Has anybody ever flown in a national park?

[Robert Mitchell]

All it takes is drones crashing into Mt. Rushmore or the sides of the Grand Canyon, crashed drones hanging from branches of Redwoods or Sequoias, etc. to screw up the natural beauty of the parks. Drone operators wanting to get that “money shot” and risk damaging the landscape to brag and impress their buddies are actually the real selfish ones. Let’s take into consideration the thousands of tourists who would prefer to enjoy the natural beauty of our parks without that annoying buzz of drones all over the place!

So, I suppose the real helicopters which have crashed into the sides of the Grand Canyon, were being selfish too... because after all, they were just after the "money shot".

 

[Schnauzergeek]

So, I suppose the real helicopters which have crashed into the sides of the Grand Canyon, were being selfish too... because after all, they were just after the "money shot".

Really!? Are you serious? Are you actually comparing trained professional aviators that have clearance and permission with drone hobbyists? Not a good analogy.

 

[forsythem]

Really!? Are you serious? Are you actually comparing trained professional aviators that have clearance and permission with drone hobbyists? Not a good analogy.

No, that's a terrible analogy. Comparing the damage a sub-2-kg drone could do if crashing with the loss of life to both pilots/passengers/bystanders, as well as damage/pollution to the environment and risk of fire from the crash of a helicopter is a terrible analogy...

 

[Robert Mitchell]

No, that's a terrible analogy. Comparing the damage a sub-2-kg drone could do if crashing with the loss of life to both pilots/passengers/bystanders, as well as damage/pollution to the environment and risk of fire from the crash of a helicopter is a terrible analogy...

You're right! What was I thinking?!

 

[Tinmania]

All it takes is drones crashing into Mt. Rushmore

Mt. Rushmore???? The pristine mountain revered by the Lakota for generations? Oh wait, that has already been desecrated far more than anything a 2 lb. quad could do.



Mike

 

[tcope]

The reason why drones are banned is because they are disruptive to the enjoyment of the park. It's that simply. You and your family are sitting down enjoying the beautiful nature... all the while 20 drones are buzzing around your heads. The reason it's an all out ban is because if drones were allowed, it opens the door for people to think that they can fly any place and also for those people to launch from the permitted areas and fly into the areas where it's not permitted. It's _much_ easier and cleaner to tell people... no drones.

With millions of places to fly a drone I fail to see why we'd need to disturb the areas in National Parks. Because that shot from the air is so important that you have to have it?'

This took place while drones were banned from National Parks. This person flew within about 20 feet of people and at them. he then flew around the most iconic arch in Arches National Park. What would happen if drones _were_ allowed?

 

[Tinmania]

This took place while drones were banned from National Parks. This person flew within about 20 feet of people and at them. he then flew around the most iconic arch in Arches National Park. What would happen if drones _were_ allowed?

I don't see anything horrible in that video. I think some people just look for things to be offended by. I could clearly hear the wind and people talking in that video. But I couldn't hear the quad. Probably wouldn't have even been able to see it if the edited video didn't have it highlighted. And the only "people" it seemed to be within 20 feet of was the person it was filming--who picked it up after the shot.

If this is an example video to support banning drones I'd rate it as a fail. Those people would not have bothered me at all--and I was just there in that same spot at Arches last summer. Heck, I would have asked if they wouldn't mind getting a shot of me and my wife.



Mike

 

[Robert Mitchell]

The reason why drones are banned is because they are disruptive to the enjoyment of the park. It's that simply. You and your family are sitting down enjoying the beautiful nature... all the while 20 drones are buzzing around your heads. The reason it's an all out ban is because if drones were allowed, it opens the door for people to think that they can fly any place and also for those people to launch from the permitted areas and fly into the areas where it's not permitted. It's _much_ easier and cleaner to tell people... no drones.

With millions of places to fly a drone I fail to see why we'd need to disturb the areas in National Parks. Because that shot from the air is so important that you have to have it?'

This took place while drones were banned from National Parks. This person flew within about 20 feet of people and at them. he then flew around the most iconic arch in Arches National Park. What would happen if drones _were_ allowed?

Because you or I don’t “like” something or are annoyed, is a lousy reason to ban it. If that were the case, half of what goes on around me would be banned... in National Parks or otherwise.

Besides, if properly integrated, as per
their intent, there would never be 20 drones flying around anyone... ever.

 

[Schnauzergeek]

Mt. Rushmore???? The pristine mountain revered by the Lakota for generations? Oh wait, that has already been desecrated far more than anything a 2 lb. quad could do.



Mike

My Bad!
The POINT WAS man-made aerial vehicles and their potential to diminish the beauty (and tranquility) of our National Parks.
YES! The U.S. was bad and wrong to desecrate Lakota Land with the faces of oppressors etched into their land! YES it was a terrible thing to have manned aircraft crash into many of our parks. Those were professionals that screwed up the landscape! Imagine how much of a zoo our National Parks would be with multitudes of UAV’s buzzing around all the time flown by hobbyists trying to get their photo ops and annoying other visitors.
So let’s not get too far off track as to the reason why you shouldn’t be flying your little 2 lb. quad in National Parks!

 

[Robert Mitchell]

My Bad!
The POINT WAS man-made aerial vehicles and their potential to diminish the beauty (and tranquility) of our National Parks.
YES! The U.S. was bad and wrong to desecrate Lakota Land with the faces of oppressors etched into their land! YES it was a terrible thing to have manned aircraft crash into many of our parks. Those were professionals that screwed up the landscape! Imagine how much of a zoo our National Parks would be with multitudes of UAV’s buzzing around all the time flown by hobbyists trying to get their photo ops and annoying other visitors.
So let’s not get too far off track as to the reason why you shouldn’t be flying your little 2 lb. quad in National Parks!

Why do you insist that there will be dozens and dozens of drones flying around people, if they are properly integrated and restricted? With proper integration, I’d be surprised if you were unlucky enough to even see ONE, on any given trip.

Why is it always knee jerk paranoia with many? Is it the media that has folks terrified of gloom and doom hoards of drones?

 

[macoman]

Why do you insist that there will be dozens and dozens of drones flying around people, if they are properly integrated and restricted. With proper integration, I’d be surprised if you were unlucky enough to even see ONE, on any given trip.

Why is it always knee jerk paranoia with many? Is it the media that has folks terrified of gloom and doom hoards of drones?

Just the same way the media is trying to make about gun owners because crazy people can get a gun and shoot to people. The media always overblown the actual facts.

 

[tcope]

I don't see anything horrible in that video. I think some people just look for things to be offended by. I could clearly hear the wind and people talking in that video. But I couldn't hear the quad. Probably wouldn't have even been able to see it if the edited video didn't have it highlighted. And the only "people" it seemed to be within 20 feet of was the person it was filming--who picked it up after the shot.

The video did not start when he started flying, only when he was landing. He flew from that lower level, up to the arch and then very close to a lot of the people sitting down. It appeared to me that he wanted to fly toward the arch but lost track of which way the Mavic was pointed. He then proceeded to fly around the arch.

 

[tcope]

Because you or I don’t “like” something or are annoyed, is a lousy reason to ban it. If that were the case, half of what goes on around me would be banned... in National Parks or otherwise.

Correct.... here is a good reason.... because the NPS is in charge of the NPs, they have the authority to ban drones and they have. That is the best reason why there is a ban. Are we discussing what are the facts or are we discussing _our_ views?

There is a complete ban of drones in NP yet, people are still flying them. You really think if people heard that drones were allowed that everyone would take the time and effort to determine where and when they can fly? You think will millions of people each year in NPs that there won't be 20 or more at the prime locations?

 

[tcope]

Why do you insist that there will be dozens and dozens of drones flying around people, if they are properly integrated and restricted?

Every try to get a million people to do the right thing? Drones are currently banned in all NP, yet we have a long thread asking the question as to if people would still fly in a NP. What does this tell you about the situation?

 

[Robert Mitchell]

The video did not start when he started flying, only when he was landing. He flew from that lower level, up to the arch and then very close to a lot of the people sitting down. It appeared to me that he wanted to fly toward the arch but lost track of which way the Mavic was pointed. He then proceeded to fly around the arch.

The video made this sound like he was poaching cougars!

Was this a terrible ordeal? If he didn't put anyone in harms way (personally I might have waited until a less crowded time) but to make this a crime? Really?
I just don't know what all the paranoia is about.

Again, properly integrated these things would be magnitudes less of an annoyance than Harley Davidsons, or screaming children.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Every try to get a million people to do the right thing? Drones are currently banned in all NP, yet we have a long thread asking the question as to if people would still fly in a NP. What does this tell you about the situation?

It tells me that many people are smart enough to resist the stupidity of hastily enacted, poorly thought out policies, and that if given any thought (which the NPS originally stated was their purpose for the ban in 2014), millions of acres of perfectly suitable land would no longer be considered a crime to use for such a harmless purpose.
This hysteria, overreaction, and hyperbole, seems silly, IMO.

 

[tcope]

Again, properly integrated these things would be magnitudes less of an annoyance than Harley Davidsons, or screaming children.

As I've mentioned, Harley Davidson motorcycles are not the same as drones. The motorcycles are legal for road us and a means of transportation. A drone is not a means of transportation. If anything, allowing loud modes of transportation shows how open the NPS is trying to be in order to accommodate people. What is so very important about a picture from the sky anyway? It's not only about noise. Its about the over all enjoyment of the area.

 

[tcope]

It tells me that many people are smart enough to resist the stupidity of hastily enacted, poorly thought out policies, and that if given any thought (which the NPS originally stated was their purpose for the ban in 2014), millions of acres of perfectly suitable land would no longer be considered a crime to use for such a harmless purpose.
This hysteria, overreaction, and hyperbole, seems silly, IMO.

Yes, when drones have a 100% ban. Allow drones in certain areas, certain times, etc. would simply open up the door for abuse. The current system is working.

 

[Schnauzergeek]

Correct.... here is a good reason.... because the NPS is in charge of the NPs, they have the authority to ban drones and they have. That is the best reason why there is a ban. Are we discussing what are the facts or are we discussing _our_ views?

There is a complete ban of drones in NP yet, people are still flying them. You really think if people heard that drones were allowed that everyone would take the time and effort to determine where and when they can fly? You think will millions of people each year in NPs that there won't be 20 or more at the prime locations?

Well stated!

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Correct.... here is a good reason.... because the NPS is in charge of the NPs, they have the authority to ban drones and they have. That is the best reason why there is a ban. Are we discussing what are the facts or are we discussing _our_ views?

There is a complete ban of drones in NP yet, people are still flying them. You really think if people heard that drones were allowed that everyone would take the time and effort to determine where and when they can fly? You think will millions of people each year in NPs that there won't be 20 or more at the prime locations?

Except that you are ignoreing facts too.

The most important being, that this issue was documented by the NPS, to be studied and to find ways to INTEGRATE them where and when they would cause no harm.

Now you’re telling us that because of your “views” on the matter, that is unacceptable, and the temporary “ban” should be permanent.

Just who is being emotional and ignoring facts here?