First interaction with the police

[Insideout]

I can't imagine the problems that would arise if they legalized alcohol. People would be driving around under the influence and killing other people with their cars. Oh wait. Never mind. Good thing drones are getting banned and keeping people safe.

 

[erkme73]

I can't imagine the problems that would arise if they legalized alcohol. People would be driving around under the influence and killing other people with their cars. Oh wait. Never mind. Good thing drones are getting banned and keeping people safe.

Careful bro, all the liberty/freedom sounding crap will get you labeled as a conspiracy theorist. This is why they say not to talk politics in public. Too many people have such a twisted view of what government should be/do, it makes me realize how far gone our Republic is.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Yes, wanting to adhere to our Constitution makes me paranoid and a conspiracy theorist.

No, making statements like "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" makes you a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

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.

I've never thought anything HOAs did makes any sense. That's why I refuse to live in a development governed by an HOA.

I do recall a number of attempts since 9/11.

Attempts, not successful, as I said. And a couple of attempts in 16 years isn't bad. You can bet that would go up if there was no security screening.

Whether the underwear bomber (who got through TSA), or the shoe bomber (who got through TSA),

Both of whom were using a new type of explosive. The reason you have to take your shoes off and go through pat-downs now? It's a screening adjustment to those incidents.

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.

These incidents don't require weapons, so they're irrelevant to the discussion. Although it's a good argument for not letting passengers get drunk during flights.

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

I'm glad this thread so quickly veered into politics -- you simply can't get that anywhere else on the Internet.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

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.

Yeah, I'd like to enjoy a National Park without frigging Harleys blasting along, and dogs barking or children screaming, but that isn't going to happen because they aren't BANNED, are they?

And what about snowmobiles and 4 wheelers in some parks? They don't disturb anything right?

An occasional drone, 100 or 200 feet in the air isn't going to disturb anything, especially if your beloved powers that be, would get off their *** and make a reasonable policy for their inclusion.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

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?

Well Mr Danman, I seems I have flown both drones AND manned aircraft, so your statement is both ignorant and inaccurate.

I know full well about the 2000 ft minimums... hmmm now where did I learn that?... Oh it was on my PART 107 UAV test. Imagine that!

If I'm not mistaken, they are above designated wilderness areas, shown on those map thingys.... oh yes, they are called sectionals, which again, was... wait for it... on the part 107 examination!

But the main issue here is, you seem not to know how a full size Cessna with a 160 hp engine cruising at 125 kts might be a little different from a 2 lb Mavic in terms of disturbing wildlife or people.

Not to mention that vast areas of lands inside national parks, are not designated wilderness.

But, you would know that if you were an aviator... right?

 

[Insideout]

In addition to Harley's, dogs and screaming children, while visiting a national park, I "could" be creepy and take pictures of the hot women walking around in skin tight yoga pants - ban all cameras. My car "could" catch fire (like many do on the highway) causing damage to a protected area - ban cars. I "could" fart contributing to air pollution over the park - ban people and all the animals in the park. Anyone else want to contribute your hypocritical "reasons" for banning drones in the parks? I started this on a positive note that I felt fortunate to encounter cool cops who could have made my day completely suck, but chose to be nice. It turned into a bunch of people telling me how glad they are that I was chased out of somewhere that isn't even clearly in the park, because drones make noise?????

 

[Robert Mitchell]

In addition to Harley's, dogs and screaming children, while visiting a national park, I "could" be creepy and take pictures of the hot women walking around in skin tight yoga pants - ban all cameras. My car "could" catch fire (like many do on the highway) causing damage to a protected area - ban cars. I "could" fart contributing to air pollution over the park - ban people and all the animals in the park. Anyone else want to contribute your hypocritical "reasons" for banning drones in the parks? I started this on a positive note that I felt fortunate to encounter cool cops who could have made my day completely suck, but chose to be nice. It turned into a bunch of people telling me how glad they are that I was chased out of somewhere that isn't even clearly in the park, because drones make noise?????

Seems that the majority are with you on this one.

Your story was indeed a good one, but sad that we are "grateful" to not be arrested for doing something perfectly benign.

Not sure why some are so willing to complacently accept anything thrown their way by the powers that be, "for the better good"

 

[Someone Else]

In addition to Harley's, dogs and screaming children, while visiting a national park, I "could" be creepy and take pictures of the hot women walking around in skin tight yoga pants - ban all cameras. My car "could" catch fire (like many do on the highway) causing damage to a protected area - ban cars. I "could" fart contributing to air pollution over the park - ban people and all the animals in the park. Anyone else want to contribute your hypocritical "reasons" for banning drones in the parks? I started this on a positive note that I felt fortunate to encounter cool cops who could have made my day completely suck, but chose to be nice. It turned into a bunch of people telling me how glad they are that I was chased out of somewhere that isn't even clearly in the park, because drones make noise?????

I'm glad to hear you had a positive experience with a LEO especially when it was an honest mistake, The East Gate to Yellowstone is similar in that it is within the actual park boundaries. There are more good LEOs out there than most people would care to believe, especially if your immediate response isn't to get defensive.

That said I do agree with the ban in National Parks only because it would concentrate so much stupid in one place, which is already a problem without throwing drones in the mix. Have you been to Yellowstone and seen the trash that litters the geyser basins? Hats and umbrellas that are not easily retrievable because of the instability of the ground in these places. While I wouldn't mind a ban of children of the screaming variety and any vehicle that cannot pass a noise test dogs are pretty near banned. They are not allowed outside of most of the close to the road, public places and also never off leash. Disney banned selfie sticks in their parks and after my last couple of National Park visits I would like to see them banned there as well. I mean let's be completely honest here, you or I might be people that would only want to fly away from other people and not be obnoxious but all it takes is a couple of hours in a public place to see that the majority of Americans couldn't care less how their actions affect others.

 

[aringhof]

The reason u can't fly in national parks is it can be distracting for other people to see flying objects when they're trying to enjoy nature. If you were a mile outside the gate, you're not bothering ANYONE and should have the right to fly your drone. We really don't have the freedoms we think we do.

 

[Mr. Salty]

I can't imagine the problems that would arise if they legalized alcohol. People would be driving around under the influence and killing other people with their cars. Oh wait. Never mind. Good thing drones are getting banned and keeping people safe.

Drinking and driving is illegal, so your argument doesn't work. And banning drones in national parks really isn't about safety. It's about not creating a nuisance in a natural environment.

Yeah, I'd like to enjoy a National Park without frigging Harleys blasting along, and dogs barking or children screaming, but that isn't going to happen because they aren't BANNED, are they?

And what about snowmobiles and 4 wheelers in some parks? They don't disturb anything right?

Harleys are required to stay on the roads in developed areas of the parks just like other motor vehicles. They don't get to tool around in the back country on nature trails.

And dogs, snowmobiles and 4-wheelers are actually pretty heavily regulated as to where they are and are not allowed to go in national parks. Snowmobiles, for example, have to be inspected for noise and air pollution, and many snowmobiles don't meet the requirements. There are also restrictions on how many per day are allowed in a given park, and they have specific trails they can be on.

Now children ... well, you've got me there.

 

[Budmancan]

There are lots of areas you can't fly and the number increases every day.

I live in Raleigh, NC and there is an ordinance to limit drones with cameras to fly in only 3 of the 90 city parks. Am I bummed, yes; but, flying in parks in boring anyway. There are many more interesting places to fly around here. I saw a stat in another post that said less than 1% of the US is an NFZ. There are lots of great places to fly if you take the time to look for them.

I think it's cool the OP had a positive experience with the LOE. It would also be cool if more people would post about the great places they found to fly and the experiences they had there.

 

[Cyberpower678]

Paging @dirkclod who may want to keep an eye on this thread.

 

[dirkclod]

Paging @dirkclod who may want to keep an eye on this thread.

Thanks and I have been and moved it to GD a few minutes ago .
Guy's just stay civil in this .
Thanks

 

[SlackBladder]

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.

yet 4wheel drive vehicles, pff road motorbikes, harley davidsons and helicoptors are all ok for you?

 

[dbyantis]

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

I had a ranger say that to me at a State Park, as well as disturbing the wild life. The disturbing wildlife was worth a ticket he said, but never wrote it, I guess since I was packing up and starting to kayak.

 

[Insideout]

Drinking and driving is illegal, so your argument doesn't work. And banning drones in national parks really isn't about safety. It's about not creating a nuisance in a natural environment.

i thought you were saying buzzing around people would be the nuisance, which is already illegal just like drinking and driving. So yes, the argument holds up and you're basically saying that because the existing law won't stop people from doing it (just like alcohol), then we just completely ban it (unlike alcohol). If you fly where there are no people, how in the world is it a nuisance? In fact, the places people would want to fly for photography, are where people AREN'T. Again, based on your logic, we are being regulated based on what "could" happen which is nonsense. This is punishing everyone because there are a few who might do dumb things that are already against the law. If that's how we regulate, we need to ban the entire human race from ever leaving their homes. I propose implementing that in Iowa first

 

[Mr. Salty]

i thought you were saying buzzing around people would be the nuisance, which is already illegal just like drinking and driving. So yes, the argument holds up and you're basically saying that because the existing law won't stop people from doing it (just like alcohol), then we just completely ban it (unlike alcohol). If you fly where there are no people, how in the world is it a nuisance? In fact, the places people would want to fly for photography, are where people AREN'T. Again, based on your logic, we are being regulated based on what "could" happen which is nonsense. This is punishing everyone because there are a few who might do dumb things that are already against the law. If that's how we regulate, we need to ban the entire human race from ever leaving their homes. I propose implementing that in Iowa first

Alcohol, like drones, is legal, but both are banned in places where it has been decided they would be disruptive. You can't drink everywhere you might want to, just like you can't fly your drone everywhere you might want to.

National parks are rarely desolate. Just because you don't see people hiking the trails or the backwoods doesn't mean they aren't there. The national parks ban didn't come about because of what might happen, it came about because of what was already starting to happen.

 

[Insideout]

Alcohol, like drones, is legal, but both are banned in places where it has been decided they would be disruptive. You can't drink everywhere you might want to, just like you can't fly your drone everywhere you might want to.

National parks are rarely desolate. Just because you don't see people hiking the trails or the backwoods doesn't mean they aren't there. The national parks ban didn't come about because of what might happen, it came about because of what was already starting to happen.

Those are valid points and I respect your point of view. However, most of the national parks I've visited are massive and have plenty of places that drones could be operated safely, non-nuisancely (I just made that word up), and most importantly, promote the very thing that got the national parks system started - photography. Now we have the ability to add the 3rd dimension to that, but no, we can't because a few nugget heads can't be respectful.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Drinking and driving is illegal, so your argument doesn't work. And banning drones in national parks really isn't about safety. It's about not creating a nuisance in a natural environment.



Harleys are required to stay on the roads in developed areas of the parks just like other motor vehicles. They don't get to tool around in the back country on nature trails.

And dogs, snowmobiles and 4-wheelers are actually pretty heavily regulated as to where they are and are not allowed to go in national parks. Snowmobiles, for example, have to be inspected for noise and air pollution, and many snowmobiles don't meet the requirements. There are also restrictions on how many per day are allowed in a given park, and they have specific trails they can be on.

Now children ... well, you've got me there.

So what you are saying is that the NPS took the time to develop policies so that these things could be used but with reasonable restrictions and limitations.

So, exactly what is the problem with that approach to drones?