Flying In National Parks

[retiredNH]

I don't think launching a drone from the top of car or its motor hood is a good idea. Metal creates interference to GPS readings and sometime your drone will refuse to fly. This also happens with picnic tables having metallic structures. At least, this happens with a Mavic Air 1.

GPS doesn't care what's below. It's magnetic compasses that do!

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Outstanding tip. I never considered that problem but have not run into it yet. So far it's been my experience that I get a lock shortly after takeoff (home point) but I have gotten into the habit of often taking off from my car hood when there is no good reason to do so and appreciate your tip.

You might have an aluminium hood, many vehicles do now and magnets are unaffected.
Usually it’s very close proximity that causes any compass anomalies, so that could be why you have had no troubles.

Besides the obvious compass warning from an app if launching anywhere suspect, just also ‘check it on the map’ (when home point recorded) that the red arrow lines up with the general ground direction.
Avoids the dreaded flyaways.

 

[stevie gee]

If you could meet a park ranger explain what you’re doing find out if they know the laws and then make a connection you might get awesome opportunities within their jurisdiction. I think they would appreciate the honesty and might reward you with no hassles.

 

[kjonyou]

In a perfect world that's good advice, but I have never met a park ranger that's happy you are there. I don't mean as a drone pilot I mean as a person just in his/her park! Let's be honest, a lot of those guys go into that field because they would rather be alone in nature than in a city full of people. Some get down right possessive as if it's their personal property.

 

[spudster]

In a perfect world that's good advice, but I have never met a park ranger that's happy you are there.

That's strange, I've never met a Park Ranger that isn't friendly and are more then happy to talk about the land, features and history of the lands that they look over and love. Most even know that the majority of Park Rangers are there because of the visitors to that park. No visitors, not much need for them. BTW, I've been to over 20 NPs over the past 20 years or so.

 

[ericole]

Glad I found this thread. Visited several of the large, expansive national parks in the west and on the Appalachians the last couple years. I know the rule is no flying inside, but can anyone point me to where this comes from or why this rule exists?

I really don’t see the point because all the places I’ve been barely have people, but great views and things that would be awesome to film from the air. The things mentioned here about disturbing wildlife are interesting, but If that’s the real concern ALL motorcycles should be banned from every NP as they are usually the worst offenders. I’ve been far off roads in the smoky mountains and heard horrendous motorcycles revving through the stillness. Almost any drone in the air won’t be heard by humans or animals on the ground unless it’s very low.

So is this rule just some arbitrary rule that was established because people thought “drones bad evil must not allow”? If that’s the case seems folks need to work with the NPS to establish a way to allow qualified pilots to fly. At least in some places. This would keep the riff raff that don’t know what they are doing, but allow responsible pilots the opportunity to get great footage to share.

Anyway, I’d love to hear any info or be pointed to some useful reading on the subject. Thanks!

 

[theDRONEranger]

Glad I found this thread. Visited several of the large, expansive national parks in the west and on the Appalachians the last couple years. I know the rule is no flying inside, but can anyone point me to where this comes from or why this rule exists?

I really don’t see the point because all the places I’ve been barely have people, but great views and things that would be awesome to film from the air. The things mentioned here about disturbing wildlife are interesting, but If that’s the real concern ALL motorcycles should be banned from every NP as they are usually the worst offenders. I’ve been far off roads in the smoky mountains and heard horrendous motorcycles revving through the stillness. Almost any drone in the air won’t be heard by humans or animals on the ground unless it’s very low.

So is this rule just some arbitrary rule that was established because people thought “drones bad evil must not allow”? If that’s the case seems folks need to work with the NPS to establish a way to allow qualified pilots to fly. At least in some places. This would keep the riff raff that don’t know what they are doing, but allow responsible pilots the opportunity to get great footage to share.

Anyway, I’d love to hear any info or be pointed to some useful reading on the subject. Thanks!

It comes from the NPS. Their property, their rules. No disturbing the wildlife. Takeoff and landing only at authorized areas. You can overfly but chances are you cannot maintain visual

 

[akdrone]

Keep in mind you can't fly from within the Parks but you can launch outside and fly over. That isn't much help for most people as it only allows a very limited view but that basic rule also applies to State Parks and most places. I have a favorite place to fly that is within a forbidden State Park but by parking in a pullout on the highway I can fly over an area of particular interest.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Glad I found this thread. Visited several of the large, expansive national parks in the west and on the Appalachians the last couple years. I know the rule is no flying inside, but can anyone point me to where this comes from or why this rule exists?

I really don’t see the point because all the places I’ve been barely have people, but great views and things that would be awesome to film from the air. The things mentioned here about disturbing wildlife are interesting, but If that’s the real concern ALL motorcycles should be banned from every NP as they are usually the worst offenders. I’ve been far off roads in the smoky mountains and heard horrendous motorcycles revving through the stillness. Almost any drone in the air won’t be heard by humans or animals on the ground unless it’s very low.

So is this rule just some arbitrary rule that was established because people thought “drones bad evil must not allow”? If that’s the case seems folks need to work with the NPS to establish a way to allow qualified pilots to fly. At least in some places. This would keep the riff raff that don’t know what they are doing, but allow responsible pilots the opportunity to get great footage to share.

Anyway, I’d love to hear any info or be pointed to some useful reading on the subject. Thanks!

National Parks were put off limits to 'drones' in the early days (June 2014) when there no regulations in place to contend with a hobby that essentially grew out of RC models. Prior to drones, RC Models (AMA) were a self regulating body that over saw unmanned hobby operations all over the US, and for nearly 78 years prior to drones, had a great safety record.

When 'Drones' Appeared, they required no skill to fly, or fixed sites for operation, they had a 'free hand' so they began to show up in places like National Parks in a manner that led the NP service to take actions on their own - for instance one pilot dropped a Phantom 2 down the opening of the geyser 'Old Faithful' - others made attempts at landing on the facial features at Mount Rushmore - several pilots lost drones over/in the Grand Canyon and some even made flights into airspace over the Mall in Washington DC just to name a few. Google any of these events, they all made headline national news.

All of this began happening with regularity and it was apparent that these types of incidents weren't going to stop and the result was, what we see now in terms of regulations by the FAA, the National Park Service and more. These rules are not arbitrary, they are a direct result of what an unregulated, uniformed (for the most part) and inexperienced group of folks with drones will/did do. It took just a blink of an eye as far as time goes (a couple of years), from their inception to earn the reputation we (drones) have today.

I am not suggesting that these regulations are appropriate, as I personally believe there should be a pathway for experienced and qualified pilots to fly in many of these parks. However, neither can we as the 'drone' community turn a blind eye to the fact that there are a whole lot of folks flying drones who just do not care one bit about how we are perceived.

 

[MS Coast]

In a perfect world that's good advice, but I have never met a park ranger that's happy you are there. I don't mean as a drone pilot I mean as a person just in his/her park! Let's be honest, a lot of those guys go into that field because they would rather be alone in nature than in a city full of people. Some get down right possessive as if it's their personal property.

That's 180 degrees opposite from my experiences with rangers and other staffers in parks, national, state, and local. They've never been anything but courteous, helpful, and welcoming. Some have behaved a bit like the park is theirs personally, but they're proud of it an eager to show it off and share it with interested people. And the federal NPS people I've run across have been the best of the bunch.

 

[Starz]

Some get down right possessive as if it's their personal property.

Here’s a thought. If we treat it like it is “their personal property”, that will probably make their day go better.

 

[ericole]

National Parks were put off limits to 'drones' in the early days (June 2014) when there no regulations in place to contend with a hobby that essentially grew out of RC models. Prior to drones, RC Models (AMA) were a self regulating body that over saw unmanned hobby operations all over the US, and for nearly 78 years prior to drones, had a great safety record.

When 'Drones' Appeared, they required no skill to fly, or fixed sites for operation, they had a 'free hand' so they began to show up in places like National Parks in a manner that led the NP service to take actions on their own - for instance one pilot dropped a Phantom 2 down the opening of the geyser 'Old Faithful' - others made attempts at landing on the facial features at Mount Rushmore - several pilots lost drones over/in the Grand Canyon and some even made flights into airspace over the Mall in Washington DC just to name a few. Google any of these events, they all made headline national news.

All of this began happening with regularity and it was apparent that these types of incidents weren't going to stop and the result was, what we see now in terms of regulations by the FAA, the National Park Service and more. These rules are not arbitrary, they are a direct result of what an unregulated, uniformed (for the most part) and inexperienced group of folks with drones will/did do. It took just a blink of an eye as far as time goes (a couple of years), from their inception to earn the reputation we (drones) have today.

I am not suggesting that these regulations are appropriate, as I personally believe there should be a pathway for experienced and qualified pilots to fly in many of these parks. However, neither can we as the 'drone' community turn a blind eye to the fact that there are a whole lot of folks flying drones who just do not care one bit about how we are perceived.

I appreciate your response and the detail, but I actually do think the "you can't fly in any national park" is an arbitrary rule apparently thrown down after people did stupid things. Of course people can still do stupid things - rules and laws generally don't stop that. For example: Reagan Airport shut down due to unauthorized drone in the area

Do you know of any group or body of drone pilots that is trying to establish some kind of opening for registered drone pilots to fly in certain places? I just don't see how this should be any different than getting a camping or campfire permit - things that can cause WAY more damage if not controlled than a drone ever could. It is obvious that there are millions of acres where drones can fly to get amazing footage that would cause no issues to people or regulated air space, or disturb the wildlife anymore than motorcycles or jets that fly over.

 

[dronerdave]

"drones can fly to get amazing footage that would cause no issues to people"

Myself, I'd rather not fly my drone in a NP because I wouldn't have a clue if I was bothering park visitors sharing the area with me, especially other land based photographers. However, I'd be OK with the park service providing an area where drones could operate within a specific zone, and under specific rules but my guess it would have to be an area monitored by park personnel to keep everyone in compliance and I just don't see that happening.

 

[PK&W Modelwerx]

Here is the actual quote from the FAQ to Policy memo 14-05 of the National Parks Service that relates to this discussion. Skip to the last sentence, which I have made bold for convenience:

9. Does it matter where an unmanned aircraft is used for the required closures to apply?

Yes. The NPS has the authority to regulate or prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS. As a result, the compendium closures required by the Policy Memorandum only apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS within the boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on non-federally (e.g., private or state) owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS.

So, as indicated above in the discussion, it is legal to launch outside a park and then fly over the national park, as long as all other applicable FAA rules are followed and you do not commit any other violations of law, such as harassing wildlife, endangering people on the ground, etc.. Obviously, maintaining VLOS, if applicable, is a primary limiting factor here. But if you want to get pictures of something stationary and near private land - Saint Louis Gateway Arch comes to mind as an example - that should be doable. But I wouldn't be doing power loops around it or anything foolish like that, which might be considered dangerous or damage the visitor experience for others. But flying at a distance to make some video or still images should be permitted. Use common sense.

Here's a link to the NPS policy memo.

Great discussion here on this issue. Thank you all!

 

[LotusGuy]

Are there any maps available that show the exact boundaries of NPs. As an example, I'm interested in getting some shots in Malibu that are south of PCH, but B4UFLY shows the restriction going down to the ocean, no matter where along PCH you are, even in the built up areas, that are not NP.

 

[dronerdave]

Are there any maps available that show the exact boundaries of NPs. As an example, I'm interested in getting some shots in Malibu that are south of PCH, but B4UFLY shows the restriction going down to the ocean, no matter where along PCH you are, even in the built up areas, that are not NP.

Are you sure the restrictions are because of a NP? Here is a GIS NP map link

NPMap - GIS, Cartography & Mapping (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[LotusGuy]

Are you sure the restrictions are because of a NP? Here is a GIS NP map link

NPMap - GIS, Cartography & Mapping (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

Oh yes, the NP covers everything around Malibu. B4UFLY has the complete area swathed in red. But I would like to know where the "exact" boundaries are, particularly when you go south, to the ocean, south of PCH:


There is also this:
City of Malibu – Filming Permit

In order to operate a drone for commercial purposes, drone operators must obtain a filming permit with the city. Most of the Malibu airspace is under National Park airspace which is a No-Fly Zone. However, the city can issue permits for commercial drone operations such as taking real estate pictures. Information regarding the permits and application process can be found here.

Which is technically incorrect, as the NP is a no take off/land zone, not a no fly. They have no control over the actual airspace, other than staying away from wildlife, wilderness areas, etc.

But I'm not looking for commercial purposes, just some fabulous coastline shots.

 

[MS Coast]

Oh yes, the NP covers everything around Malibu. B4UFLY has the complete area swathed in red. But I would like to know where the "exact" boundaries are, particularly when you go south, to the ocean, south of PCH:

View attachment 152999
There is also this:
City of Malibu – Filming Permit

In order to operate a drone for commercial purposes, drone operators must obtain a filming permit with the city. Most of the Malibu airspace is under National Park airspace which is a No-Fly Zone. However, the city can issue permits for commercial drone operations such as taking real estate pictures. Information regarding the permits and application process can be found here.

Which is technically incorrect, as the NP is a no take off/land zone, not a no fly. They have no control over the actual airspace, other than staying away from wildlife, wilderness areas, etc.

But I'm not looking for commercial purposes, just some fabulous coastline shots.

It looks like the Park covers the entire coast in that area. The boundary on the south is likely defined by the mean high tide line, though the law varies from state to state.

If you wanted to push the issue, you could go out on a low tide and take off from the area below the mean high tide mark. But if someone complains and a ranger or police officer gets involved you're not likely to prevail.

 

[Bob in Savannah]

I guess it's all a matter of time before I have to deal with this... Savannah, GA is extremely friendly to drones AND electric bikes and onewheel and skateboards... Our town hasn't ever given me an issue about any of these things... After I sold my first Mavic Pro I bought a Onewheel and had cops stopping me JUST TO RIDE IT! Super friendly town for this kind of thing.

Of Course, I abide by the laws and am never on private property. Always on the coast or in City parks.. I know other people are having issues and I just hope I don't have to deal with it.

My patience is quite thin in my old age.. Lol

 

[LotusGuy]

It looks like the Park covers the entire coast in that area. The boundary on the south is likely defined by the mean high tide line, though the law varies from state to state.

If you wanted to push the issue, you could go out on a low tide and take off from the area below the mean high tide mark. But if someone complains and a ranger or police officer gets involved you're not likely to prevail.

Kinda like I was afraid of. It's easier to just push the boundary to some logical point (the ocean) than it is to draw fiddly lines around the shopping malls, the town centre, and lots of expensive properties owned by people who wouldn't want mere mortals on the beach in front of their expansive view.