Excellent! Pretty sure it was all drone given the heights. I wonder how/if he got permission to shoot that?
It's illegal, but if you could...?
- Thread starter Bad Santa
- Start date
BobaFut
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the movement for most of those shots is way too fast for a drone and much of it is in the DCA flightpath, which suggests to me this is helicopter footage (DC is constantly buzzing with helicopters). The opening shot, for example, doesn't appear to sped up in any meaningful way and is flying over the Roosevelt bridge way faster than you can cover that much ground in a car.
I will say that some of the pans have a very "amateur drone pilot" look to them, being kinda jerky. The shot over the Jefferson Memorial is maybe the most plausibly drone-ish. Not sure it makes a difference, but you can tell from the black mold that it's very old footage. They removed that mold with a special laser-process before covid.
I'm a retired career national park ranger. There are reasons for regulations, and they're carefully considered and crafted, not just dreamed up by somebody on the spur of the moment. In addition to the general regulations enumerated under Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, each Superintendent is also authorized to establish a compendium of reasonable limits on use which are specific to his or her particular park. Regulations may thus vary a bit from one park to the next. Parks are established for specific reasons, to celebrate particular resource values or historic events, and regulations are intended to preserve and protect those values and provide for the enjoyment of them in a manner that doesn't impair them or intrude upon conforming visitor expectations. The National Park Service is under no obligation stray from its mandated mission in order to accommodate every new toy, conveyance, or narrow interest that evolves or emerges from the marketplace.
Yes, Yosemite, Arches, Grand Canyon and many other units of the National Park System have beguiling scenic values. So too do the soaring insides of great cathedrals. I'm content to enjoy such places on their own terms, and to fly my drone elsewhere -- where it's legal.
In my day, we just went in and explored first-hand. Never thought I'd enjoy crawling through mud, but I was hopelessly addicted. No drones back then (mid '80s). Heck, I'd have been thrilled with an LED headlamp.
I'll play devil's advocate. It seems the higher up decisions are made in government, the less thought goes into them, especially if done in a committee. If need be, I can point out several of these types of decisions but for the sake of brevity, just look around and you'll see them. Banning drones in national parks has valid points, however so would banning vehicles if you were to look at how many animals are killed each year. A compromise would be great, say for instance if it were structured on the hunting law precepts. XXX number would be issued each year for each park at various times. People having such permits would be subject to certain laws and actions and the cost of the license could go towards monitoring cost to ensure the person is abiding by the regulations. When properly used, a drone is little more than a flying camera that enable one to get closer to a subject without buying an expensive telephoto lens or obtain pictures that would be impossible to obtain almost any other way.
I'm not going to address your assertion that higher-up decisions are made in government without much thought except to say, also for the sake of brevity, that you paint with a broad brush.
Beyond that, many national parks are already hopelessly crowded, some have banned private vehicles, and others have begun rationing entry. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to administer a protected area where it was also deemed necessary to issue special permits for every conceivable intrusive, nonconforming activity, establish unique schedules and rules for each, and then try to ensure compliance with limited budget and personnel at my disposal. The list of applicants with varied interests (not just drone operators) would be endless, and in the end, resource values and the quality of visitor experience would further suffer. Parks were set aside for specific reasons and purposes. They were never meant to be all things to all people. Seek other places and opportunities to enjoy flying your drone and taking pictures. That's what I do, and I live within a mile of both a national monument and a national conservation area with spectacular scenery, more than 100,000 acres of them proposed or designated wilderness. The telephoto lens I use to photograph wildlife while hiking in those areas, a 200-500mm zoom, cost less than my drone.
I'm not even sure where to begin. All I can say is you are asking and it's never going to happen as long as you ask, the answer is going to always be NO. Start by changing the "law" is going to be the only way.
I really don't mean to stir up bees nests but it seems I stirred a couple.
I can see pros and cons of the national parks law thing.
For a place like Yosemite, some people go there and enjoy the "relative" lack of "noise" and unspoiled views. A Drone could infringe upon that. Or the debris from the accidental crashed drone or the minimal potential for an overheated battery starting a wildfire.
The grand canyon, however, as vast as it is, there's no logic to it. I'd argue the arches are in a similar class.
People arguing for the "Just as good from the ground" thought process, that's OK for you. Some people want a few more angles. To each their own.
Part of the reason to own a drone is simply to get that other perspective. To see things we can't see standing on the ground. It seems a little unfortunate that some of the most amazing things one could see, aren't allowed to be seen.
(Disneyland wouldn't be a great flyover. The entire experience is made to me seen from the ground. I've seen it from the air. It's not all that impressive when you can see the swamp next to it and the hidden equipment and such)
At any rate, I have shower thoughts (or night time brain drift) that influences my curiosities. I'm not really trying to stir the bees.
I can see pros and cons of the national parks law thing.
For a place like Yosemite, some people go there and enjoy the "relative" lack of "noise" and unspoiled views. A Drone could infringe upon that. Or the debris from the accidental crashed drone or the minimal potential for an overheated battery starting a wildfire.
The grand canyon, however, as vast as it is, there's no logic to it. I'd argue the arches are in a similar class.
People arguing for the "Just as good from the ground" thought process, that's OK for you. Some people want a few more angles. To each their own.
Part of the reason to own a drone is simply to get that other perspective. To see things we can't see standing on the ground. It seems a little unfortunate that some of the most amazing things one could see, aren't allowed to be seen.
(Disneyland wouldn't be a great flyover. The entire experience is made to me seen from the ground. I've seen it from the air. It's not all that impressive when you can see the swamp next to it and the hidden equipment and such)
At any rate, I have shower thoughts (or night time brain drift) that influences my curiosities. I'm not really trying to stir the bees.
I agree. As the saying goes, "The only constant is change" --- I expect a positive evolution.
Agree, there are some areas like Yosemite Valley (only the valley is highly crowded though: much of the rest of the park is sparsely visited) where it's obvious that if drones were permitted 24/7, there could be many of them and it could cause quite a nuisance. And yet...as far as that goes...the sheer number of visitors to the Valley is a nuisance in and of itself! To all those seeking to enjoy the sights in relative peace and quiet. Which is hard to find amid the traffic jams there...
Other areas in Yosemite and in other parks, there are very very few people and IMO at least as regards the "nuisance" argument, it has no legs to stand on.
If you watch DJ Audits or DJE Media you see how many rules are made up on the spot. Additionally if you watch Honoryouroath on Youtube, who does 1st Amendment audits, you get to see how many in law enforcement make up rules.
I just asked the Police chief and I was told that while being far away and using zoom could be done. If for any reason you are hampering the officers in their duties to include a distraction. You could be arrested but most likely told to land and leave the area.
I place no value on any "auditors" Those are the guys that think they have a right to cause a disturbance in a courthouse. If you need to film in a courthouse the least you can do is inform someone. After all the others around you don't see you as a valiant savior of our rights. To them you are Either there to just prove your private point about the constitution OR You are filming Jurors. By the way filming jurors is very illegal!!
I place no value on any "auditors" Those are the guys that think they have a right to cause a disturbance in a courthouse. If you need to film in a courthouse the least you can do is inform someone. After all the others around you don't see you as a valiant savior of our rights. To them you are Either there to just prove your private point about the constitution OR You are filming Jurors. By the way filming jurors is very illegal!!
Donnie Frank
Well-Known Member
Unless the rules have changed, it's my understanding that one cannot take off or land in a National Park. But the airspace is still controlled by the FAA. Logically, if drones are bound by the same rules and regulations as full scale aviation, we ALSO share in the same privileges, which includes the great easements of the sky. Since airplanes and helicopters can't be regulated by the National Parks, neither can drones.
Years ago this was true. So, unless something has changed...
Discuss.
D
National Parks have Preservation areas in them most of the time and you must follow the FAA guidelines for overflying these areas. This makes them illegal to almost all low flying aircraft.
Take Whale preservation areas as an example of flying Rules....Sure you can fly over them just like any aircraft.-- BUT WAIT!! Drone operator!.... You have to be at 1000 ft to overfly these and a drone can only go 400 legally your out of luck! So you are still flying under the same rulebook as the Private pilot. At the same time under those rules you can fly under a canopy and boogie around the local park with yours If somebody did that in a Cessna without paperwork they would be going to prison! Same rules. If you see an aircraft or Helicopter in the park flying low They either got a waiver to be there or they are Government owned. You can get a waiver to fly in the park. It will just take a loooong time.
Take Whale preservation areas as an example of flying Rules....Sure you can fly over them just like any aircraft.-- BUT WAIT!! Drone operator!.... You have to be at 1000 ft to overfly these and a drone can only go 400 legally your out of luck! So you are still flying under the same rulebook as the Private pilot. At the same time under those rules you can fly under a canopy and boogie around the local park with yours If somebody did that in a Cessna without paperwork they would be going to prison! Same rules. If you see an aircraft or Helicopter in the park flying low They either got a waiver to be there or they are Government owned. You can get a waiver to fly in the park. It will just take a loooong time.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Which Drone for Traveling Outside US (Particularly Europe)?
- Started by CadrePilot
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
Forum statistics
