Has anybody ever flown in a national park?

[Colberado]

So how come you can fly in a National Forest? Your argument is moot.

You seem to lack a basic understanding of what a National Park is versus a National Forest.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Yes I know it is illegal and no I have not done it before, but I'd be lying if I wasn't extremely tempted. My motto with flying drones has always been to be safe and responsible, which generally means NEVER flying over people, never going LOS, landing when helis are in the area, and notifying respective ATC's if necessary among a few other things. It seems so unnecessary to completely ban drones from national parks because they "disturb the peace". To a point I can understand that as drones can be fairly irritating to some people, but if nobody is around I really don't see the harm. What is your guys opinion on this?

And this happened:

 

[MavicNoob79]

And this happened:

And that's exactly why they say no. End of story. Don't fly in a national park

 

[Drgnfli]

Yes I know it is illegal and no I have not done it before, but I'd be lying if I wasn't extremely tempted. My motto with flying drones has always been to be safe and responsible, which generally means NEVER flying over people, never going LOS, landing when helis are in the area, and notifying respective ATC's if necessary among a few other things. It seems so unnecessary to completely ban drones from national parks because they "disturb the peace". To a point I can understand that as drones can be fairly irritating to some people, but if nobody is around I really don't see the harm. What is your guys opinion on this?

Yeah, you can't fly drones to preserve the "peace" but you can drive 4, or 7 or 10 noisy motorcycles thru a park in a 'pack' which you can hear 2 miles away - literally - 2 miles away in Yellowstone...

 

[Drgnfli]

Thank you for the advice. Sounds like I will have to stop at the edge of the border where the NFZ begins, fly my drones into the mountains, get the shots I want and then go about my day. Literally makes no sense that you can use the airspace, but you can't launch from within the park.

Exactly! If you can't launch or land - make it a restricted air space completely - How dumb!

 

[Drgnfli]

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.

Agree! Any time you see the reactions of people seeing drones for the first time, it is a negative reaction 90% of the time. I don't understand this mentality. What are these 'negative' people going to do when UPS, FEDEX, Amazon, EBay & others start delivering goods via drones...?

 

[sar104]

Exactly! If you can't launch or land - make it a restricted air space completely - How dumb!

The NPS has no authority to restrict the airspace.

 

[ZChalk]

I think the solution is simple. Restrict drones to certain areas of the park and require a permit (probably at some cost). That way you can keep in complete control of who and when you can use the drones.

 

[tcope]

Yeah, you can't fly drones to preserve the "peace" but you can drive 4, or 7 or 10 noisy motorcycles thru a park in a 'pack' which you can hear 2 miles away - literally - 2 miles away in Yellowstone...

Motorcycles are different then drones. They are a legal mode of transportation in all states. They are legal to drive on the road. The roads through National Parks are public roads where the motorcycles are 100 percent legal.

 

[sar104]

I think the solution is simple. Restrict drones to certain areas of the park and require a permit (probably at some cost). That way you can keep in complete control of who and when you can use the drones.

That's certainly a possible approach, but what is the incentive for the Park Service to do anything like that? I'm pretty sure that public opinion overall would not support UAVs in parks, and it would cause a lot of extra policing work for the park rangers. Until there is much broader acceptance of UAVs as consumer camera platforms and better ways to deter or prevent unauthorized flights, I don't see much likelihood of changes to the NPS position on this.

 

[sar104]

Motorcycles are different then drones. They are a legal mode of transportation in all states. They are legal to drive on the road. The roads through National Parks are public roads where the motorcycles are 100 percent legal.

Exactly. The NPS cannot ban vehicles from state roads any more than it can ban overflights by UAVs launched from outside NPS land. It can, and does, restrict vehicles off road, as well as plenty of other activities that are deemed unwelcome.

 

[ZChalk]

That's certainly a possible approach, but what is the incentive for the Park Service to do anything like that? I'm pretty sure that public opinion overall would not support UAVs in parks, and it would cause a lot of extra policing work for the park rangers. Until there is much broader acceptance of UAVs as consumer camera platforms and better ways to deter or prevent unauthorized flights, I don't see much likelihood of changes to the NPS position on this.

The incentive is to establish control and prevent nuisance rogue flying.. for example drone operators must fly from a special area and are restricted to 1 square mile. At the same time you charge $60 a permit. This keeps drone owners happy because they fly their drone 'at a cost' and keep the public and wardens happy that it will only occur in a small area. I honestly think it is a win.

Rather than ban it outright .. let it occur because people will fly illegally regardless of the fines. Ultimately we just want a nice video.

 

[sar104]

The incentive is to establish control and prevent nuisance rogue flying.. for example drone operators must fly from a special area and are restricted to 1 square mile. At the same time you charge $60 a permit. This keeps drone owners happy because they fly their drone 'at a cost' and keep the public and wardens happy that it will only occur in a small area. I honestly think it is a win.

Rather than ban it outright .. let it occur because people will fly illegally regardless of the fines. Ultimately we just want a nice video.

I don't see how that's an incentive for NPS - by far the simplest solution for them maintain control and prevent nuisance flying is the one that they already have - a complete ban. And the only people complaining are the (currently) small minority of the public wanting to fly drones in the parks. I seriously doubt that the cost/benefit balance of such a suggestion is even remotely tempting to them, and the argument that they should legalize it because otherwise people will fly illegally is never going to get traction.

 

[ZChalk]

Well.. I wouldn't think it would be that expensive as an additional administrative step. People apply for a permit, 10 permits a day, pay the fee, fly in the designated spot..Bob is your uncle (though he really is not).

I guess it's just easier to take away the drone, prosecute, and levy a heavy fine for flying.

With the argument people are going to do it anyway.. well it seems to be working and I can cite countless examples from marajuana to downloading music (mp3's back in the day). You have to be flexible and adaptive to a changing environment.

 

[sar104]

Well.. I wouldn't think it would be that expensive as an additional administrative step. People apply for a permit, 10 permits a day, pay the fee, fly in the designsted spot..Bob is your uncle (though he really is not).

I guess it's just easier to take away the drone, prosecute, and levy a heavy fine for flying.

With the argument people are going to do it anyway.. well it seems to be working and I can cite countless examples from marajuana to downloading music (mp3's back in the day). You have to be flexible and adaptive to a changing environment.

I'm sure they will adapt - when the environment changes. Right now it really hasn't because drones, despite being far more common than a couple of years ago, are still not particularly popular with a public that is not just ambivalent, but actually somewhat hostile.

It was downloading music without paying for it that was illegal, and it still is. As for marijuana - gradual legalization has been driven by many reasons beyond the fact that it was being used illegally.

 

[Tinmania]

Motorcycles are different then drones. They are a legal mode of transportation in all states. They are legal to drive on the road. The roads through National Parks are public roads where the motorcycles are 100 percent legal.

Utter nonsense. Clearly what people are referring to here are modified motorcycle exhausts. Straight pipes or modified loud exhausts are illegal in most states, and certainly in the states with the most popular NPs (eg, AZ and CA). Many aftermarket motorcycle exhausts are even clearly marked “Off Road Use Only.”

Just because they aren’t always ticketed doesn’t make them legal. In fact some ARE ticketed and I have witnessed it.

Without a doubt a group of 3 or more bikes with straight pipes in a NP will make noise loud enough to disturb the peace VERY far from marked roadways. A quad is not even close, in comparison.

I have been a motorcyclist for many years and ride Harley and BMW, with stock exhausts. My bikes are legal. The minute I swap the exhaust for straight pipes it is illegal for the highway—and that includes highways in NPs.




Mike

 

[ZChalk]

I'm sure they will adapt - when the environment changes. Right now it really hasn't because drones, despite being far more common than a couple of years ago, are still not particularly popular with a public that is not just ambivalent, but actually somewhat hostile.

It was downloading music without paying for it that was illegal, and it still is. As for marijuana - gradual legalization has been driven by many reasons beyond the fact that it was being used illegally.

Well I agree with you that the environment / negative stigma has to change. People associate drones with killing people (wars) and hitting commercial planes. There's absolutely no positive association and society generally lives in a world driven by fear.

With mp3's it was ripping it from CD's and distributing it to their friends. Record companies couldn't prevent it but itstead made it commercially available and easily accessible. Marijuana had also a negative stigma (still does)... But people were getting in trouble for very minor offenses like possession. I think what drones lack is a lobbyist group or a strong political figure to support/embrace it.

 

[drz12345]

Another stupid regulation that needs to change

 

[sar104]

Well I agree with you that the environment / negative stigma has to change. People associate drones with killing people (wars) and hitting commercial planes. There's absolutely no positive association and society generally lives in a world driven by fear.

With mp3's it was ripping it from CD's and distributing it to their friends. Record companies couldn't prevent it but itstead made it commercially available and easily accessible. Marijuana had also a negative stigma (still does)... But people were getting in trouble for very minor offenses like possession. I think what drones lack is a lobbyist group or a strong political figure to support/embrace it.

That's certainly lacking. I suspect that once it's been figured out how to incorporate drones properly into the NAS, and once the public perception of them changes as they become ubiquitous tools for photography and other uses, then integration of them into public spaces will also evolve.

 

[sar104]

Utter nonsense. Clearly what people are referring to here are modified motorcycle exhausts. Straight pipes or modified loud exhausts are illegal in most states, and certainly in the states with the most popular NPs (eg, AZ and CA). Many aftermarket motorcycle exhausts are even clearly marked “Off Road Use Only.”

Just because they aren’t always ticketed doesn’t make them legal. In fact some ARE ticketed and I have witnessed it.

Without a doubt a group of 3 or more bikes with straight pipes in a NP will make noise loud enough to disturb the peace VERY far from marked roadways. A quad is not even close, in comparison.

I have been a motorcyclist for many years and ride Harley and BMW, with stock exhausts. My bikes are legal. The minute I swap the exhaust for straight pipes it is illegal for the highway—and that includes highways in NPs.




Mike

If you are referring to illegally modified vehicles then why is that even part of the discussion? They are already illegal - in parks or on any other highways. Surely the discussion here was about noisy, but legal, motorcycles.