People have been arrested and have faced huge (millions of dollars) fines in cases like that.
Another great reason drones should be kept out of America's National Parks
- Thread starter Marko9219
- Start date
ryanolivas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 320
- Reactions
- 116
- Age
- 35
The concept of the drone is not a threat but the only thing which makes it a treat is the person/people using it for illegal purposes.
CanyonRunVideos
Well-Known Member
If a NPS Ranger gave you their blessing then I sure would get that in writing because there are in fact NO FLY ZONES over ALL National Parks. Try using the AIRMAP app and then use the FAA's latest program for UAS pilots. It's called the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability or L.A.A.N.C. program. Then you will know precisely where you can fly and where you cannot fly legally.
No it isn't good info - it's completely incorrect info which this guy keeps spamming across multiple threads.
CanyonRunVideos
Well-Known Member
Maybe you aren't looking in the right place! There is definitely a NO FLY ZONE over all National Parks in the United States anyway...... Try using the FAA's L.A.A.N.C. program where UAS pilots can get up to the minute information on NOTEMS in your National Airspace.
View media item 2148
View media item 2147
The sites are not bogus - his interpretation of the rules is bogus. He refuses to acknowledge the difference between the NPS rules on sUAS operations and the FAA rules on airspace. The AirMap graphics are referencing the NPS rules, not any FAA rules:
It even states in his screenshot - "under the control of the National Park Service". He may be confused by the statement "Do not fly over US national parks", but it's in the same section (NPS rules). There is no general FAA no fly zone over National Parks - there is no FAA document referencing such a thing, and the sectional maps are the definitive airspace description. As I posted previously, but he completely ignored, of course, Grand Canyon National Park does have a special flight rules area, but it is an exception:
Yosemite is Class G airspace:
A few other sites have restricted airspace due to security concerns under a specific agreement between the FAA and DOI:
- Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York, NY
- Boston National Historical Park (U.S.S. Constitution), Boston, MA
- Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, PA
- Folsom Dam; Folsom, CA
- Glen Canyon Dam; Lake Powell, AZ
- Grand Coulee Dam; Grand Coulee, WA
- Hoover Dam; Boulder City, NV
- Jefferson National Expansion Memorial; St. Louis, MO
- Mount Rushmore National Memorial; Keystone, SD
- Shasta Dam; Shasta Lake, CA
Even if one concedes that the FAA doesn't restrict flight over National Parks, as I understand it, the park service CAN ban taking off or landing in the park.
At best, I can see my Mavic for 1000-2000 ft (and 2000 ft is a stretch). The FAA is clear about NO flying beyond visual line of sight, so, as I interpret it, your limited to flying 2000' from a park border.
As most National Parks are wider than 4000 ft (2000 ft from each border), they have effectively banned UAS flight over the vast majority of their land.
As the FAA does NOT limit manned aircraft flight to VLOS of take off areas, I feel that the "airspace is airspace" and the "same rules apply to manned aircraft" argument does not hold up when applied to UAS operations.
I still feel that the "ban" on National Park (land or flight, you decide) is excessive and unwarranted.
At best, I can see my Mavic for 1000-2000 ft (and 2000 ft is a stretch). The FAA is clear about NO flying beyond visual line of sight, so, as I interpret it, your limited to flying 2000' from a park border.
As most National Parks are wider than 4000 ft (2000 ft from each border), they have effectively banned UAS flight over the vast majority of their land.
As the FAA does NOT limit manned aircraft flight to VLOS of take off areas, I feel that the "airspace is airspace" and the "same rules apply to manned aircraft" argument does not hold up when applied to UAS operations.
I still feel that the "ban" on National Park (land or flight, you decide) is excessive and unwarranted.
No - airspace is airspace and, from an airspace perspective, the same rules apply to sUAS operations above NPS land as apply to manned aircraft. That UAVs can't necessarily use all that airspace due to range limitations, altitude limitations or VLOS rules is an entirely different issue.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
The rules for drones are NOT the same as the rules for helicopters or aircraft as helicopters or aircraft do NOT have VLOS limitations. Saying that you can fly in airspace that it is illegal to get to effectively means that you can't fly in the airspace. It's not an FAA requirement, but it is, nonetheless, an effective sUAS ban over National Parks.
I believe that restricting sUAS operations in LIMITED areas of National Parks is prudent. I feel that the effective outright ban is excessive.
The VLOS regulation is not an airspace regulation, and we were talking about airspace regulations.
I agree with you on the NPS restrictions.
I know what you mean. He's either painfully dumb or trolling, or perhaps even both. And he employs the currently popular technique of ignoring all evidence explaining that he is wrong, and just carries on repeating the same specious arguments as if nothing had happened. Kind of like that guy in D.C..
How is it illegal to get to? And in some cases it is NOT an effective ban. In other cases, and in large areas of the larger parks, I would agree. However, case-in-point...
Recently, I was flying from what I thought was outside the boundaries of the Canaveral National Seashore. I was approached by a ranger who nicely informed me that I was, in fact, inside the recently expanded park boundary. He pointed me to a location about 100 yards further up the road, and said "fly all you want from up there". After a nice conversation about the absurdity of the fact that drones were banned but ultralights, helos, and small planes regularly pass over the National Seashore at barely treetop altitude, that is exactly what I proceeded to do. I was actually able to get some fantastic footage of a great deal of isolated and uninhabited, landscape, and well within VLOS.
This same situation has served me well on parts of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Great Smokey's, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and several State Parks, also banned in my state.
I am not bragging or advocating for others to follow my example, and I'm not trying to "get away" with anything. I just feel that as long as it is not illegal, it remains legal. I will exercise my right, when appropriate, safe, and prudent, to photograph the pristine landscapes that belong to us all, in a non-intrusive manner.
I remain hopeful that the powers that be, will do their jobs, and make it a little easier for others to do the same.
I might also add, for the naysayer purists out there, the ranger I encountered, went on to say he would fly his own drone there if not for the ridiculous ban. I've also heard this from others.
Last edited:
Finally, what's the reasons for banning drones out of parks, in us?
Noise? Pollution? They disturb wildlife? They disturb visitors? Some are afraid of technology? All of these? Something else?
I really didn't understand.
Noise? Pollution? They disturb wildlife? They disturb visitors? Some are afraid of technology? All of these? Something else?
I really didn't understand.
Part of the reasons is that people bother the wildlife. diving in on bird nests chasing large animals etc etc. so I can see their concern do I agree with it not entirely. these aren't simple toys anymore they are flying computers.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
-
Air 3s The Haining - Selkirk & The William Wallace Statue - Bemersyde- Started by Paul G
- Replies: 3
-
Forum statistics
