First interaction with the police

[Insideout]

I got to visit a location on my bucket list. I won't mention the name but lets just say it rhymes with Blocky Fountain National park. I know full well that I can't fly in a nat park. So I waited until we left the gates and drove for about a mile and pulled over. Still beautiful scenery, so it was cool. About 20 minutes in, a police SUV drives by, and flips his lights on and makes an abrupt U turn to pull up behind me. He asked me where I call home, and informed me that I can't fly in a nat park. I explained that I knew the law and was careful to wait until I was out of the park. He informed me that it's confusing that even though we were outside the gates by quite a ways, we were still in the park for another mile. I apologized sincerely. He said it happens all the time as it's not clear that you are in the park even when you are outside the entrance gates. He said since he has not warned me before, he will send me on my way with a warning. The officer was totally cool, and actually very curious about the Mavic, asking questions about how it works etc. I could tell he wanted one and probably thought it sucked that he had to chase me away from such a beautiful area where there was zero risk of me hurting anything or anyone. So overall it was a very positive experience that could have resulted in a costly fine.

 

[manub767]

I guess the no fly nat parks rule is not random but a risk of fire due to batteries. Too many issues with batts around the world on different devices (including airplanes) to risk a fire in a remote protected location.

 

[danman999]

They have to enforce the law, no matter what their personal opinions. At least, that is how it is supposed to work.

Most Law Enforcement are good people doing their best in a challenging job.

 

[Cyberpower678]

Cool and unbiased officer. Great example of what police should be doing when approaching a drone operator flying. I always had a positive experience with officers.

 

[Oconnb910]

I guess the no fly nat parks rule is not random but a risk of fire due to batteries. Too many issues with batts around the world on different devices (including airplanes) to risk a fire in a remote protected location.

Wow actually that's the first I had heard of that angle. I guess I did not consider that.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Wow actually that's the first I had heard of that angle. I guess I did not consider that.

I guess the no fly nat parks rule is not random but a risk of fire due to batteries. Too many issues with batts around the world on different devices (including airplanes) to risk a fire in a remote protected location.

i can think of a hundred things more likely to be a risk, including lightning, so if that is the reasoning for the NPS ban then that is a ridiculous. It might just be another in a long line of excuses, including noise, wildlife, visitor experience etc., none of which stand up under scrutiny.

Truth is, they have no good reason other than they can't figure it out.

This was supposed to be a temporary ban (2014) until the supervisor could consider the issues involved... its 2017 now and we are still waiting.

Typical government foot dragging B.S.

 

[ryo]

Isn't his job to supervise instead of punishing? Sadly in the US it's happening too often the opposite so even a normal (questionable?) encounter with an officer become a "positive experience".

 

[erkme73]

i can think of a hundred things more likely to be a risk, including lightning, so if that is the reasoning for the NPS ban then that is a ridiculous. It might just be another in a long line of excuses, including noise, wildlife, visitor experience etc., none of which stand up under scrutiny.

Truth is, they have no good reason other than they can't figure it out.

This was supposed to be a temporary ban (2014) until the supervisor could consider the issues involved... its 2017 now and we are still waiting.

Typical government foot dragging B.S.

I'd propose that the real reason has nothing to do with safety, indecision, or land management. What is the motivation? It's the same reason we have to take off our shoes at TSA, and submit to pat-downs/scans. While it does nothing to stop those willing to shove explosives into orifices (i.e. bomb mules), it conditions the masses into accepting the absolute authority and control our .gov has over us, our possessions, and even our own bodies.

Sure, the individual cop, or TSA agent may genuinely believe he's doing good "fighting evil", but the reality is, their actions are nothing more than a collective boot on neck of our liberties and freedoms. Even if such stupid laws/bans actually improved safety and quality of life (which they indisputably DO NOT), the price is too great. Those willing to surrender essential liberty for the benefit of perceived safety deserve neither - or so said B. Franklin.

Even on a local level, the authority, power, and control that elected officials and their bureaucratic minions exhibit is observable. The developer of my neighborhood community planted Live Oak trees in 3.5' right-of-ways and medians. They're now pushing 15 years old, and 80% of them have started lifting sidewalks and curing asphalt streets. In the monthly community newsletter, the HOA president is practically begging homeowners to pull a county permit and have the trees removed before they do extensive damage.

Wanting to do my part, and seeing symptoms of root damage, I pulled a permit and received County permission to remove my oak. Sadly, I had to also seek permission/blessing from the HOA. Three weeks later, I received notice from the "design review board" that they first have to inspect the area for existing damage, as they do not want to approve the removal of trees that have not yet started to damage community property. I kid you not. It's not a matter of if, but when. Every single one of these trees WILL destroy the roads and sidewalks.

So instead of thanking the homeowners that are willing to front the expense, time, and effort to proactively removed these time-bomb trees, owners have to face a board of people who want to wave their di**s around to prove they have authority over your property rights.

What's happening at the NPS is exactly the same thing.

 

[danman999]

i can think of a hundred things more likely to be a risk, including lightning, so if that is the reasoning for the NPS ban then that is a ridiculous. It might just be another in a long line of excuses, including noise, wildlife, visitor experience etc., none of which stand up under scrutiny.

Truth is, they have no good reason other than they can't figure it out.

This was supposed to be a temporary ban (2014) until the supervisor could consider the issues involved... its 2017 now and we are still waiting.

Typical government foot dragging B.S.

Maybe some people would like to enjoy a national park without a drone whizzing around them taking pictures and video. Perhaps quiet is preferable to them over what sounds like a swarm of insects, Your comments are a perfect example of why (thank goodness) drones are banned in national parks.

 

[danman999]

Isn't his job to supervise instead of punishing? Sadly in the US it's happening too often the opposite so even a normal (questionable?) encounter with an officer become a "positive experience".

It is their job to enforce laws, rules and regulations, which ensures the safety and enjoyment of park visitors.

 

[danman999]

i can think of a hundred things more likely to be a risk, including lightning, so if that is the reasoning for the NPS ban then that is a ridiculous. It might just be another in a long line of excuses, including noise, wildlife, visitor experience etc., none of which stand up under scrutiny.

Truth is, they have no good reason other than they can't figure it out.

This was supposed to be a temporary ban (2014) until the supervisor could consider the issues involved... its 2017 now and we are still waiting.

Typical government foot dragging B.S.

Another 107 who thinks they are an aviator. You are not an aviator, or even a pilot. Your comments and attitude make that exceedingly clear. When I fly my airplane I must maintain a minimum of 2,000 ft. AGL altitude over any sensitive wildlife areas. I guess you think that is ridiculous as well?

 

[Insideout]

Maybe some people would like to enjoy a national park without a drone whizzing around them taking pictures and video. Perhaps quiet is preferable to them over what sounds like a swarm of insects, Your comments are a perfect example of why (thank goodness) drones are banned in national parks.

Who's decision is it that their enjoyment overrules mine? I paid the same fee to get in. You can't even say majority rules, because when it comes to being offended, the minority wins in every case in this country.

 

[danman999]

I'd propose that the real reason has nothing to do with safety, indecision, or land management. What is the motivation? It's the same reason we have to take off our shoes at TSA, and submit to pat-downs/scans. While it does nothing to stop those willing to shove explosives into orifices (i.e. bomb mules), it conditions the masses into accepting the absolute authority and control our .gov has over us, our possessions, and even our own bodies.

Sure, the individual cop, or TSA agent may genuinely believe he's doing good "fighting evil", but the reality is, their actions are nothing more than a collective boot on neck of our liberties and freedoms. Even if such stupid laws/bans actually improved safety and quality of life (which they indisputably DO NOT), the price is too great. Those willing to surrender essential liberty for the benefit of perceived safety deserve neither - or so said B. Franklin.

Even on a local level, the authority, power, and control that elected officials and their bureaucratic minions exhibit is observable. The developer of my neighborhood community planted Live Oak trees in 3.5' right-of-ways and medians. They're now pushing 15 years old, and 80% of them have started lifting sidewalks and curing asphalt streets. In the monthly community newsletter, the HOA president is practically begging homeowners to pull a county permit and have the trees removed before they do extensive damage.

Wanting to do my part, and seeing symptoms of root damage, I pulled a permit and received County permission to remove my oak. Sadly, I had to also seek permission/blessing from the HOA. Three weeks later, I received notice from the "design review board" that they first have to inspect the area for existing damage, as they do not want to approve the removal of trees that have not yet started to damage community property. I kid you not. It's not a matter of if, but when. Every single one of these trees WILL destroy the roads and sidewalks.

So instead of thanking the homeowners that are willing to front the expense, time, and effort to proactively removed these time-bomb trees, owners have to face a board of people who want to wave their di**s around to prove they have authority over your property rights.

What's happening at the NPS is exactly the same thing.

The rule is there because of you and others who think

Who's decision is it that their enjoyment overrules mine? I paid the same fee to get in. You can't even say majority rules, because when it comes to being offended, the minority wins in every case in this country.

Because National Parks are supposed to be places where people can enjoy the quiet and beauty of nature, which whizzing drones destroy. You must be a millennial or otherwise you would be able to understand this rather simple concept.

 

[erkme73]

The rule is there because of you and others who think

Because National Parks are supposed to be places where people can enjoy the quiet and beauty of nature, which whizzing drones destroy. You must be a millennial or otherwise you would be able to understand this rather simple concept.

Funny guy. I must be millennial because I believe in individual responsibility and liberty? Is it because I don't think something should be outlawed or banned simply because it's annoying? Or, is it because I don't believe in having a police/nanny state from which I have to seek permission for everything short of breathing? The last time I looked, these aren't qualities of the millennial generation. If anything, these are fairly old, founding-father-ish Constitutional/Libertarian principals. But, if it makes you feel better to try and lump people (who you do not know) into derogatory categories, by all means, go right ahead. Then I'll just lump you into the "troll" category.

 

[Insideout]

The rule is there because of you and others who think

Because National Parks are supposed to be places where people can enjoy the quiet and beauty of nature, which whizzing drones destroy. You must be a millennial or otherwise you would be able to understand this rather simple concept.

LOL! I'm a 48 year old millennial. It's more about, I've been around long enough to start really being annoyed by people trying to control every aspect of my life. It's my planet too (well, at least since I moved here from my home planet). I think an idea would be to have a section of the parks set aside for areal photography.

 

[ryo]

It is their job to enforce laws, rules and regulations, which ensures the safety and enjoyment of park visitors.

What about MY (or OP) enjoyment?

 

[Mr. Salty]

What about MY (or OP) enjoyment?

There is a legal concept that boils down to "Your rights end where my nose begins."

Been to a national park lately? They're popular, with thousands of people visiting daily. Walking around Mount Rushmore recently was a pain because of all the people holding out selfie sticks, blocking other people from moving around. I can't imagine the problems that would arise from dozens of drones buzzing around on any given day, and if they were allowed, you know that's what would happen.

So you get to enjoy the national parks just like everyone else, but you don't get to disturb everyone else while you're doing it. Welcome to society.

I'd propose that the real reason has nothing to do with safety, indecision, or land management. What is the motivation? It's the same reason we have to take off our shoes at TSA, and submit to pat-downs/scans. While it does nothing to stop those willing to shove explosives into orifices (i.e. bomb mules), it conditions the masses into accepting the absolute authority and control our .gov has over us, our possessions, and even our own bodies.

Sure, the individual cop, or TSA agent may genuinely believe he's doing good "fighting evil", but the reality is, their actions are nothing more than a collective boot on neck of our liberties and freedoms.

Oh, great, another paranoid conspiracy theorist. I'm guessing you're more tea party than millennial.

Actually, the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks on commercial airplanes in the U.S. since 9/11 would point to the fact that airport security DOES work, even if it is imperfect. Do you really believe things would be better if anyone and everyone were allowed to get on commercial airliners without being screened at all?

And if you think it's inconvenient going through a TSA checkpoint in the U.S., try flying into Israel sometime. Then get back to me.

Even on a local level, the authority, power, and control that elected officials and their bureaucratic minions exhibit is observable. The developer of my neighborhood community planted Live Oak trees in 3.5' right-of-ways and medians. They're now pushing 15 years old, and 80% of them have started lifting sidewalks and curing asphalt streets. In the monthly community newsletter, the HOA president is practically begging homeowners to pull a county permit and have the trees removed before they do extensive damage.

HOAs aren't elected officials or bureaucrats. They're representatives of PRIVATE real estate developers, and you chose to buy into their property knowing full well what their rules and regulations are.

 

[Insideout]

There is a legal concept that boils down to "Your rights end where my nose begins."

Been to a national park lately? They're popular, with thousands of people visiting daily. Walking around Mount Rushmore recently was a pain because of all the people holding out selfie sticks, blocking other people from moving around. I can't imagine the problems that would arise from dozens of drones buzzing around on any given day, and if they were allowed, you know that's what would happen.

So you get to enjoy the national parks just like everyone else, but you don't get to disturb everyone else while you're doing it. Welcome to society.



Oh, great, another paranoid conspiracy theorist. I'm guessing you're more tea party than millennial.

Actually, the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks on commercial airplanes in the U.S. since 9/11 would point to the fact that airport security DOES work, even if it is imperfect. Do you really believe things would be better if anyone and everyone were allowed to get on commercial airliners without being screened at all?

And if you think it's inconvenient going through a TSA checkpoint in the U.S., try flying into Israel sometime. Then get back to me.



HOAs aren't elected officials or bureaucrats. They're representatives of PRIVATE real estate developers, and you chose to buy into their property knowing full well what their rules and regulations are.

Actually, I have been to a national park lately - hence my OP. There wasn't a human within sight where I was flying. There goes that theory. There's already laws in place that cover flying over people. So in this case, "my rights end several miles from where your nose begins".

 

[ryo]

There is a legal concept that boils down to "Your rights end where my nose begins."

Been to a national park lately? They're popular, with thousands of people visiting daily. Walking around Mount Rushmore recently was a pain because of all the people holding out selfie sticks, blocking other people from moving around. I can't imagine the problems that would arise from dozens of drones buzzing around on any given day, and if they were allowed, you know that's what would happen.

So you get to enjoy the national parks just like everyone else, but you don't get to disturb everyone else while you're doing it. Welcome to society.

I totally agree with this statement, but i hate exaggerations, mass hysteria and paranoia. I don't live in the US so i can't tell what is going on there with drones but the feeling is that there is a lot of unjustified hate. I of course can understand that people can feel annoyed about dozens of drones buzzing in the park, but is it really happening? The OP was flying outside the park in a non crowded area and was asked to stop: is that fair? I don't think so: society is also comprehension, sharing and tolerance.

 

[erkme73]

Oh, great, another paranoid conspiracy theorist. I'm guessing you're more tea party than millennial.

Yes, wanting to adhere to our Constitution makes me paranoid and a conspiracy theorist. Gotcha. Remember when it was cool to question authority? Probably not. Now, it seems, it's cool to question those who question authority. My, how far we've fallen. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

HOAs aren't elected officials or bureaucrats. They're representatives of PRIVATE real estate developers, and you chose to buy into their property knowing full well what their rules and regulations are.

Yes, they are elected, and the charter with the state puts the same restrictions on the board as any government agency. And yes, I did agree to adhere to the rules and regs (deeds and covenants) - and I do that with joy. But in your haste to paint my understanding of the HOA as deficient, you completely missed my point. And that is, there is no need to verify whether a ROW tree is causing damage. Because IT WILL. The HOA admits as much in the newsletter. If they publish this fact, then why on earth would they mandate an inspection and deny removal due to lack of damage? The point is - and read this slowly - there is NO benefit, NO logical justification, and certainly NO D&C that requires the permission to be sought for trees in the ROW. In fact, the county has made an exception to the standard tree removal permitting process specifically to expedite requests in our neighborhood. Nice try.

Actually, the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks on commercial airplanes in the U.S. since 9/11 would point to the fact that airport security DOES work, even if it is imperfect. Do you really believe things would be better if anyone and everyone were allowed to get on commercial airliners without being screened at all?

I do recall a number of attempts since 9/11. And you know what the common denominator was? Was it TSA? No. Was it the flight crew? No. Was it the air marshal? No. It was THE PASSENGERS. Whether the underwear bomber (who got through TSA), or the shoe bomber (who got through TSA), or deranged/drunk/psychotic passengers who try to open emergency exits or the cockpit door, each and every time a) they got no the plane, and b) it was the self-preservation instinct of the passengers that saved the day - not .gov.

To answer the question whether we'd be better unscreened? I don't know. But who's paranoid now? If a suicide bomber puts 1 lb of C4 in his colon and passes right through every scan known to man, what good does TSA do?

Here's the thing. Life isn't fair. It's not safe. And no amount of government will make either true (or increase either). I would rather live free than have the perception of safety while living under oppressive rules and regs.