people to try and find ways to do it that may be dangerous anyway.
Personally, I think the NPS does a _very_ good job with their charge. I don't give government agencies much credit but I think the NPS is the exception I understand not everyone would agree with this. Hey, I'd like to think allowing drones would work. But I don't have any doubt that it would simply create far greater problems then it is worth. People can still get all of the photos they want... and great photos. They don't need a drone to do this.
 
The only reason that make sense will be because the noise can bother endangered species that live in the national parks.
But, NP get crowded people coming from different country, like China, Japan& so on.
 
It’s what government does best and worst, regulate. I get your sarcasm so let me take it a step forward. I put forth a proposal for population control via the following methods.

1. Deportation
2. Sterilization
3. Euthanasation (Not sure if that’s even a word but my point is made.)

Realistically you’ve got two options. Obey the laws or not and take your chances. I too agree that this hobby is over regulated, but it is what it is. I’d suggest contacting your congressman but I don’t feel immediate action would be taken.

Here’s what I do. Find a locally sanctioned model rocket launch in your area and go fly there. Talk to the coordinator if they’re cool with it. I’ve yet been refused so as long as I fly way clear of they launch area.

It’s getting ridiculous anymore but fighting the bureaucracy for is even more so unless you got deep pockets and even more free time. This is supposed to be a fun hobby. If it’s causing you grief, may be time to take up fishing.

Oh, by the way, try flying at a public beach. You’d think public means all inclusive of everyone to enjoy. I flew my drone at Myrtle Beach this summer and was threatened for invading people’s privacy, on a public beach. See the irony here? So I moved down beach and flew there. No sense in getting pissed over it. I had every right to fly but it’s not worth being threatened. After all, I truly believe that most people are just waiting to be offended. Trying to reason with such a person is utterly pointless.

Drone On!
Heres what you do LOL hey go have fun flying over a bare field. Me I like to photograph our beautiful world.The NP's have some of the most beautiful landscape in the world and they say we can't fly there.You can go fly over an empty field have fun.
 
I'd completely agree with this.

1) not true. 2) why do you think people would take off, land and fly... all above 400'? I can hear my Phantom 4, Mavic Pro and Mavic Air all at about 800' away.
Like I said, not everyone will agree with me and some will be pissed, but at least I am willing to compromise and offer suggestions.
 
Very well thought out and very well written. Total bans are a big problem in this and many other areas. There are ways to accommodate and some of your ideas are excellent. The government, unfortunately is kind of ban crazy. That's always their first answer and it's usually the worst answer.
agreed the gov is ban crazy because people HATE whats new and they cannot control, so how control it put a ban on it and let us beg for something ANYTHING and they give us VERY LITTLE.
 
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.


Again, if you were into photography and wanted to make some amazing video footage to show case such beautiful places and actually had experience with a high quality tool such as the Mavic or Phantom then you would feel differently. Maybe the feds need to update the laws and require that drone pilots have to have so many hours with a particular make/model to show proficiency. That way it would help weed out the morons that are flying around that really don’t care about the footage, safety, or preservation of our parks.
 
May as well just ban people full stop then. That is a tiny burn compared to those started from campfires, hot exhausts, discarded bottles, let alone plain out-and-out loonies. There are literally very FEW reasons to ban drones- if you just look at stats, it would be far better to ban vehicles other than bikes and PROMOTE drones. Less road maintenance, no vehicle accidents, no disease transfer, less noise and disturbance, less pollution... the list goes on and on!
 
Again, if you were into photography and wanted to make some amazing video footage to show case such beautiful places and actually had experience with a high quality tool such as the Mavic or Phantom then you would feel differently.
I have lots of videos posted to Youtube so I'd say I'm into photography. I've also been flying drones since the P2 (and have videos on the Phantom and Mavic series posted as well (videos go back 5 years). So according to your reasoning, I'm correct in my comment.


Maybe the feds need to update the laws and require that drone pilots have to have so many hours with a particular make/model to show proficiency. That way it would help weed out the morons that are flying around that really don’t care about the footage, safety, or preservation of our parks.
First, trying to create such a system would not be practical. Second, it _still_ would not make any difference in that it would still ruin the enjoyment of all others.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
130,599
Messages
1,554,243
Members
159,603
Latest member
refrigasketscanada