Has anybody ever flown in a national park?

[dpeagle]

Many of the activities allowed within the parks pose a far greater risk of fire than a Mavic.

and those "activities" have age requirements and can only be done in controlled areas. your mavic on the other hand is a flying lipo fire bomb that can get into areas in a national park that might only be accessible to firefighters by air.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

My opinion is don't do it.

If you think that the policy should be changed, work through the NPS and get the policy changed.

Otherwise, follow the rules.

I agree that the rule shouldn't be ignored, but as for your suggestion to work with
them to get it changed...They simply aren't interested. I've had several conversations with rangers and officials across the US, and the reaction is the same. Most of them actually agree that the ban is nonsense, but leadership in Washington isn't going to budge, for fear of negative public reaction. The media has led people to believe that UAS has no place in public lands, so I doubt that we'll see any change in policy for years to come, if even then.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

and those "activities" have age requirements and can only be done in controlled areas. your mavic on the other hand is a flying lipo fire bomb that can get into areas in a national park that might only be accessible to firefighters by air.

No, they don't.
Actual fires are allowed in backcountry areas. Backcountry Rules and Regulations - Great Smoky Mountains National Park (U.S. National Park Service).

How can they control the age and compliance with this, and how can a small drone be more dangerous than a drunken camper?

Again, we can all come up with dozens of silly reasons for restrictions which don't hold up to logic or scrutiny.

 

[Bazzam]

My opinion is don't do it.

If you think that the policy should be changed, work through the NPS and get the policy changed.

Otherwise, follow the rules.

Yes, sir!!!

 

[dpeagle]

Actual fires are allowed in backcountry areas. Backcountry Rules and Regulations - Great Smoky Mountains National Park (U.S. National Park Service).

How can they control the age and compliance with this, and how can a small drone be more dangerous than a drunken camper?

Again, we can all come up with dozens of silly reasons for restrictions which don't hold up to logic or scrutiny.

you just don't get it. your weak attempt at circular logic doesn't hold up. you base your premise on you and only you. if they ever allow drone flying in national parks it would be disastrous.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

you just don't get it. your weak attempt at circular logic doesn't hold up. you base your premise on you and only you. if they ever allow drone flying in national parks it would be disastrous.

My weak attempt? Okay man. Whatever you say. LOL!

 

[Tinmania]

you just don't get it. your weak attempt at circular logic doesn't hold up. you base your premise on you and only you. if they ever allow drone flying in national parks it would be disastrous.

Disastrous? Pure hyperbole.

In National Parks:
Actual full scale helicopters.
Actual fixed wing aircraft.
Camp Fires
Vehicles
Off road vehicles
Dirt bikes (motorized)
SUVs
Motorcycles
Motor homes
RVs
Alcohol

And yet you feel that drones will be “disastrous?” Wow.




Mike

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Disastrous? Pure hyperbole.

In National Parks:
Actual full scale helicopters.
Actual fixed wing aircraft.
Camp Fires
Vehicles
Off road vehicles
Dirt bikes (motorized)
SUVs
Motorcycles
Motor homes
RVs
Alcohol

And yet you feel that drones will be “disastrous?” Wow.
Mike

Thanks Mike, and I guess we need to ban hundreds, if not thousands of lightning strikes, while we're at it.

 

[dpeagle]

No, they don't.
Actual fires are allowed in backcountry areas. Backcountry Rules and Regulations - Great Smoky Mountains National Park (U.S. National Park Service).

How can they control the age and compliance with this, and how can a small drone be more dangerous than a drunken camper?

Again, we can all come up with dozens of silly reasons for restrictions which don't hold up to logic or scrutiny.

Disastrous? Pure hyperbole.

In National Parks:
Actual full scale helicopters.
Actual fixed wing aircraft.
Camp Fires
Vehicles
Off road vehicles
Dirt bikes (motorized)
SUVs
Motorcycles
Motor homes
RVs
Alcohol

And yet you feel that drones will be “disastrous?” Wow.




Mike

i'll tell you

No, they don't.
Actual fires are allowed in backcountry areas. Backcountry Rules and Regulations - Great Smoky Mountains National Park (U.S. National Park Service).

How can they control the age and compliance with this, and how can a small drone be more dangerous than a drunken camper?

Again, we can all come up with dozens of silly reasons for restrictions which don't hold up to logic or scrutiny.

so your point is the drone is less dangerous then a "drunken camper". what the hell do you think that "drunken camper" is gonna do if flying his drone in the park is legal? thats right, now we got a bunch of "DC" flying there drones in national parks. you people have got to start looking at the bigger picture. it has always been the 1% messing it up for the rest. and as for lightning strikes, we cant control nature, but this we can.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

i'll tell you

so your point is the drone is less dangerous then a "drunken camper". what the **** do you think that "drunken camper" is gonna do if flying his drone in the park is legal? thats right, now we got a bunch of "DC" flying there drones in national parks. you people have got to start looking at the bigger picture. it has always been the 1% messing it up for the rest. and as for lightning strikes, we cant control nature, but this we can.

Mr. dpeagle you seem to be of the mindset, if it has the slightest amount of risk, it must be banned. I simply cannot agree.

The NPS has not done the task that they themselves intended to do: Find a way to integrate their use.

Smarter people than you or I have determined that UAV pose very little risk, and to defend their outright ban in millions of acres of public land is ludicrous. Federal agents I have talked to have said lives have been lost due the the no exceptions ban on search and rescue drones and many have expressed dismay that even their use for research has been thwarted at times. Even ad agencies for the NPS are flabbergasted.

You see, that's how government rules and regulations work. Exceptions take acts of congress and delays make it not worthwhile to even apply.

You seem to be okay with this nanny, "since one might do wrong, let's make it illegal" approach to everything. I am not. I think the government's job is to find the way to allow those who act responsibly to act (which was their stated goal in 2014) and punish those who don't.

And please stop using arguments which simply skirt around the simple fact that they aren't doing their job.

 

[black_magic100]

i'll tell you

so your point is the drone is less dangerous then a "drunken camper". what the **** do you think that "drunken camper" is gonna do if flying his drone in the park is legal? thats right, now we got a bunch of "DC" flying there drones in national parks. you people have got to start looking at the bigger picture. it has always been the 1% messing it up for the rest. and as for lightning strikes, we cant control nature, but this we can.

I've never heard of a drone crashing and bursting into flames. I understand LiPo batteries can indeed ignite, but as others have mentioned their are much more dangerous things you can do that may accidentally lead to a fire.

I'm also confused why you are saying drunk people would be flying their drones if they were made legal in the national parks. That's certainly possible, but a drunk person could just do that now lol.

 

[black_magic100]

Disastrous? Pure hyperbole.

In National Parks:
Actual full scale helicopters.
Actual fixed wing aircraft.
Camp Fires
Vehicles
Off road vehicles
Dirt bikes (motorized)
SUVs
Motorcycles
Motor homes
RVs
Alcohol

And yet you feel that drones will be “disastrous?” Wow.




Mike

That's what I'm saying. I want to fly so badly and just get some ( Mod Removed ) shots, but I feel like the only thing in my way are some BS laws made by bureaucrats. I really don't understand why they have to be so strict on drone usage while they let all of these other "activities" go.

 

[Mr. Salty]

That's what I'm saying. I want to fly so badly and just get some ( Mod Removed ) shots, but I feel like the only thing in my way are some BS laws made by bureaucrats. I really don't understand why they have to be so strict on drone usage while they let all of these other "activities" go.

Oh, good, this discussion again.

All of the other items mentioned above come with restrictions on where and when they can be used in a national park. You can’t drive your Harley or Winnebago down a nature trail, but any yutz with a Mavic can carry it into the backcountry.

And motorcycles are drawing an increasing number of complaints, and the NPS is finally starting to take them seriously. Look for more restrictions on those in the future. It’s already being discussed.

Ultimately I don’t think the restrictions on drones have anything to do with fire dangers or whether they’ll upset the animals, although those are valid concerns.

The real reason drones are banned is because they can be really annoying and the general public doesn’t want them there, period. If they were allowed you wouldn’t be the only person trying to get “badass shots” of some beautiful location. Among the thousands of national park visitors on any given day, there would be a lot of them with drones.

The national parks are already overcrowded and understaffed. The last thing we need is a dozen drones buzzing around the most popular spots in the park at any given moment. And while every one of us likes to think of ourselves as the next Chuck Yeager with these things, I think we all know there will be plenty of idiots crashing their drones, getting them lost in trees, hitting people, you name it. You’ve read the threads here started by people who have crashed their drones.

The day the NPS allows drones in national parks is the day our hobby starts feeling some real backlash from the public. And I won’t blame them.

 

[dronerdave]

Oh, good, this discussion again.

All of the other items mentioned above come with restrictions on where and when they can be used in a national park. You can’t drive your Harley or Winnebago down a nature trail, but any yutz with a Mavic can carry it into the backcountry.

And motorcycles are drawing an increasing number of complaints, and the NPS is finally starting to take them seriously. Look for more restrictions on those in the future. It’s already being discussed.

Ultimately I don’t think the restrictions on drones have anything to do with fire dangers or whether they’ll upset the animals, although those are valid concerns.

The real reason drones are banned is because they can be really annoying and the general public doesn’t want them there, period. If they were allowed you wouldn’t be the only person trying to get “badass shots” of some beautiful location. Among the thousands of national park visitors on any given day, there would be a lot of them with drones.

The national parks are already overcrowded and understaffed. The last thing we need is a dozen drones buzzing around the most popular spots in the park at any given moment. And while every one of us likes to think of ourselves as the next Chuck Yeager with these things, I think we all know there will be plenty of idiots crashing their drones, getting them lost in trees, hitting people, you name it. You’ve read the threads here started by people who have crashed their drones.

The day the NPS allows drones in national parks is the day our hobby starts feeling some real backlash from the public. And I won’t blame them.

Yeah that's my take on it as well.

 

[Marko9219]

I spend a solid 2 months of each year in several western National Parks. I'll do everything humanly possible to stop drones from EVER being allowed, except as part of an official endeavor.

 

[bushie]

I spend a solid 2 months of each year in several western National Parks. I'll do everything humanly possible to stop drones from EVER being allowed, except as part of an official endeavor.

Thank goodness I live in a different nation.

 

[forsythem]

Thank goodness I live in a different nation.

I'll second that.

And thank goodness we aren't all of the same mindset.

 

[macoman]

I spend a solid 2 months of each year in several western National Parks. I'll do everything humanly possible to stop drones from EVER being allowed, except as part of an official endeavor.

So you can spend your time and enjoy yourself but it bothers you to allow someone else to enjoy with their drone in a national park? Sounds like a perfect selfish.

 

[black_magic100]

Oh, good, this discussion again.

All of the other items mentioned above come with restrictions on where and when they can be used in a national park. You can’t drive your Harley or Winnebago down a nature trail, but any yutz with a Mavic can carry it into the backcountry.

And motorcycles are drawing an increasing number of complaints, and the NPS is finally starting to take them seriously. Look for more restrictions on those in the future. It’s already being discussed.

Ultimately I don’t think the restrictions on drones have anything to do with fire dangers or whether they’ll upset the animals, although those are valid concerns.

The real reason drones are banned is because they can be really annoying and the general public doesn’t want them there, period. If they were allowed you wouldn’t be the only person trying to get “badass shots” of some beautiful location. Among the thousands of national park visitors on any given day, there would be a lot of them with drones.

The national parks are already overcrowded and understaffed. The last thing we need is a dozen drones buzzing around the most popular spots in the park at any given moment. And while every one of us likes to think of ourselves as the next Chuck Yeager with these things, I think we all know there will be plenty of idiots crashing their drones, getting them lost in trees, hitting people, you name it. You’ve read the threads here started by people who have crashed their drones.

The day the NPS allows drones in national parks is the day our hobby starts feeling some real backlash from the public. And I won’t blame them.

I disagree completely. Whenever I fly a drone somewhere the initial reaction has always been overwhelmingly positive. People approach me constantly asking questions and saying how cool it is. Even though drones are everywhere, you need to keep in mind that 9/10 people rarely ever see one.

Now of course this situation is slightly different... In this scenario we are in a peaceful, serene national park.. Right? WRONG.

Many of these locations, as you mentioned, are riddled with tourists. With tourists means LOTS of unwanted noise such as babies crying, people shouting or a group of 50 Asians speaking in their native tongue at 500 words per minute (no offense to my Asian friends [emoji16]).

The point here being is that there is A TON of noise on these trails. In my opinion, if your so grumpy and stubborn and you love "nature" so much, go off the beaten trail because that's the only way your truly going to experience nature.

It seems terribly lazy for the NPS to outright ban something that only the small majority are ever going to abuse. You mentioned tons of idiots flying their drones around willy nilly crashing their thousand dollar toys into trees and being reckless. News flash... That can happen at any popular location so using that logic let's ban every single mountain top with a view that has frequent visitors.

Your logic is extremely flawed. It seems to me that a very easy fix that would address all of your issues would be to make part 107 required to fly in all NPS. That way only responsible pilots are allowed to fly and it is easily enforceable. I think saying banning drones because of the noise is ridiculous.

 

[Pingman68]

The NPS is not going to do anything about Harley’s. That would provoke a reaction like trying to repeal the 2A.