Local Restrictions, Does anyone other than the FAA have the right?

[Greatsign1]

I was in a county run nature pressure and politely asked if they are OK with drones. I was told it was not allowed, although I did not see anything on B4UFLY, they couldn't show me the restriction written anywhere nor were there any signs posted. I politly gave them the only the FAA can restrict drone traffic speech and they said go ahead at your own risk. Do local governments have the authority to restrict, fine, arrest or charge a permit fee?

 

[eEridani]

Yes. Including private parties that can set rules that no one can launch, land, control a UAV from their property.

e.g., Here in Idaho I have state statues and county statutes that affect my flying.

You should also be aware that the FAA has a tendency to prevent flight around natural habitat - especially places where endangered species are known to be. This goes for UAV and manned aircraft. There are islands on the river near me that have flight restrictions because they are such preserves.

I've linked a small note on the local sectional. While you can read this as flight isn't legally restricted, you become a pariah if you do ignore the request.

And there is this: flight at or above 2000' agl minimums equates to no drones allowed

https://tfmlearning.faa.gov/publications/atpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0704.html

7-4-6. Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas

NOTE-
FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-36, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas, defines the surface of a national park area (including parks, forests, primitive areas, wilderness areas, recreational areas, national seashores, national monuments, national lakeshores, and national wildlife refuge and range areas) as: the highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight, or the upper-most rim of a canyon or valley.

c. Federal statutes prohibit certain types of flight activity and/or provide altitude restrictions over designated U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas. These designated areas, for example: Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Areas, Minnesota; Haleakala National Park, Hawaii; Yosemite National Park, California; and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, are charted on Sectional Charts.
​

 

[BigAl07]

They can restrict anything they want FROM their land (they own or they are empowered to manage). Just like you can say what happens ON your property they can say no flying FROM (landing, launching, or operating from) their property. It's a LAND USE issue not an FAA issue.

 

[db4476]

Yes. Including private parties that can set rules that no one can launch, land, control a UAV from their property.

e.g., Here in Idaho I have state statues and county statutes that affect my flying.

You should also be aware that the FAA has a tendency to prevent flight around natural habitat - especially places where endangered species are known to be. This goes for UAV and manned aircraft. There are islands on the river near me that have flight restrictions because they are such preserves.

I've linked a small note on the local sectional. While you can read this as flight isn't legally restricted, you become a pariah if you do ignore the request.

And there is this: flight at or above 2000' agl minimums equates to no drones allowed

https://tfmlearning.faa.gov/publications/atpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0704.html

7-4-6. Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas

NOTE-
FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-36, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas, defines the surface of a national park area (including parks, forests, primitive areas, wilderness areas, recreational areas, national seashores, national monuments, national lakeshores, and national wildlife refuge and range areas) as: the highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight, or the upper-most rim of a canyon or valley.

c. Federal statutes prohibit certain types of flight activity and/or provide altitude restrictions over designated U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas. These designated areas, for example: Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Areas, Minnesota; Haleakala National Park, Hawaii; Yosemite National Park, California; and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, are charted on Sectional Charts.
​

That applies to piloted planes and has been around for a long time, it was not written for drones.

 

[Rich QR]

It is pretty clear that any landowner, or any entity responsible for making rules regarding behavior while in a public park or similar land can restrict what you do while your feet are on their land.

What's a lot less clear is whether they have the right to restrict overflight. If you launch from a spot where there is no prohibition, and you obey the FAA rules regarding VLOS, flight over people and roads, and all other applicable FAA rules, you're okay as far as the FAA is concerned. But there may be counties and municipalities that have passed local ordinances prohibiting overflight anyway. There haven't been a lot of court cases testing the enforceability of that kind of rule. Local governments can probably attempt to enforce such rules until they're told by a court that they can't. Maybe such rules will ultimately be clearly shown to be unenforceable, I'm not sure. But if the local deputy believes he's authorized to write a citation, he'll probably write a citation.

 

[MS Coast]

That applies to piloted planes and has been around for a long time, it was not written for drones.

Do you know of any documentation that states that it doesn't apply to drones? I'd be very interested in that. Thanks.

 

[sar104]

Yes. Including private parties that can set rules that no one can launch, land, control a UAV from their property.

e.g., Here in Idaho I have state statues and county statutes that affect my flying.

You should also be aware that the FAA has a tendency to prevent flight around natural habitat - especially places where endangered species are known to be. This goes for UAV and manned aircraft. There are islands on the river near me that have flight restrictions because they are such preserves.

I've linked a small note on the local sectional. While you can read this as flight isn't legally restricted, you become a pariah if you do ignore the request.

And there is this: flight at or above 2000' agl minimums equates to no drones allowed

https://tfmlearning.faa.gov/publications/atpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0704.html

7-4-6. Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas

NOTE-
FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-36, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas, defines the surface of a national park area (including parks, forests, primitive areas, wilderness areas, recreational areas, national seashores, national monuments, national lakeshores, and national wildlife refuge and range areas) as: the highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight, or the upper-most rim of a canyon or valley.

c. Federal statutes prohibit certain types of flight activity and/or provide altitude restrictions over designated U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas. These designated areas, for example: Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Areas, Minnesota; Haleakala National Park, Hawaii; Yosemite National Park, California; and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, are charted on Sectional Charts.
​

But you probably should have included the actual language of 7-4-6 b in your quote:

Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface of the following: National Parks, Monuments, Seashores, Lakeshores, Recreation Areas and Scenic Riverways administered by the National Park Service, National Wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, Game Ranges and Wildlife Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wilderness and Primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service.​

The 2000 ft AGL minimum is a request, not a rule.

 

[dronerdave]

Do you know of any documentation that states that it doesn't apply to drones? I'd be very interested in that. Thanks.

Like this one?

Mitigating the Impacts of Aviation (U.S. National Park Service)

A variety of aircraft fly in the airspace over national parks. Discusses the Natural Sounds Program, intended to manage sounds to protect visitor experiences.

www.nps.gov

 

[eEridani]

Like this one?

Mitigating the Impacts of Aviation (U.S. National Park Service)

A variety of aircraft fly in the airspace over national parks. Discusses the Natural Sounds Program, intended to manage sounds to protect visitor experiences.

www.nps.gov

I did not see a carve out for drones in that document - it uses the wording all aircraft.

Here is some NPS Service info specifically about drones: my take is some parks might allow drones, but check first; and if not allowed, specific permission to do so can be requested. Read it for details. I actually learned something from it.

Unmanned Aircraft in the National Parks (U.S. National Park Service)

Information about unmanned aircraft (or drone) use in national parks.

www.nps.gov

City, county, state and similar local jurisdictions may have their own rules. Like the county run wildlife refuge the OP is asking about. However, if it isn't written down or easily producible, it's difficult to accept the rule actually exists. The flip side, lack of knowledge of a statute does not invalidate it when the officer is talking.

 

[eEridani]

One other point of contention I think we all face is the common belief a drone is not considered an aircraft as governed by the FAA. Here's what the FAA is saying about that.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/policy_library/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf

A UAS is an Aircraft that Must Comply with Safety Requirements

A UAS is an “aircraft” as defined in the FAA’s authorizing statutes and is therefore subject to regulation by the FAA. 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) defines an “aircraft” as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in the air.” The FAA’s regulations (14 C.F.R. § 1.1) similarly define an “aircraft” as “a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” Because an unmanned aircraft is a contrivance/device that is invented, used, and designed to fly in the air, it meets the definition of “aircraft.” In addition, on December 16, 2015 the FAA the FAA promulgated an Interim Final Rule (80 Fed. Reg. 78594) that defined Unmanned Aircraft, Model Aircraft, Small Unmanned Aircraft and Small Unmanned Aircraft System in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1. The FAA has promulgated regulations that apply to the operation of all aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, and irrespective of the altitude at which the aircraft is operating. For example, 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 prohibits any person from operating an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Whether manned or unmanned - an aircraft is an aircraft. Calling an aircraft a drone is like saying jet, fixed wing, or rotor craft: just another type of aircraft. Sure -lots of differences, but bottom line is they are all aircraft in the eyes of the FAA.

 

[Rich QR]

One other point of contention I think we all face is the common belief a drone is not considered an aircraft as governed by the FAA. Here's what the FAA is saying about that.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/policy_library/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf

A UAS is an Aircraft that Must Comply with Safety Requirements

A UAS is an “aircraft” as defined in the FAA’s authorizing statutes and is therefore subject to regulation by the FAA. 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) defines an “aircraft” as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in the air.” The FAA’s regulations (14 C.F.R. § 1.1) similarly define an “aircraft” as “a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” Because an unmanned aircraft is a contrivance/device that is invented, used, and designed to fly in the air, it meets the definition of “aircraft.”

I believe you have accurately described the FAA definition of "aircraft".

I just realized that I started designing and building aircraft when I was folding sheets of notebook paper in the back of my third grade classroom. I believe my paper airplanes fit the FAA's definition of "aircraft" as quoted above.

If the FAA ever tries to enforce regulations against the operator of a paper airplane, I want to go to the courtroom and watch the proceedings!

 

[whicks1]

There is the airborn hunting act which is administered by US Fish and wildlife that includes language for “harassing” wildlife from the air. States expand on this in various ways as they have to report up to the DOI on such activities. Texas, for instance prohibits photography of wildlife from the air without special permits and I kinda assume when dealing with some public agencies it’s this authority they are appealing to when they attempt to restrict flight operations.

Conversely, states will defiantly try to regulate various aspects of your operations and you should just look into your state laws. For me in the lone star state, most of the language shys away from flight and centers on privacy concerns but also adds all kinds of restrictions for operations over critical infrastructure while explicitly forbidding local municipalities from making their own rules. So “¯\_(ツ)_/¯“

Just a thought.

 

[dronerdave]

I did not see a carve out for drones in that document - it uses the wording all aircraft.

And is basically a request that all aircraft are asked to follow. But what national parks and other recreational area are trying to control is (any) aircraft noise that bothers wildlife and/or visitors. UAV's fall into that category. I guess the national park service feels the requested 2000' AGL is high enough that a typical manned aircraft isn't an issue with people and animals hence the word mitigate in the title. But UAV's are primarily limited to 400'AGL or lower and I'd bet it's the lower altitude incidents that causes issues with people and/or animals which eventually caused national park officials to enact take off, operations, and landing restrictions from their lands. I fly at a few state parks that allow drones but one place was shut down due to a few idiots bothering visitors with RC aircraft. You can still fly from outside the park and over it while staying in VLOS, but if you start bothering people and/or wildlife, it's a different issue no matter where you are flying from. How authorities handle it varies.
Many state parks in my area regulate UAV operations by who ever is in charge of the specific park, and thankfully there is no blanket law that covers each park...yet. Other states might be different. I'd guess there is an avenue to gain permission to fly from a park that is closed to regular UAV flights, but I don't know how difficult it is to get some kind of a waiver to fly from National park grounds. Obviously shows like Aerial America must obtain some kind of permission for their productions. I doubt the waiver to fly and operate from within a national park would have much to do with FAA unless the production requires authorization to fly out of FAA compliance.

 

[eEridani]

I believe you have accurately described the FAA definition of "aircraft".

I just realized that I started designing and building aircraft when I was folding sheets of notebook paper in the back of my third grade classroom. I believe my paper airplanes fit the FAA's definition of "aircraft" as quoted above.

If the FAA ever tries to enforce regulations against the operator of a paper airplane, I want to go to the courtroom and watch the proceedings!

When people start building paper airplanes large enough to fly off buildings - the FAA will notice. Oh, wait, already been done: they call them gliders.

The FAA has been relatively relaxed over the years, and mostly only acts to regulate after someone is already doing silly things using machines that fly, things that generate a lot of public complaints. Flying drones into national park attractions like geysers; crashing drones into downtown buildings, cars, people; buzzing kids in local parks; flying drones in commercial airport traffic patterns and hitting planes; even that guy flying in a jet pack beside commercial aircraft near LAX... the list of silliness is pretty long.

The thing that bugs me most is these are things I want to do, too; but I am cursed with a sense of responsibility and somehow manage to refrain from being that guy.

 

[MS Coast]

Here are the National Park Service document on operating drones in National Parks. It's the basis of the brochure that eEridani mentioned.

I've been considering requesting approval to fly at the barrier islands that are part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore. Special waivers may be requested from the individual park superintendent, but the waivers have to be approved by the Associate Director, Visitor and Resource Protection in Washington. It's a bigger deal than I had understood.

USPS Policy Memorandum 14-05, June 19, 2014

Policy (U.S. National Park Service)

NPS policy

www.nps.gov

Excerpt:
"Launching, landing, or operating an unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service within the boundaries of [insert name of park] is prohibited except as approved in writing by the superintendent."

 

[dronerdave]

The FAA has been relatively relaxed over the years, and mostly only acts to regulate after someone is already doing silly things using machines that fly, things that generate a lot of public complaints. Flying drones into national park attractions like geysers... the list of silliness is pretty long.

Actually not the FAA. They are concerned about NAS safety. These regulations more than likely come from those who manages the public lands we fly from.
Speaking of geysers, I was at old faithful several years ago in YNP. Normally I prefer to avoid busy attractions but I'd never seen it in person. At the time there was a short little wooden fence the public is supposed to stand behind but some idiot decided he was wanting a better close up during the main eruption and hopped the fence to move closer. What he did was violate the rules and ruin it for all the others wanting a good picture. He might as well of had a drone to rape my experience. One bad thing about drones is operators often elect to pilot out of sight which for some reason seems to embolden many to do what they want with an entitlement type attitude. These people ruin it for the rest of us who don't do such things. It's one reason why the NPS will probably not allow something like a national drone day or take most requests to fly such missions in these places unless we are willing to jump through the hoops necessary to gain permission. How difficult it would be to gain permission probably depends on the place itself and having a good reason to issue such approval to fly at these places. So I can make a cool youtube video probably won't cut it.

 

[Smooth Rhythm]

Thanks for sharing … and others who chimed in with some very interesting conversation.

 

[cgmaxed]

Like this one?

Mitigating the Impacts of Aviation (U.S. National Park Service)

A variety of aircraft fly in the airspace over national parks. Discusses the Natural Sounds Program, intended to manage sounds to protect visitor experiences.

www.nps.gov

"Since excessive aircraft noise can result in annoyance, inconvenience or interference with the uses and enjoyment of parks where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute (including areas with wilderness characteristics), and can adversely affect wildlife in areas, all aircraft are requested to fly at altitudes higher than the minimum permitted by regulation."

This request to stay above 2000 feet obviously can't pertain to drones. since the 2000ft is a request that is made to keep aircraft noise levels down, I would assume a drone flying at 380ft, maybe less, would have such a small noise signature, that it would be permitted. But I ain't no state Judge. I'm sure if you take a 5 to 10 minute flight, no one will notice. Just pack your bags and leave the area as soon as your done. Getting into it with law enforcement doesn't always come down to just getting a warning.

 

[eEridani]

"all aircraft are requested to fly at altitudes higher than the minimum permitted by regulation."

This request to stay above 2000 feet obviously can't pertain to drones. [snip]. I'm sure if you take a 5 to 10 minute flight, no one will notice. Just pack your bags and leave the area as soon as your done. Getting into it with law enforcement doesn't always come down to just getting a warning.

Here's the issue - the rule does apply to ALL AIRCRAFT, and a drone is an aircraft, so by FAA definition drones are included.

As for just fly anyway because no one will notice - well - that inverted logic is why the FAA is cracking down on drone pilots.

 

[sar104]

Here's the issue - the rule does apply to ALL AIRCRAFT, and a drone is an aircraft, so by FAA definition drones are included.

As for just fly anyway because no one will notice - well - that inverted logic is why the FAA is cracking down on drone pilots.

It's not a rule. It's a request.