No Drones Allowed in National Parks

[DSGDSG]

hey now, i'm not saying that doesn't happen so there's no need for the sarcasm. just pointing out that trash on the ground is much easier to clean up than trash in the trees and mountainsides. i do agree with your point that it's nice to have balance when it comes to access and preservation. after all, we are both aerial and nature enthusiasts it seems.

Lol sorry brother, sarcasm is the thing Im best versed on.

But anyway. Litter. It's a negligible concern not even worth using in argment against. Look at the number of people that utilize the parks yearly. Look at the tonnage of litter they generate each year. Now look at those that are straight up pigs with no concern for the environment who throw their trash where they please, then others that do their best to dispose of it only to have it blow away or have wildlife carry it off, or whatever else can't be controlled. Now how many of those park attendees are drone flyers? And how many of those are going to lose their drone on the grounds in a year? And how many of those are going to lose their drone in a place where it can't be recovered? Yeah, the biggest threat to the park in the form of litter comes from the average park patron by far. Not the drone user. Litter as a reason not to allow drones in a national park just doesn't fly.

 

[tom.cruisin.for.a.bruisin]

haha! we are all good.

i do see your many points and i know i've watched enough documentaries and read enough articles that support them as facts. i just can't get on board with letting the public go out and fly in the NPs. i suppose it concerns me that if the ban were lifted, we'll have that many more inexperienced and/or careless operators in the parks. we can see from youtube videos and in the news already that people just buy these things and do not care to educate themselves about rules and regulations and disregard public safety. and i just can't support lifting the ban because of what we already see happening, even as much as i would love to have that opportunity myself.

 

[DSGDSG]

haha! we are all good.

i do see your many points and i know i've watched enough documentaries and read enough articles that support them as facts. i just can't get on board with letting the public go out and fly in the NPs. i suppose it concerns me that if the ban were lifted, we'll have that many more inexperienced and/or careless operators in the parks. we can see from youtube videos and in the news already that people just buy these things and do not care to educate themselves about rules and regulations and disregard public safety. and i just can't support lifting the ban because of what we already see happening, even as much as i would love to have that opportunity myself.

Well then that's where I say that people need to be held accountable for their actions and suffer whatever consequences directly rather than penalize everyone for something they didn't do just because something might happen.

 

[tom.cruisin.for.a.bruisin]

i'll absolutely get on board if that was a possibility.

 

[michael_gio]

I am curious as I am going to come at this as a commercial shooter and film-maker. Has anyone ever tried to contact the respective film commission's in these cities where the parks are and gotten a filming permit and allotted time slot and date for say a documentary or a feature film or whatever you want to call it?

Thanks in advance to all you guys being respectful, mature and not answering in internet typical fashion (like douchebags) and making this productive for all of us.

 

[sporte77]

I don't think it's "a" drone the parks are concerned about. It's their paranoid view of the future .... LOTs of drones. As the prices come down, more people own, more drones buzzing around. If you've ever been to Yellowstone, imagine all those selfie sticks being replaced with drones. I don't like the ban either. It sucks for the responsible operators in the crowd. We're in our infancy with regulation. So, it's either going to get better - or worse... depending on our behavior.

 

[mardak]

If the UAS was small enough, you could not hear it or have great difficulty seeing it, and the blades were not exposed, does a ban still make sense? What aspect of UAS operations warrant a ban? I've been to the rim of the Grand Canyon when a group of students showed up with 30 pizzas, should pizzas be banned? Why do we allow snowmobiles in national parks but not drones? Why are for profit helicopters allowed in the Grand Canyon for what seems like every 10 minutes?

Seawolf you have it exactly. In my country (South Africa) draconian laws were introduce as a result of helicopter pilot lobby groups who were losing money as a result of drones taking over especially the videography. It seems that once I have my license I can fly anything from a 1 kg to a 100 kg drone. however to get a license costs an arm and a leg both in cash and time. So you do the maths.

 

[sporte77]

I am curious as I am going to come at this as a commercial shooter and film-maker. Has anyone ever tried to contact the respective film commission's in these cities where the parks are and gotten a filming permit and allotted time slot and date for say a documentary or a feature film or whatever you want to call it?

Thanks in advance to all you guys being respectful, mature and not answering in internet typical fashion (like douchebags) and making this productive for all of us.

To help answer your question.....

I completed an application using the same process as a commercial photographer/videographer would have used for drones in Washington State Parks. The respective city authorities LOVE film-makers. So you'd have a lot more pull notifying them first. If you are going to try for the parks, you obviously have to apply there - but contacting the locals first would help. Here's a link to my experience in getting approved... Washington State Parks Drone Application - Cape Disappointment

 

[Bullseyeman]

If the UAS was small enough, you could not hear it or have great difficulty seeing it, and the blades were not exposed, does a ban still make sense? What aspect of UAS operations warrant a ban? I've been to the rim of the Grand Canyon when a group of students showed up with 30 pizzas, should pizzas be banned? Why do we allow snowmobiles in national parks but not drones? Why are for profit helicopters allowed in the Grand Canyon for what seems like every 10 minutes?

Pizzas don't make noise. They don't fall out of the sky causing possible injury. I'm a little sensitive to this, having lost a drone last week in the Pacific Ocean through no fault of my own. I was upset to lose the Drone but at the same time happy that did not land in a populated area with possible injuries resulting.

 

[bern]

I certainly agree that some control is needed. An absolute ban seems overkill. For example, they could restrict the number of flyers by requiring registration, and limiting the number by place and time planning to fly. They could restrict flying to times and places where few people congregate. They could require FAA 107 certification. There are lots of ways they could allow drones without the obvious negative consequences of allowing anybody to fly anytime.

 

[djohnston]

Even as a MP owner, I would not want to visit a national park and have to listen to the incessant buzz of drones over me. The majesty and beauty of such places would be ruined. Pollution isn't simply crap you see on the ground, it's also noise. And I won't even start on drones crashing into buffalo herds.

 

[Lone Wolf 58]

I don't see a problem with letting UAVs fly at certain times or certain places etc. I get the whole idea of not everyone wants to hear the noise pollution. Hell I would rather them restrict humans from the park and only allow drones. This way many more could watch the video and spare the park all the people pollution and crap visitor carry in and don't properly dispose of. Humans are the real problem, not drones.

I think we are getting some where. Starting to hear some ideas I think that could work for most rather than these all out bans. You have to try to keep a little sense of humor though and not get your panties in a bunch when reading some of the posts.

 

[masaphotog]

Are they ever going to lift the ban? does anyone know....

When you take off push auto take off and swipe right. As it takes off jump straight up into the air. This means you will not have taken off from a national park because when the aircraft launched you were in the air which is controlled by the FAA not the national park service.

 

[Bullseyeman]

I've read a number of post here that encourage people to circumvent the law. In the end that will result in stiffer penalties and fines to deter other fools from doing the same It will do nothing to eliminate or relax the current regulations. Bad idea.

 

[DWright]

I've seen a number of people post their opinions on the legality of flying in a park. But I'm curious if anybody has ever successfully argued any of these technicalities with a park ranger that is presenting them with a citation? I'm betting the ranger would most likely say something like "tell it to the judge." In which case, you'd probably either need to pay the fine, or pay the legal fees to fight it in court. In the end, the fine is probably going to be cheaper. But, does anybody know of any counter-examples? Anybody that can say "Yes, I personally explained this to the ranger and they let me go:..."?

 

[michael_gio]

To help answer your question.....

I completed an application using the same process as a commercial photographer/videographer would have used for drones in Washington State Parks. The respective city authorities LOVE film-makers. So you'd have a lot more pull notifying them first. If you are going to try for the parks, you obviously have to apply there - but contacting the locals first would help. Here's a link to my experience in getting approved... Washington State Parks Drone Application - Cape Disappointment

In San Antonio the Film Commission is a part of Parks and Recreation. So these two "communicate" and can be cleared to film/shoot/drone in just about anywhere. The worst they can do is say, "No"

Often times the film commissions communicate with the respective departments be it parks and recreation or the police department to get something or anything cleared for a film or commercial photoshoot and perhaps drone filming/photography depending on where and how it is to be "photographed."

 

[sporte77]

I've seen a number of people post their opinions on the legality of flying in a park. But I'm curious if anybody has ever successfully argued any of these technicalities with a park ranger that is presenting them with a citation? I'm betting the ranger would most likely say something like "tell it to the judge." In which case, you'd probably either need to pay the fine, or pay the legal fees to fight it in court. In the end, the fine is probably going to be cheaper. But, does anybody know of any counter-examples? Anybody that can say "Yes, I personally explained this to the ranger and they let me go:..."?

Good point and question. My understanding is that the local ranger, if asked would refer the drone operator to "regional administrator's office". That, of course, is the giant bureaucratic red tape hell (for a national park anyway). Here's a list of State "impact studies" they do before approval (There is no process for recreational in National Parks. However, my State Parks went through the same process for my recreational flight - they just lowered the fee to $25. When they reviewed my plan - they saw it was simple, I mitigated all risk and they approved it.) you can imagine what the NPS process is like. They'd probably work on it for 3 months and charge you $1000..
1. Impact on park staff.
2. Loss of revenue to the park.
3. Impact on park operating costs.
4. Facility use fees.
5. Potential damage to park resources (requires bond deposit).
6. Archeological impacts.
7. Historic preservation.
8. Wildlife impact.
There is an advisory committee and an application process in place for "filming". That is prohibitively expensive for a recreational flyer. There isn't an application for a recreational flyer at the National level - it's just banned (for now). So, since there's a process in place, and the local ranger has no authority to allow recreational or non-permitted commercial flying he would likely just say, "No, or apply for a permit - here's the phone number to the regional administrators office".

That's the way it was when I called the local State Park (which is actually also a national park - weird - but the State had authority in this park). The local ranger directed me to the regional office and some higher up had to review and sign it - but I avoided NPS.

As far as auto-takeoff, or flying in from outside the park - you'd just get a ticket for the fine if they caught you. The park rangers have a very wide range of ability and discretion to write tickets. You will not win an argument. That would also piss them off so they'd outright hate us even more. Then they'd obsess over catching the non-compliant flyers - AND discriminate against those of us who follow the law & its intention.

 

[Bertro]

I wonder, what will be if I fly the drone in the fordibben place. What punishment to expect?

 

[Lone Wolf 58]

Plead the fifth. Be respectful and deny any knowledge of any violate. I've been able to beat 75 present of any violation just by be respectful and done try to argue your position with the authority. If they write you you do that with the judge.

 

[DWright]

I have a friend who is a National Park ranger. I asked him the question about FAA jurisdiction of the airspace over the park. This was his response:

I haven't heard that argument before. I suppose it doesn't really matter what the individual ranger thinks in that example.

The closure is contained in the Superintendent's Compendium as authorized by 36 CFR 1.5.

"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."

So as far as an individual ranger would be concerned, the activity violates the rule as written in the compendium. The argument would have to be presented at court to the magistrate.

As far as the jurisdiction of the airspace, I'm unable to give you an opinion on that. A given ranger would most likely write the citation.

I've dealt with a number of these cases in Yellowstone. We've had quite a few drones end up crashing into the geysers, lakes, and canyons in the park. Many of them aren't able to be retrieved because of the risk involved. When we confront the drone pilots they mostly don't seem to care about the negative impacts that the drones have on the park resources or on other visitors.​

So there you have it. If you fly over a park, you're probably going to get a ticket. If you want to argue the point, you'll need to do that with the magistrate.

Furthermore, I get the sense that rangers have a bad taste in their mouths from past experiences with amateur drone pilots. I doubt that they would be in favor of changing the rules in the favor of pilots any time soon. I think if you are serious about getting parks to change their attitude about drones, you need to start looking at it from a "what's in it for them?" perspective.