First interaction with the police

[Marko9219]

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.

"No good reason"?!? Seriously? Here's just one single example, in one single National Park, of a really GOOD reason! A crashed drone could destroy Yellowstone’s Grand Prismatic Spring

 

[tokorobam]

Perhaps a compromise would help. Just as national parks have places where cars are allowed and not allowed to go, how about designated drone areas.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Perhaps a compromise would help. Just as national parks have places where cars are allowed and not allowed to go, how about designated drone areas.

Because it's likely to be places no one would want to fly.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

"No good reason"?!? Seriously? Here's just one single example, in one single National Park, of a really GOOD reason! A crashed drone could destroy Yellowstone’s Grand Prismatic Spring

Oh good lord!

This is an example of falling for anything the government or news media throws out. The entire story is one of fear mongerung and oversensationslizing on the part of scientists, officials and media.

Are you telling us that you actually believe that a 2 lb plastic and metal drone can have any effect whatsoever on a 200 plus degree, sulfur laden spring?

That thing is probably desolved by the heat and acid by now, and if not then it couldn't possibly have any effect on a flow of hundreds if not thousands of psi over that large an area. The story even admitted as much.

I'm not saying that we should be crashing our drones into pristine springs or the like, but that is my reason for wanting them to come up with a decent policy of where and when.

But how does, lets not let folks fly directly over the geysers, or perhaps other sensitive areas, become an outright BAN over millions of square miles of land?

 

[Marko9219]

Oh good lord!

This is an example of falling for anything the government or news media throws out. The entire story is one of fear mongerung and oversensationslizing on the part of scientists, officials and media.

Are you telling us that you actually believe that a 2 lb plastic and metal drone can have any effect whatsoever on a 200 plus degree, sulfur laden spring?

That thing is probably desolved by the heat and acid by now, and if not then it couldn't possibly have any effect on a flow of hundreds if not thousands of psi over that large an area. The story even admitted as much.

I'm not saying that we should be crashing our drones into pristine springs or the like, but that is my reason for wanting them to come up with a decent policy of where and when.

But how does, lets not let folks fly directly over the geysers, or perhaps other sensitive areas, become an outright BAN over millions of square miles of land?

Oh good lord!

This is an example of falling for anything the government or news media throws out. The entire story is one of fear mongerung and oversensationslizing on the part of scientists, officials and media.

Are you telling us that you actually believe that a 2 lb plastic and metal drone can have any effect whatsoever on a 200 plus degree, sulfur laden spring?

That thing is probably desolved by the heat and acid by now, and if not then it couldn't possibly have any effect on a flow of hundreds if not thousands of psi over that large an area. The story even admitted as much.

I'm not saying that we should be crashing our drones into pristine springs or the like, but that is my reason for wanting them to come up with a decent policy of where and when.

But how does, lets not let folks fly directly over the geysers, or perhaps other sensitive areas, become an outright BAN over millions of square miles of land?

Well I know I'll never convince you it's a good idea so I'll simply attempt to reinforce my perspective. I will also not attempt to convince you of the possibility of dire effects of a lithium battery dissolving in a geothermal pool. You obviously know more about the science of geothermal water chemistry than me. Or the experts.

2 personal examples of why I am all in favor of a total ban in National Parks: The first was 3 years ago in Grand Teton NP. My wife and I were out doing some sunset photography and just enjoying the evening. A truck pulls up and parks about 100 yds away. I never even paid any attention. A few minutes later, we had a drone buzzing around. An angry mosquito sound ruining the solitude. I'm a pilot, I've been flying model aircraft since I was 25 (I'm 62 now), but I told my wife right then and there "These are going to be outlawed in National Parks, and well they should be." The next occurrence was in Zion NP in Southern UT. We had hiked into Emerald pools, just enjoyed the sound of the waterfall and birds. 30 minutes later, some idiot comes in with a drone in a backpack and starts flying the waterfall shooting from the top to the bottom. It was ridiculously annoying and I repeated my hope they would be banned. Hallelujah, shortly after that, they were! There is not one single aspect of the NP ban that I don't agree with, and I spend approximately 6 weeks of every year in our National Parks. I would LOVE to shoot aerials of what I see, but I would NEVER CONSIDER DOING IT. Even if it was still legal.

 

[MrsTreat]

It would be good to let Drone Operators film at National Parks a couple of days a year as a compromise.

 

[bowens44]

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 doubt that risk of fire was considered. I think the reason is more along the lines of people come to the parks to get away from the noise of the city, to get back to nature and probably also put in place to protect wildlife . Drones buzzing around would certainly annoy me in that setting and I love my drones.....

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Well I know I'll never convince you it's a good idea so I'll simply attempt to reinforce my perspective. I will also not attempt to convince you of the possibility of dire effects of a lithium battery dissolving in a geothermal pool. You obviously know more about the science of geothermal water chemistry than me. Or the experts.

2 personal examples of why I am all in favor of a total ban in National Parks: The first was 3 years ago in Grand Teton NP. My wife and I were out doing some sunset photography and just enjoying the evening. A truck pulls up and parks about 100 yds away. I never even paid any attention. A few minutes later, we had a drone buzzing around. An angry mosquito sound ruining the solitude. I'm a pilot, I've been flying model aircraft since I was 25 (I'm 62 now), but I told my wife right then and there "These are going to be outlawed in National Parks, and well they should be." The next occurrence was in Zion NP in Southern UT. We had hiked into Emerald pools, just enjoyed the sound of the waterfall and birds. 30 minutes later, some idiot comes in with a drone in a backpack and starts flying the waterfall shooting from the top to the bottom. It was ridiculously annoying and I repeated my hope they would be banned. Hallelujah, shortly after that, they were! There is not one single aspect of the NP ban that I don't agree with, and I spend approximately 6 weeks of every year in our National Parks. I would LOVE to shoot aerials of what I see, but I would NEVER CONSIDER DOING IT. Even if it was still legal.

Here in my state of NC we have the Great Smoky Mountains: UAVs BANNED. All NC State Parks: BANNED. Outer Banks National Seashore: BANNED. Many city parks: BANNED. Proposals for flights over private property without permission: BANNED. Permission required to take off or land from just about anywhere, unless it is your own land.

Add the obvious legetimate NFZs for airports, military installations, MOAs TFRs, sport stadiums, wilderness areas...

If this trend toward denying public airspace continues, just where do you propose people are going to enjoy this as a hobby or pursue a growing industry? From their own backyards, assuming they are fortunate enough to have one which is flyable and not in a NFZ?

Forget the hobby for a second. I've talked to NPS employees who say the NPS will not even allow employees to use them for research or search and rescue.

Or would you prefer that only "authorized government entities" be allowed to use them within the confines of the parks? Because, make no mistake, benefits of drones within the vast park boundaries is recognized, undeniable, and inevitable.

You should be aware that in my state alone this includes hundreds of thousands of acres of land (perhaps millions as I haven't done the math) where NOBODY is even around to be disturbed. In fact, my wife and I travel the State Parks, National Park, and National Seashore extensively and most of the time there is no one, I mean NO ONE within miles of where we are. It therefore makes no sense to ban them from vast areas where no one or someone would even occasionally be exposed.

Since you're on this forum, you are no doubt aware of where this technology is going, how small it is, and how it is bound to get smaller and quieter with each passing month. But, never mind that, once these rules are permanently in place, as you hope they will be, they are never lifted no matter how friendly the technology becomes, and exceptions are not made without an act of Congress... especially once public opinion has been soured by fear mongering reports of how large, intrusive and potentially damaging to society (or better yet, the environment) they are, even as every day they move further and further from that narrative.

Just today, I was in a NC State Park, immediately adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the single engine manned aircraft, circling overhead and the Harleys blaring by below us were many decibels above what my Mavic would've put out, so forgive me if I am somewhat annoyed by those who use this, and the fact that my little 20oz drone might clog up a 2 acre hot spring, as ammunition to incite negative public opinion.

And all because SOMEONE, or some creature. might be bothered by an occasional buzz which isn't even close to the blaring Harleys cruising along the Parkway? This would not even be an issue if properly administered.

So when you use the excuse that you can't be bothered by a little noise, who is being selfish here?

I am not advocating for an anything goes policy here, as I like my peace and quiet as much as anyone, but what we have now, and what you advocate for is overkill IMO.

You are correct, I'll probably never change you opinion either, but I just hope clearer minds prevail and recognize the benefits of embracing this technology, everywhere it is appropriate, regardless of what agency boundary it happens to be within.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I doubt that risk of fire was considered. I think the reason is more along the lines of people come to the parks to get away from the noise of the city, to get back to nature and probably also put in place to protect wildlife . Drones buzzing around would certainly annoy me in that setting and I love my drones.....

Doesn't have to be all or nothing...

 

[Marko9219]

Here in my state of NC we have the Great Smoky Mountains: UAVs BANNED. All NC State Parks: BANNED. Outer Banks National Seashore: BANNED. Many city parks: BANNED. Proposals for flights over private property without permission: BANNED. Permission required to take off or land from just about anywhere, unless it is your own land.

Add the obvious legetimate NFZs for airports, military installations, MOAs TFRs, sport stadiums, wilderness areas...

If this trend toward denying public airspace continues, just where do you propose people are going to enjoy this as a hobby or pursue a growing industry? From their own backyards, assuming they are fortunate enough to have one which is flyable and not in a NFZ?

Forget the hobby for a second. I've talked to NPS employees who say the NPS will not even allow employees to use them for research or search and rescue.

Or would you prefer that only "authorized government entities" be allowed to use them within the confines of the parks? Because, make no mistake, benefits of drones within the vast park boundaries is recognized, undeniable, and inevitable.

You should be aware that in my state alone this includes hundreds of thousands of acres of land (perhaps millions as I haven't done the math) where NOBODY is even around to be disturbed. In fact, my wife and I travel the State Parks, National Park, and National Seashore extensively and most of the time there is no one, I mean NO ONE within miles of where we are. It therefore makes no sense to ban them from vast areas where no one or someone would even occasionally be exposed.

Since you're on this forum, you are no doubt aware of where this technology is going, how small it is, and how it is bound to get smaller and quieter with each passing month. But, never mind that, once these rules are permanently in place, as you hope they will be, they are never lifted no matter how friendly the technology becomes, and exceptions are not made without an act of Congress... especially once public opinion has been soured by fear mongering reports of how large, intrusive and potentially damaging to society (or better yet, the environment) they are, even as every day they move further and further from that narrative.

Just today, I was in a NC State Park, immediately adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the single engine manned aircraft, circling overhead and the Harleys blaring by below us were many decibels above what my Mavic would've put out, so forgive me if I am somewhat annoyed by those who use this, and the fact that my little 20oz drone might clog up a 2 acre hot spring, as ammunition to incite negative public opinion.

And all because SOMEONE, or some creature. might be bothered by an occasional buzz which isn't even close to the blaring Harleys cruising along the Parkway? This would not even be an issue if properly administered.

So when you use the excuse that you can't be bothered by a little noise, who is being selfish here?

I am not advocating for an anything goes policy here, as I like my peace and quiet as much as anyone, but what we have now, and what you advocate for is overkill IMO.

You are correct, I'll probably never change you opinion either, but I just hope clearer minds prevail and recognize the benefits of embracing this technology, everywhere it is appropriate, regardless of what agency boundary it happens to be within.

 

[Lao De]

I think you guys in the states overdo it (and I don`t mean the drone guys)with all your rules and regulations.
I was flying my Mavic i Thailand,Malaysia,Germany and Switzerland and untill now (knock on wood) I never had any problem neither with bystanders nor with law enforcment.

 

[Lapeer20m]

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.

Michigan has gone the opposite direction and created MORE places to fly with a drone preemption law that prohibits any local municipalities from banning drones or drone operation.

It's now legal to fly in any non federal park in Michigan.

 

[1919 Convoy]

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.

As a new droner, I agree with you. I try and be very quite and not get in the way of any people.

 

[MAVICPILOT13]

Let me say this first: I'm a pilot. Neener neener neener! Winks to the ignorant folks who think that (just because they are able to pilot different aircraft than I can) they "are" pilots and I'm "not", but hey, ignorance is bliss (and this is ignorance of some BASIC definitions... but hey... "bliss", right?).

The amount of entitlement among pilots seems to differ. Some seem pretty reasonable, some don't care, and some actively flaunt the rules/laws (just check out YouTube). But drones are cheap(er) now, it's only going to get worse, and pretty soon we won't be able to fly anywhere because if the fear is already this bad, imagine when drones start being used in CRIME, or legitimate spying/stalking (not the "my daughter saw a drone 300' above our backyard" perversions of reality). Yikes.

So what's the solution? I say we should ban aircraft that seat 1-6 passengers. Why? They aren't "real" pilo... just kidding!

The solution is accepting that this hobby is going away in it's current form. Soon. It just is. It's sad, and it's wrong, and it's worth getting angry about, but it's not going to be even remotely the same in a few years (and that's assuming nothing catastrophic (drone bomb, etc.) happens sooner). Society at large has made crusading against drones a cool thing to do. Is that going to change as MORE hit the skies? Nope.

So enjoy flying while you can, be safe, and remember these days. I love my Mavic, but it's going to be short lived even if that makes me sad. It's nice to be hopeful, but at some point you have to be realistic: we haven't had anything "bad" happen with a drone and we still have downright panic regarding them. "Oh the privacy!" "what about the children!?" "you might frighten a bear!" "you could take down a plane... that could then hit another plane and then hit a bus full of school children!!! All because of your drone!!!"... Imagine the insanity when something bad does happen (and it will, hopeful or not, because of: math). I hope our right to pilot in public sticks around for as long as possible, but it's not worth worrying about flying in NP's when we should all be far more concerned about being able to keep flying in the places they haven't already restricted.

We can revisit this post in a few years, but I think most of us know I'm right. Maybe they'll enact some fancier licensing for the few "commercial" pilots that want to deal with the heavier restrictions, but my feeling is that we're heading towards "recreational" drone use meaning: private or designated areas only, not within NFZ's, and still of course under 400' at all times. The fines and punishment will get scarier for ignoring the rules too.

Enjoy it while it lasts, but try not to worry about the NPS and instead just pilot safely where we still can!

 

[Franzinator]

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.

Just curious what are drone laws like on your planet? Cause **** I'll fly there - probably get some epic footage......

 

[MavicLover]

Probably nothing but dust

 

[pd417]

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.

So you think the individual cop is "nothing more than a collective boot on the neck of our liberties and freedoms". So, when the crazed ex con breaks into your house at 3:00 AM or some child predator snatches your kid, who you going to call? Your homeowners association? You're going to call the police and you're going to be d$&n glad they showed up and hooked up the guy that just kicked in your front door. So don't give me that "we live in a police state" garbage. You want to see a real police state? Move to North Korea, Iran or Somalia.

If you don't like the way your local police are doing things, try joining the PD or Sheriff's Dept and try and effect change from the inside or do you just prefer ranting about trees from behind a keyboard?

 

[dewster]

Here's a video from a national park encounter with police:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[royster]

Great video, The laws in Canada are quite restrictive, thankfully, the park police are not. I fly in & round three local conservation areas. First time I took off in the parking lot, approached by park officer as I landed, who led me to an area just over the park boundary. "This is the area you guys can launch from, Don't fly over people, okay"?
Yes sir!
I;ve fly there every couple of days now