Flying any kind of drone or remote-control aircraft is prohibited in all city parks! - Griffith Observatory

[kjonyou]

So is this true or just some BS thing they put on their website? Scroll down to outside guidelines. I get that they don't want you to fly at the observatory, but they go way beyond that with that statement. I can't find an actual LA city law that bans flying drones in city parks. You can fly in Macarrthur Park and Silver Lake for example.

Guidelines - Griffith Observatory - Southern California’s gateway to the cosmos!

I checked here, nothing about that, just Malibu, and few other cities but not Los Angeles city parks:

Drone Laws in California [Updated January 11, 2022]

 

[Vic Moss]

It's their property, they can prohibit it. They cannot stop you from flying over it though if you take off from outside their property. But you still have to fly safe.

City of LA regulation SEC. 63.44. (B) (8) states: "No person shall land, release, take off or fly any balloon, except children toy balloons not inflated with any flammable material, helicopter, parakite, hang glider, aircraft or powered models thereof, except in areas specifically set aside therefor."

https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=006827039532201861668:gawpx09ckve&q=https://www.laparks.org/venice/pdf/lamc63.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi7g8Se1d71AhUPD0QIHavSDAwQFnoECAAQAg&usg=AOvVaw1flJUoxCA2OiKeQTmvZv-U

 

[SmokingJoe]

When you fly using GPS, I assume ”they” could obtain a record of where your controller was located, but can they also determine the drone’s flight path? If they cannot determine the drone flight path using GPS how would they possible know or be able to identify your drone was the one seen?
Idid not know you can’t fly in State or Federal parks until last year when a Native American in east Tennessee told me about it. However, he said flying in the Cherokee Nation part of the Cherokee National Forest is probably controlled by the Cherokee Nation, not the Federal park. He suggested I look into it. Does anyone know about flying in any Native American Nation lands?

 

[Vic Moss]

Does anyone know about flying in any Native American Nation lands?

Each tribe has their own set of rules. Someone needs to check with their council if they want to fly.

 

[lamavicair2flyer]

So is this true or just some BS thing they put on their website? Scroll down to outside guidelines. I get that they don't want you to fly at the observatory, but they go way beyond that with that statement. I can't find an actual LA city law that bans flying drones in city parks. You can fly in Macarrthur Park and Silver Lake for example.

Guidelines - Griffith Observatory - Southern California’s gateway to the cosmos!

I checked here, nothing about that, just Malibu, and few other cities but not Los Angeles city parks:

Drone Laws in California [Updated January 11, 2022]

I am new to California from Texas. I took my Mavic air 2 for a fly for production purposes at the Griffith just 2 days ago and was unaware drones were prohibited. I did wonder given that it’s a special place, but on the DJI fly zone maps I didn’t see any restrictions… so I took a chance. Next thing you know a young security guy was extremely ugly with me about it, demanding it come down. I tried to deter his attitude by saying “thank you for letting me know. I had no idea” when he told me it could be a ticket up to $1,000. But he kept on and on with a ridiculous attitude saying “well now you know” so I told him to stop being rude and he finally ****. I’m still kind of mad about it. I had no bad intentions, there’s just a great view of the city from there.. I wasn’t completely negligent as I did try and research.. but found no clear answer. Apparently there’s a sign. But it’s small and in a ridiculous spot. How was I supposed to know? Everything is so strict. Makes life suck.

 

[kjonyou]

I am new to California from Texas. I took my Mavic air 2 for a fly for production purposes at the Griffith just 2 days ago and was unaware drones were prohibited. I did wonder given that it’s a special place, but on the DJI fly zone maps I didn’t see any restrictions… so I took a chance. Next thing you know a young security guy was extremely ugly with me about it, demanding it come down. I tried to deter his attitude by saying “thank you for letting me know. I had no idea” when he told me it could be a ticket up to $1,000. But he kept on and on with a ridiculous attitude saying “well now you know” so I told him to stop being rude and he finally F’d off. I’m still kind of mad about it. I had no bad intentions, there’s just a great view of the city from there.. I wasn’t completely negligent as I did try and research.. but found no clear answer. Apparently there’s a sign. But it’s small and in a ridiculous spot. How was I supposed to know? Everything is so strict. Makes life suck.

Well, it's posted on their website under rules for the Observatory. Not dogs, no skateboards no fires, no drones etc.

I would love to fly there, but you cant unless from really far away. A 5 minute search should have told you that.

 

[snowghost]

It's their property, they can prohibit it. They cannot stop you from flying over it though if you take off from outside their property. But you still have to fly safe.

City of LA regulation SEC. 63.44. (B) (8) states: "No person shall land, release, take off or fly any balloon, except children toy balloons not inflated with any flammable material, helicopter, parakite, hang glider, aircraft or powered models thereof, except in areas specifically set aside therefor."

https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=006827039532201861668:gawpx09ckve&q=https://www.laparks.org/venice/pdf/lamc63.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi7g8Se1d71AhUPD0QIHavSDAwQFnoECAAQAg&usg=AOvVaw1flJUoxCA2OiKeQTmvZv-U

I agree that they don't have authority over you if you take off from outside. But their verbiage has the word "fly" in it. That leads me to believe they feel they can prohibit flight even if launched from a non park place.

Is that how you read it?

 

[kjonyou]

That regulation was written in 1979! So consumer grade drones were not even around then. But they do fly and they are a type of aircraft so they got us there. The catch is the Griffith Observatory is part Griffith Park which is huge, like the side of a mountain. Unless you can launch from someones private property, there is no close legal launching place.

Personally I wish someone would test that in court and throw out that regulation as not partaning to drones since they are not specifically mentioned but I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

But their verbiage has the word "fly" in it. That leads me to believe they feel they can prohibit flight even if launched from a non park place.

Is that how you read it?

That's a bluff many minor authorities try (here in Australia too), and it works sometimes with people that aren't aware of the airspace ultimate authority in their countrys airspace regulator.

Yes, they can stop you from operating from 'their' land, but can't stop overflight (with minor exceptions in some places).
This is obviously take off, landing, or moving onto the land concerned while piloting the drone.

They can possibly report a pilot if other airspace authority rules are broken, such as VLOS, flying over people etc, so in some cases restricting their land use does in effect stop overflight too.

 

[Vic Moss]

I agree that they don't have authority over you if you take off from outside. But their verbiage has the word "fly" in it. That leads me to believe they feel they can prohibit flight even if launched from a non park place.

Is that how you read it?

Section B starts out with "Within the limits of any park or other City-owned Harbor Department designated and controlled property within the City of Los Angeles:"

Since "8" is a subpart of "B", "Within the limits" is the key word. So they have no authority for flights from outside their park. If you're outside their "limits of any park..." when you fly, their rules do not apply.

Bur remember, the FAA rules still do. So you need to maintain VLOS, not fly over people, etc.

 

[lookout]

There’s kind of a two tier function here. One, on somebody’s property and the other being in airspace. Whether you start from somebody’s property and hover over it, or come from someone else’s property and hover over from possibly a point BVLOS to get to the same point via airspace seems immaterial. You wanted to hover or fly over a certain spot regardless of how you got there. In either case you went from property to airspace the second you took off and in reverse when you land.

Now the other problem is if you start from the property of interest and they want to ban that activity “while on their property”, took some effort to arrive at their property to begin with. Besides drone flight, standing, stopping, parking, jaywalking, spitting, walking, running, smoking, fighting, shooting, loitering, driving, bicycling, chewing gum, buying, selling or anything else might also catch the property owners interest which they might also try to ban.

Now in the case of manned aircraft which outside of helicopters that can almost land anywhere it wants to, an airport is required to takeoff and land safely from usually a public airport utilizing quite a bit of real estate. But wherein the pilot is also in the same place as aircraft they are flying, they are usually in some kind of airspace which cannot be construed as trespassing on somebody else’s property, but they do have to avoid incursions with others engaged in the same activity. And they usually have to find a point on the other end that is also suitable to land and take off from.

Arriving at another point from where they started is typically not a feasible option with a drone, as there is a possible undesirable separation between the drone and the operator which may typically be also on somebody else’s property from where they started.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

There’s kind of a two tier function here. One, on somebody’s property and the other being in airspace. Whether you start from somebody’s property and hover over it, or come from someone else’s property and hover over from possibly a point BVLOS to get to the same point via airspace seems immaterial. You wanted to hover or fly over a certain spot regardless of how you got there. In either case you went from property to airspace the second you took off and in reverse when you land.

Now the other problem is if you start from the property of interest and they want to ban that activity “while on their property”, took some effort to arrive at their property to begin with. Besides drone flight, standing, stopping, parking, jaywalking, spitting, walking, running, smoking, fighting, shooting, loitering, driving, bicycling, chewing gum, buying, selling or anything else might also catch the property owners interest which they might also try to ban.

Now in the case of manned aircraft which outside of helicopters that can almost land anywhere it wants to, an airport is required to takeoff and land safely from usually a public airport utilizing quite a bit of real estate. But wherein the pilot is also in the same place as aircraft they are flying, they are usually in some kind of airspace which cannot be construed as trespassing on somebody else’s property, but they do have to avoid incursions with others engaged in the same activity. And they usually have to find a point on the other end that is also suitable to land and take off from.

Arriving at another point from where they started is typically not a feasible option with a drone, as there is a possible undesirable separation between the drone and the operator which may typically be also on somebody else’s property from where they started.

= try it to annoy anyone
If the shot / place is that important to fly, make it quick, sensibly high and away from people if possible, get it done, leave.
All from off the authorities landholding.
No one will be likely to even know you were there, not that it really matters legally, but the less you bother others, the better all round.

 

[kjonyou]

Irronicly, several of the parks and beaches I have checked out lately bring you to their website with a full on animated drone video on the welcome page. But "drones are evil". UGH,

 

[Vic Moss]

Irronicly, several of the parks and beaches I have checked out lately bring you to their website with a full on animated drone video on the welcome page. But "drones are evil". UGH,

yep, that's very common here as well.

I can't think of a town council I've dealt with trying to pass drone regulations that don't have drone footage on their "Welcome to our pretty town" page. And many times flying over the very buildings and areas they want closed.

The irony is palpable.

 

[skizmic]

An image from my work tonight... They can have their policies if they want, it's fine.

I took off approximately 1529 ft away at an area that was hidden in plain site. So nobody can actually say that I was being shady...

The guards or possibly LE shone their light at my drone like a spotlight for a while. But they couldn't get my take-off/landing 20. But then again, I wasn't hiding either...

I'm an experienced photographer/pilot... I flew safely, stayed away from being overhead of people and got my footage.
It's not folks like US that are ruining drones and photography... It's the general public who feel that they're entitled to the tools that we use.... Especially the folks that buy our tools as toys for their kids... And the pervs out there....

 

[dronerdave]

That's a cool picture of a large telescope facility that appears to be a open to the public during evening dusk hours, but out of respect to most of the working observatory's, I wouldn't come close to one with a drone during there imaging operations. Myself I'd call and ask if my drone flight would cause any interference with their operations. Call it common courtesy. There is nothing worst than having an aircraft (of any size) streak through my scopes CCD camera FOV that took so much effort to set up especially when the actual imaging is going on. Even though I can't control planes flying over my amateur imaging sessions and passing through my scopes target objective, I wouldn't be too happy about a drone ruining a night of astrophotography either. As a professional photographer I'm sure you can relate this.

 

[skizmic]

That's a cool picture of a large telescope facility that appears to be a open to the public during evening dusk hours, but out of respect to most of the working observatory's, I wouldn't come close to one with a drone during there imaging operations. Myself I'd call and ask if my drone flight would cause any interference with their operations. Call it common courtesy. There is nothing worst than having an aircraft (of any size) streak through my scopes CCD camera FOV that took so much effort to set up especially when the actual imaging is going on. Even though I can't control planes flying over my amateur imaging sessions and passing through my scopes target objective, I wouldn't be too happy about a drone ruining a night of astrophotography either. As a professional photographer I'm sure you can relate this.

Thanks for the insight. I definitely can relate

 

[Skyryder]

That's a cool picture of a large telescope facility that appears to be a open to the public during evening dusk hours, but out of respect to most of the working observatory's, I wouldn't come close to one with a drone during there imaging operations.

That's not a working observatory. The armatures on the law have stronger telescopes. It's mainly a tourist attraction because of the amazing views, historic landmark, many films have shot there. The planetarium inside is cool, they fillmed LALA Land in there. I believe one of their telescopes works but only a a novelty for the tourists to peek through. It's more of a museum.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

When you fly using GPS, I assume ”they” could obtain a record of where your controller was located, but can they also determine the drone’s flight path? If they cannot determine the drone flight path using GPS how would they possible know or be able to identify your drone was the one seen?

The only way they can get your GPS track is if they subpoena it, and a subpoena is a court order… But to get a subpoena requires probable cause in the first place. Regardless, airspace is exclusively the domain of the FAA, and no local jurisdiction has any authority whatsoever in terms of airspace once you're in the air.

The only, and I repeat only, aspect of local jurisdiction over drones relates to the specific operations known as "takeoff" and "landing". Once the drone is in the air, it only falls under FAA jurisdiction. When the drone is in your hand, then you're a private person possessing private property, which you cannot be deprived of, except by court order.

Remember that you never need to speak to police. You never need to say anything about anything that you were doing, ever. If you are questioned about anything that you were doing, you can simply say "I'm sorry officer I'm not interested in discussing my day with you, am I free to leave?"

Photography, videography, and cinematography are constitutionally protected rights.

Airspace is federal and owned by the public and regulated by the FAA, local jurisdictions do not have the authority to regulate airspace, period.

Idid not know you can’t fly in State or Federal parks until last year

This is not a thing in most California state parks, as for certain national parks, they can restrict the takeoff and landing on their property only.

Only the FAA can restrict use of airspace.

 

[Aerophile]

Remember that you never need to speak to police. You never need to say anything about anything that you were doing, ever. If you are questioned about anything that you were doing, you can simply say "I'm sorry officer I'm not interested in discussing my day with you, am I free to leave?"

You sure about that?...

107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.​

(a) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must -
(1) Have in that person's physical possession and readily accessible the remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification when exercising the privileges of that remote pilot certificate.
(2) Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification that contains the information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection upon a request from -
(i) The Administrator;
(ii) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;
(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(iv) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.
(3) Make available, upon request, to the Administrator any document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter.