California East Bay Regional Parks District Drone Restrictions , ??

[gunslinger221]

I recently went to a park located in Northern California which is part of the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD). I wanted to fly my drone at one of the parks, looked on my apps for restrictions found none. Upon arriving at the location I observed a sign which said "No Drone Zone" , there were no codes cited next to it. I did not fly there, went home and looked up the EBRPD codes and discovered the following.

SECTION 409. - MISCELLANEOUS REGULATED ACTIVITIES.

No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District except in areas specifically designated and set aside from time to time by the Board for such activities.

409.3 Operate self-propelled (motor driven) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS aka "drone") model aircraft, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description, or fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations. (I) (rev. 4/16)

I thought , and I may stand corrected that the maximum ceiling for flying a drone set by the FAA is 400 feet. It seems to me this code is not valid, 500 feet would be higher then what the FAA allows.

I need to know what I can do to get this corrected? I have been flying drones for years now, I have never had an issue come up. I am not going to fly in an area that has rules that are very confusing. Any comments or suggestions for a course of action I may take would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all

 

[kevinhooke]

I recently went to a park located in Northern California which is part of the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD).

Which park was this, just for future reference (and benefit of others)?

 

[gunslinger221]

Thanks for the question, I was at the Point Pinole location, and Briones reservoir staging area. From what I have heard from other Drone operators in my area, it applies to all the East Bay Regional Parks which encompass several counties here. Please refer to my post above, as this is directly from the EBRPD website. I had one operator tell me that one of the park police cited him and the fine was over $300.00. He was taking off and landing in the parks. Even though at that time they had not yet posted the signs they now have in place. So my advice would be not to launch or land within the EBRPD at all. I will continue to fly over at a safe altitude but I am not going to violate FAA rules that state you cannot fly over 400 feet. EBRPD wants you to operate at 500feet or above, when flying over their parks. I think if you were cited for this it would more then likely be thrown out of court.. They have no right to tell you what altitude you have to fly over. I have flown at 120 feet , had the park police helicopter orbit near my drone, almost like they wanted me to get near the helicopter which would violate an FAA rule, at the time I flew away from them and landed in a shopping center not located in the EBRPD jurisdiction. Hope this helps.

 

[kevinhooke]

Good to know, thanks. Out of interest I looked on Airmap to see if the EBRPD areas are marked as restricted areas and unfortunately they are not.

 

[gunslinger221]

Thanks, yes I did the same thing and you are right they are not marked. I used b4youfly and two other apps I have to check. I sometimes use an insurance app if I know I am going to be flying in a densely populated area. They do not have any restrictions either, EBRPD obviously hired some people dumb as a can of paint to write this one up. Sorry but thats just how I feel. I am going to continue to fly over the areas I like within the district at levels approved by the FAA, disregarding the EBRPDs rules. The Helicopter incident I think was there way of just finding out where I was, (cite me if I was in the park district) and/or attempt for me to violate FAA incursion regs. Getting to close to them, they kept trying to move in my direction at which time I moved away. In summary they seen I was not taking off or landing in the jurisdiction, so now lets get him for flying to close to an aircraft. What they did not realize is I am a retired us army rotary pilot, so I know the laws very well. I did not provoke them, I obtained the footage I needed before they were on scene, so I was done anyway. Just be careful and do not position yourself within park boundaries when taking off or landing, I think you will be fine. Rotary aircraft are allowed to fly at much lower altitudes then civilian pilots. I think they have to maintain an altitude of 5,000 feet and of course most emergency rotary craft are allowed to fly at any altitude the pilot requests and ATC approves. After leaving the military I flew for Aircare, my average flight level was approximately 2,000 feet give or take. Thats for cruising altitudes,

 

[pelagic_one]

Thank you for your service to our country, Sir, as well as the info on the East Bay Regional Parks restrictions.

I’m also disappointed to learn that we have limited places to fly around and record our beautiful coastal views, too. I had to take off and land from the tip of Pacifica Pier, just to get a coastal scene.

 

[sf4therock]

I was questioned by one of the parks officials in uniform that I cannot fly in a regional park and I was not even flying. I was just charging my drone battery. And I am not flying my drone but since you are here do you know the laws of the Federal aviation keep in mind I have a body cam on recording. He replied yes. Are you aware of that your policies says to fly in a regional park you have to fly at 500 feet or above? And you would be committing a federal offense. And that would mean getting cited and or serving time in a federal penitentiary. And then I told him federal aviation law prohibits any unmanned aircraft to fly above 400 feet anywhere are you aware of that. He walked away From me and called the sheriffs department. A deputy showed up and asked me a few questions. them I showed him my recreational certificate from the FAA he walked back to the state official and told him. he can fly according to our county. The Deputy told me you can fly if you want be careful and be safe. instead I went home.

 

[jmaeding]

I'd just fly above 500 ft. Hall Pass!

 

[sf4therock]

Yeah but in Contra Costa

I'd just fly above 500 ft. Hall Pass!

Yeah but you get caught by FAA you got a lot of problems especially in Contra Costa because Contra Costa sheriffs department Helicopters always flies low

 

[jmaeding]

Exactly. Reality is drone regulations are local. Nice to know about airspace categories, but that is like knowing your food groups instead of specific plants to a region. If you think about it, the 107 regs could be boiled down to: Yield to everyone and stay below 400' AGL.
Why the FAA emphasizes the PIC is always responsible, why? Every person is responsible for what they do, whether babysat by the FAA or not.
Do you think recreational flyers are protected because they did not know they were responsible? Like Duh. Yet people think the part 107 somehow makes you special. Normal US liability law covers all that. Other countries too, and likely harder.

 

[sf4therock]

Exactly what I was saying if you fly above and you get caught or worse you hit an aircraft or helicopter they will not take responsibility they will say you should’ve known better so why take the chance. Also you’ll get probably a citation and when you go to court nine out of 10 you’ll win because local law do not supersede federal law specially when it instructs you to violate the law. Just because you have a permit or license he doesn’t give you immunity to get a citation

 

[jmaeding]

I was joking about the hall pass, follow 107 of course.
Drone regs are a mess. Keep in mind, RC aircraft are not new. The issue is they used to be loud and dangerous (or just dangerous if gliders), and now they are quiet and almost harmless. My buddy's racing glider could kill someone. I watched closely when he flew it on the slope next to me, watching for signs of malfunction or odd sounds. Hard to hear that though through the whistle it made going by at 80 mph 10 feet in front of us.

 

[usaken]

Just for reference, all Marin county parks are no fly. The lawmakers have fenced off just about all the scenic filming areas around the bay. The whole GGNRA, including beaches from SF to Pt Reyes, all state parks too. Really gets me. We all pay taxes and our tax money is used to support these parks. The parks should be obligated to accommodate us. I understand why some highly populated areas might have some restrictions, but most of these parks have vast unpopulated areas.

 

[jmaeding]

I think the balancing factor here one can do the non-disturbing drone activities without getting caught. Its the "flying around others" that people do not like, and will get people caught. That's just reality, and is about how law enforcement seems to operate.

 

[TontoFAC]

I recently went to a park located in Northern California which is part of the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD). I wanted to fly my drone at one of the parks, looked on my apps for restrictions found none. Upon arriving at the location I observed a sign which said "No Drone Zone" , there were no codes cited next to it. I did not fly there, went home and looked up the EBRPD codes and discovered the following.

SECTION 409. - MISCELLANEOUS REGULATED ACTIVITIES.

No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District except in areas specifically designated and set aside from time to time by the Board for such activities.

409.3 Operate self-propelled (motor driven) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS aka "drone") model aircraft, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description, or fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations. (I) (rev. 4/16)

I thought , and I may stand corrected that the maximum ceiling for flying a drone set by the FAA is 400 feet. It seems to me this code is not valid, 500 feet would be higher then what the FAA allows.

I need to know what I can do to get this corrected? I have been flying drones for years now, I have never had an issue come up. I am not going to fly in an area that has rules that are very confusing. Any comments or suggestions for a course of action I may take would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all

The 500 feet references the FAA regulation that fixed wing aircraft cannot fly lower than 500 feet unless taking off or landing. So I think that is their way of prohibiting UAS flying.

 

[JPavliga]

I recently went to a park located in Northern California which is part of the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD). I wanted to fly my drone at one of the parks, looked on my apps for restrictions found none. Upon arriving at the location I observed a sign which said "No Drone Zone" , there were no codes cited next to it. I did not fly there, went home and looked up the EBRPD codes and discovered the following.

SECTION 409. - MISCELLANEOUS REGULATED ACTIVITIES.

No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District except in areas specifically designated and set aside from time to time by the Board for such activities.

409.3 Operate self-propelled (motor driven) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS aka "drone") model aircraft, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description, or fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations. (I) (rev. 4/16)

I thought , and I may stand corrected that the maximum ceiling for flying a drone set by the FAA is 400 feet. It seems to me this code is not valid, 500 feet would be higher then what the FAA allows.

I need to know what I can do to get this corrected? I have been flying drones for years now, I have never had an issue come up. I am not going to fly in an area that has rules that are very confusing. Any comments or suggestions for a course of action I may take would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all

I recently went to a park located in Northern California which is part of the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD). I wanted to fly my drone at one of the parks, looked on my apps for restrictions found none. Upon arriving at the location I observed a sign which said "No Drone Zone" , there were no codes cited next to it. I did not fly there, went home and looked up the EBRPD codes and discovered the following.

SECTION 409. - MISCELLANEOUS REGULATED ACTIVITIES.

No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District except in areas specifically designated and set aside from time to time by the Board for such activities.

409.3 Operate self-propelled (motor driven) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS aka "drone") model aircraft, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description, or fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations. (I) (rev. 4/16)

I thought , and I may stand corrected that the maximum ceiling for flying a drone set by the FAA is 400 feet. It seems to me this code is not valid, 500 feet would be higher then what the FAA allows.

I need to know what I can do to get this corrected? I have been flying drones for years now, I have never had an issue come up. I am not going to fly in an area that has rules that are very confusing. Any comments or suggestions for a course of action I may take would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all

This isn't a mistake -- the intent is simply to prohibit drone flying. Since the FAA requires us to stay under 400 feet and the EBRPD bans flight below 500 feet, that language clearly is meant to make it impossible to fly a drone. They're not trying to be helpful or accommodating. The folks who are most organized and passionate tend to be locals who get annoyed by drone use, and they lobby park districts and local superintendents to ban drones at nearly every park in California.

Even California State Parks and beaches, which supposedly allow drone use, rarely do actually allow them. The state's website indicates that local district superintendents have the authority to prohibit drone use and nearly every one of them does exactly that -- Mt. Diablo State Park, Angel Island State Park, Mt. Tamalpais State Park, China Camp State Park and on and on. If you want to fly a drone in the Bay Area, you pretty much have to do it over densely populated areas because the wide-open spaces are all off-limits.

 

[DoomMeister]

The good part is that they cannot regulate over flight. You can launch outside their boundaries and fly all you want within VLOS. The only authority over airspace is the FAA in the US. So their statute banning flights below 500 feet AGL is unlawful and trying to usurp power from the FAA.

 

[bhartwell]

This topic has been on my radar for some time.

A few years back, various restrictions around the Bay Area began to appear, which have now become so extensive that finding an open space from which to operate is challenging to say the least. The poster is correct, the EBRPD had restricted all drone operations from any of the areas it manages. That doesn’t sound like that big of a deal, until you realize that this organization manages all the parks, open spaces, reserves, scenic areas and bay access across the area, roughly 1745 square miles of public land. It’s effectively a ban of drone use across the region.

I protested to the EBRPD board, auguring that an outright ban was overlying restrictive, counter to the EBEPD charter to preserve these lands for the “use and enjoyment of the public”, and proposed a permitting system as an alternative.

After a lot of back and forth, I got the following response:


“After speaking with the AGM, he directed me to request that you submit a formal proposal to the General Manager regarding the intended drone operation. I recommend limiting the proposal to under 5 pages. I’ve listed some bullet points your proposal should cover, but don’t feel limited by it. Please add any information that you think would be helpful! Let me know if you have any questions.

Your group’s objectives in conducting this activity and how that aligns with the Park District’s mission.

Please confirm this is a group of friends conducting drone flights, not a non-profit or for-profit club

Outline your group’s approach to conducting drone flights and how it will be managed:
Purpose of flights

Number of people during a flight (and how many drones will be in use)

Confirm they all have pilot’s licenses and drone registration certificates

Parks (and where in the park) the drone will operate and flight over: you find maps here à EBRPD - Maps

Radius of operations from point of takeoff
Note any hazards such as power lines in the area

Flight dates

Time frame of drone operation

Examples of any signage that you’ll bring in that would notify the public of drone use in process

Describe safety procedures

If the General Manager and Board of Directors determines your group can fly drones, it will likely require either a Special Use Agreement or Special Event permit because recreational drone use is prohibited in Ordinance 38. There is an insurance requirement and I’ve included a screenshot below. There will likely be an associated fee too.”

I was asked to provide proof of insurance up to $1m in liability and $2m in aggregate. At which point I gave up.

Essentially, the district will allow for commercial access, but a hobbyist is out of luck. If enough people are willing to push back, maybe we will see some change. Currently, we have local commissions essentially denying all access and just living with it.

 

[DoomMeister]

I am soooo glad I don’t live in California!!!

I am really glad I don’t live there. Since they are already so restrictive about recreational drone use, we should relocate all the drone haters to California and leave the rest of the country for the rest of us.

EDIT:
I offended another member with the above post and I’d like to offer my apologies for doing so. I really should have stated that I’m glad I don’t have to endure the oppressive regulations that have been placed on so many places that people could conveniently fly and capture great imagery in and around the SFB area. We had the same situation in Genesee County Michigan up until a year ago when the courts finally decided in favor of the sUAS community.

I’ll amend my earlier statement about sending all the drone haters there. Instead they should all be sent to Antarctica to keep the penguins company. They surely can’t squawk about flightless birds and maybe it would cool their jets. That way all the beautiful places in California could be open to us too.

 

[DStanworth]

I am soooo glad I don’t live in California!!!

I am really glad I don’t live there. Since they are already so restrictive about recreational drone use, we should relocate all the drone haters to California and leave the rest of the country for the rest of us.

EDIT:
I offended another member with the above post and I’d like to offer my apologies for doing so. I really should have stated that I’m glad I don’t have to endure the oppressive regulations that have been placed on so many places that people could conveniently fly and capture great imagery in and around the SFB area. We had the same situation in Genesee County Michigan up until a year ago when the courts finally decided in favor of the sUAS community.

I’ll amend my earlier statement about sending all the drone haters there. Instead they should all be sent to Antarctica to keep the penguins company. They surely can’t squawk about flightless birds and maybe it would cool their jets. That way all the beautiful places in California could be open to us too.

You offended someone? Oh my.