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

[Eddington]

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

Gotta love a troll. What does the story linked have to do with NP's at all? There's been fires started so many other ways, yet this is how you wanted to start a religious debate?

 

[sar104]

The airspace is controlled, and restricted in National Parks. DON'T FLY THERE.
You don't need to agree, because thems' the rules.

Just in the spirit of trying to keep things at least somewhat accurate, note that the airspace over National Parks is not restricted - at least not generally and not simply because it is a National Park. It's operations on the ground (take off and landing) which is not allowed.

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

The airspace is controlled, and restricted in National Parks. DON'T FLY THERE.
You don't need to agree, because thems' the rules.

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.......

 

[Robert Mitchell]

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.......

Umm, no not really.

Like SAR 104 said, NPS airspace is NOT restricted, unless it is designated Wilderness.

I have personally had NPS rangers give me their blessing to fly over the park from outside the boundary.

Not all of them might be so knowledgeable or drone friendly however, so I’m not recommending it for anyone, but just getting the facts straight.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Just in the spirit of trying to keep things at least somewhat accurate, note that the airspace over National Parks is not restricted - at least not generally and not simply because it is a National Park. It's operations on the ground (take off and landing) which is not allowed.

Spot on.

 

[sar104]

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.......

Please just stop. Your continual posting of complete nonsense doesn't help anyone. There is no FAA "no fly zone", or anyone else's "no fly zone" over National Parks in general.

For example - here is DJI's fly safe map of the area around Arches and Canyonlands National Parks:



Not even a warning area, apart from around Moab's airport. And here's the sectional:



Class G apart from the 700 ft Class E around the airport.

How about Yosemite:



No - nothing except the local airports and an inaccurately depicted firefighting TFR (the large yellow circle lower left) and smaller, more accurate TFR to the east of that - and those are just warning zones. The sectional, with accurate TFR overlaid and unrestricted Class G airspace:



The Grand Canyon is one exception where the FAA does impose airspace restrictions, and the DJI NFZ system doesn't even include it, only seeing the airport:



Here's the sectional, showing the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area:

 

[sar104]

Umm, no not really.

Like SAR 104 said, NPS airspace is NOT restricted, unless it is designated Wilderness.

I have personally had NPS rangers give me their blessing to fly over the park from outside the boundary.

Not all of them might be so knowledgeable or drone friendly however, so I’m not recommending it for anyone, but just getting the facts straight.

Agreed - but I'll add that airspace over wilderness is not restricted either - again it's only takeoff and landing that is prohibited without agency permission.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Agreed - but I'll add that airspace over wilderness is not restricted either - again it's only takeoff and landing that is prohibited without agency permission.

Upon further research, you are indeed correct. There is a standing FAA "recommendation" to remain 2000 ft AGL, but nothing in the FARs to punish non-compliance.

Thanks for the research and clarification.

 

[bushie]

In Australia "National" parks come inder the control of the various state governments. Rules aboit controls on UAVs bary from no control (Queensland) to almost totally anned (WA).
Will be interesting to see in the future what the various impacts are

 

[Robert Mitchell]

In Australia "National" parks come inder the control of the various state governments. Rules aboit controls on UAVs bary from no control (Queensland) to almost totally anned (WA).
Will be interesting to see in the future what the various impacts are

Our various State Parks (36 here in North Carolina, alone) obviously have the same range of difference, although most are going the banned route, as has my state.

 

[sar104]

Upon further research, you are indeed correct. There is a standing FAA "recommendation" to remain 2000 ft AGL, but nothing in the FARs to punish non-compliance.

Thanks for the research and clarification.

You may be thinking of AIM 7-4-6, which has an altitude guideline for aircraft. It's not law:

7−4−6. Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas

a. The landing of aircraft is prohibited on lands or waters administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Forest Service without authorization from the respective agency. Exceptions include:

1. When forced to land due to an emergency beyond the control of the operator;
2. At officially designated landing sites; or
3. An approved official business of the Federal Government.

b. Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface of the following: National Parks, Monuments, Seashores, Lakeshores, Recreation Areas and Scenic Riverways administered by the National Park Service, National Wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, Game Ranges and Wildlife Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wilderness and Primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

NOTE−

FAA Advisory Circular AC 91−36, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas, defines the surface of a national park area (including parks, forests, primitive areas, wilderness areas, recreational areas, national seashores, national monuments, national lakeshores, and national wildlife refuge and range areas) as: the highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight, or the upper-most rim of a canyon or valley.

c. Federal statutes prohibit certain types of flight activity and/or provide altitude restrictions over designated U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas. These designated areas, for example: Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Areas, Minnesota; Haleakala National Park, Hawaii; Yosemite National Park, California; and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, are charted on Sectional Charts.
​

EDIT: I see you beat me to it.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

You may be thinking of AIM 7-4-6, which has an altitude guideline for aircraft. It's not law:

7−4−6. Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas

a. The landing of aircraft is prohibited on lands or waters administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Forest Service without authorization from the respective agency. Exceptions include:

1. When forced to land due to an emergency beyond the control of the operator;
2. At officially designated landing sites; or
3. An approved official business of the Federal Government.

b. Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface of the following: National Parks, Monuments, Seashores, Lakeshores, Recreation Areas and Scenic Riverways administered by the National Park Service, National Wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, Game Ranges and Wildlife Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wilderness and Primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

NOTE−

FAA Advisory Circular AC 91−36, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas, defines the surface of a national park area (including parks, forests, primitive areas, wilderness areas, recreational areas, national seashores, national monuments, national lakeshores, and national wildlife refuge and range areas) as: the highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight, or the upper-most rim of a canyon or valley.

c. Federal statutes prohibit certain types of flight activity and/or provide altitude restrictions over designated U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas. These designated areas, for example: Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Areas, Minnesota; Haleakala National Park, Hawaii; Yosemite National Park, California; and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, are charted on Sectional Charts.
​

EDIT: I see you beat me to it.

Yes.

 

[sar104]

I think that you may be overly pessimistic. I think it's just a matter of them balancing public opinion with safety and wildlife concerns. As sUAS technology becomes even more ubiquitous, I suspect that accommodations will be made.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I actually get it too.

There are probably times and places where it would be annoying and inappropriate.

But there are plenty of places and times where it would affect no one. I can tell you because I've been there at many of those times and places. Example: Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 45 miles down Hatteras Island. Not a soul within miles most times. Blue Ridge parkway on a weekday afternoon at a remote overlook. Not a person around for hours at a time and even then, they just pause and pass through.

I'm not talking the South Rim or Bryce Canyon here, just millions of acres of illegal land.

I am hoping they will eventually identify those areas and times and allow permitting.

 

[Bigbird48]

Hey lets Ban cars, they Kill 30000 +people every year

 

[dewster]

Here’s a reason for tires:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/08/04/us/carr-fire-week-wrap/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

 

[Scubaerik]

Please! How many ATVs have distorted the parks, started fires, and scared the animals? How many loud motorcycles have woken up campers, scared the animals and don’t seem to care? How many campers have started fires, left trash and harmed the animals? I’m a very cautious pilot and would never harm wildlife, interfere with people or leave a drone mess.

Guess you haven’t learned to fly yet without doing the above.

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

!

 

[W2EJ]

I dont want drones flying around in any park that I am in. You getting pictures and video are of no interest to me and not that important for you to get in reality. Most good parks sell photo books and postcards of the scenery. Dont think you can take any better pictures than have already been taken.
It comes down to people trying to do something that a lot of people don't want done. Just because it is controversial.
Stupid pictures and video are no reason to disrupt others.

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.

 

[rugermdw]

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

Two acres! Really, Two acres!!! Dude look at the news and shut the hell up!

 

[sar104]

Two acres! Really, Two acres!!! Dude look at the news and shut the **** up!

At one point those fires were also at two acres, so it's important not to start them in the first place.