Has anybody ever flown in a national park?

[Colberado]

Kind of like non-gun owners whining, complaining & insisting on more anti-gun laws although they have never fired a gun in their life - I don't "like" them, let's get rid of them!

I’ve hunted with, cleaned, built, bought, sold, collected guns my entire life and I support further gun legislation. Just like I own drones and support National Park restriction. Speak for yourself.

 

[DroningOn]

I’ve hunted with, cleaned, built, bought, sold, collected guns my entire life and I support further gun legislation. Just like I own drones and support National Park restriction. Speak for yourself.

Wow! Talk about “click-bait”
Thread will be locked in 3.....2.....

 

[sar104]

Wow! Talk about “click-bait”
Thread will be locked in 3.....2.....

Why do you regard a clearly stated and reasonable response to a previous post to be “click-bait”?

 

[DroningOn]

Why do you regard a clearly stated and reasonable response to a previous post to be “click-bait”?

For the same reason that trying to pick up a man’s wife while they are out to dinner guarantees a fight will break out, duh

 

[Bledsoe1qb]

I flew mine over Niagara Falls last year. I know it was crazy especially with the Canadian border right there

 

[Cuervo]

Actually, my point was, that it is actually NOT ILLEGAL to fly over park airspace as long as you don't launch or recover from there. There is not a airspace restriction of any kind other than altitude restrictions over officially designated Wilderness Areas. This has come directly from the mouths of several park rangers to whom I have spoken. I just would caution that you would need to exercise good judgement before going that route, and It's usually not worth it anyway... especially if adhering to LOS requirements.
.

2000 feet is the minimum altitude over nearly all National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

 

[sar104]

For the same reason that trying to pick up a man’s wife while they are out to dinner guarantees a fight will break out, duh

So you equate someone having a differing opinion and the temerity to mention it as trying to start a fight?

 

[sar104]

2000 feet is the minimum altitude over nearly all National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

But note that's not regulatory - it's a request. And it's from AIM 7-4-6, so arguably it's applicability is manned aircraft.

 

[Cuervo]

But note that's not regulatory - it's a request. And it's from AIM 7-4-6, so arguably it's applicability is manned aircraft.

Understood.

 

[Cuervo]

Exactly! While your at it, ban screaming kids - they are much louder than drones at any altitude!

Dogs too, they're the absolute worst.
Nasty creatures.
At least the drones don't leave stinking piles of manure along the trails.

 

[Gavinwr27]

Yep, that’s the reason. Same here in Australia.

i can't believe all these posts and all these threads on "why can't i fly in a national park" and they all read the same. listen, it has nothing to do with disturbing people, it has very little to do with disturbing wildlife, it has ALL to do with the potential risk of wildfires. you people just don't understand how easy it is to start one and how hard it is to fight one.

 

[sar104]

Yep, that’s the reason. Same here in Australia.

Actually the NPS has barely mentioned the risk of wildfires as a reason, and it doesn't feature in any of the official statements. It might be instructive for many contributors to this thread to read the actual policies and statements pertaining to the ban on takeoff and landing operations, because many clearly have not done so.

Official current position: Unmanned Aircraft in the National Parks (U.S. National Park Service)

2014 memo: To:

eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

 

[jazar]

The reason they ban drones is not because there are responsible pilots that fly well and within the law. But like always in life, there are few that will trespass the line and will disturb the peace of animals and visitors. This is why the ban exist. People who violated all kinds of things it's why laws and more restrictions will be create it to even make less enjoyable flying.

And a few hikers will stray off the trail and trespass into prohibited areas. Using the logic you stated, hikers should be banned from all areas of all parks. I would say hikers, bikers, climbers, and people on the ground are much more disturbing than a drone at 200 ft touching nothing.

 

[Marko9219]

Yes, many times. Would fly in from outside the park, perhaps a rental house or from a border line to the parks. Flew over the entrance to Zion and then a few miles into the park from a 1/2 mile away.

A "few miles" into Zion from "1/2 mile away"? So, let's see then, you launched from a half-mile away from the park boundry, in Springdale and could still see your drone a few miles deep into Zion Canyon? Whatever. So much for VLOS. This is why more and more laws are being passed (and obviously needed). By the way, what drone are you flying to get a "few miles" inside the park plus another half mile outside worth of range inside that canyon?[/QUOTE]

 

[Marko9219]

Kind of like non-gun owners whining, complaining & insisting on more anti-gun laws although they have never fired a gun in their life - I don't "like" them, let's get rid of them!

Huh?!?! So only gun owners have the right to dislike guns??? I've never owned a bazooka. I've never fired one. But I sure don't think they should be legal. So, only drone owners should be able to voice opposition to drones in places they don't like. Great logic there.

 

[DroningOn]

I've never owned a bazooka. I've never fired one. But I sure don't think they should be legal.

They actually are legal in most states. You just have to jump through a lot of hoops and pay a tax. A good friend of mine has a real 60mm mortar. All legal ;-)

 

[Mackel]

I guess I am a bit late to the NP discussion... 12 pages to be exact.

I am indifferent on this. While I would love to fly in a NP, it takes the serenity out of the experience for visitors to hear something buzzin about. While I understand the snowmobile/Harley aspect. Now on the other side of the spectrum, I have been to many NP at times where I am the only person there and I am thinking to myself, this would be a great place to get some footage, especially with no one around.
I can understand the fire aspect, although I have been to more snowy NP's than not and maybe I am naive, but I haven't seen a lot of drones bursting into flames.

Most drone pilots are rather responsible and respectful. When I fly, I usually get people asking me 20 questions rather than the you're annoying go away.

I have seen in a few NP, drone requires permit posted... wonder what the permitting process is... maybe commercial licensed and for a job.

 

[halifax]

In doing research for a Cape Cod trip, I noticed that the Town of Wellfleet, inside of the Cape Cod National Seashore, has a complete ban on drone use, including overflight.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

In doing research for a Cape Cod trip, I noticed that the Town of Wellfleet, inside of the Cape Cod National Seashore, has a complete ban on drone use, including overflight.

Only the FAA can authorize an airspace restriction. Any ban of overflights by a municipality, or any other entity, is technically illegal.

More and more municipalities are in conflict with federal law on this matter, but that does not stop them. Most drone operators don’t have the resources to fight it in court, so we have no choice but to comply.

And, this is why the NPS is smart enough to admit that they can not regulate overflights. As for launching and landing in a NP, it's pretty clear.

Don't take these "bans" lightly. Laws need to be correct and legal first, and then enforced, otherwise they are meaningless.

 

[KiterTodd]

For me, I'm more conscious of crowds of people. So, if you take a packed park like Yellowstone I would not consider flying my drone there, legal or not. It would certainly be a distraction to other's enjoyment of the park with a drone (or multiple drones) buzzing around. I was on a beach once where a kid was legally flying a drone over a crowded beach for 40 minutes and found it to be very annoying.

Now, if you're out by yourself and want to take some scenic shots. Yes, I think it should be allowed or at least controlled on a park by park basis. For the NPS to universally ban it in all parks is ridiculous. The NPS controlled acreage is immense and only a very small portion of it gets hoards of tourists.

Fly responsibly and be conscious of others. Don't fly around other people just because you can get a shot they can't. That's how I treat it, anyway...