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

[tcope]

More impractical then remote ID for all drones?

For the government? Certainly. They are requiring all drone _manufactures_ to do this.

ALL others?? Exaggerate much?[/QUOTE]If I said, vast majority, would that make it easier to understand?

 

[dirkclod]

Could we stop poking each other guys. Hmmmmmm?

 

[DroningOn]

If I said, vast majority, would that make it easier to understand?

I didn’t realize that “all“ now means “vast majority“ but thank you for the English lesson. Always learning new things on this site

 

[dirkclod]

I didn’t realize that “all“ now means “vast majority“ but thank you for the English lesson. Always learning new things on this site

Must not be learning I asked to stop poking before I start cleaning.?

 

[jmorales71]

My question is : Is this guy a drone owner?, weird.

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.

 

[usaken]

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

Like it or not, we all pay for national parks with our taxes. The parks are for everyone to use as long as that use is reasonable. The parks are not just for the elite.

 

[sar104]

Like it or not, we all pay for national parks with our taxes. The parks are for everyone to use as long as that use is reasonable. The parks are not just for the elite.

Correction: "The parks are for everyone to use as long as that use is reasonable within the rules."

 

[Oconnb910]

So I am trying to understand why the big panic about drone starting forest fires! many other things as has been said here are more likely to cause a fire not just in Parks but anywhere. I am pretty sure that the percentage of drones actually creating a fire situation have been statistically minimal compared to many other devices that generate heat or use batteries or fuel sources. Not to mention lightning.
The origin of this thread sounds more like a "sky is falling" scenario.

 

[Corsair415]

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

If this is a reason, we should just keep people out altogether.

 

[mfc]

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.

Agreed. But manned aircraft are banned from overflying National Parks in other countries (e.g., Picos de Europa in Spain) -- why not in USA too? Any overflying aircraft is a nuisance -- either for noise or obtrusive contrails, etc.

In short .. allow any activity so long as it does not damage the park or intrude on others' enjoyment of the park. Drone should be fine if you are absolutely certain it does not affect other people or wildlife.

 

[RParker762]

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

The answer is yes, yes we should.