Review temp law on drone ban in National Parks

[MichiganMavic]

I love flying my drones , but I do love the peace when I go to the NPs. When I went to the GC, I only dreamed of flying there. I ended up getting on a helicopter tour instead.
That would be a problem with the airspace because the helo flew low and all over the canyon. I can’t imagine meeting up with a Drone in the next bend [emoji15].

 

[Classic flyer]

What about keeping large aircraft out of designated drone airspace... just like drones in their airspace...just a thought

 

[2nckayakers]

I have mixed feelings on this one. I love the solitude of a hike in the woods, and I do not for one minute agree with letting drones fly just anywhere in a NP, especially somewhere like Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore, . BUT, there are places in NP lands that I think it would be perfectly acceptable as long as they did a permit system and only issued so many in a day. For instance, in the Grand Canyon, Badlands, and a lot of the huge parks out west, you can go places in there and not see a single sole all day long. When I was in the Badlands we drove 50 miles to a campsite and didn't see anyone until we got to the campsite. Another one is here at home in some of the National Seashore. I kayak, and we do a lot of paddling in places that is controlled by the NPS where there is a ban in place. There are some places there that you don't see anyone all day long, because not just anyone can go there without a kayak or small no motorized boat. Around the light houses here are another good example. They close down to climbing in the winter months and there are very few tourists out there so what would be the problem with flying when no one is there? Cape Lookout? you can only get there by boat, so what would be the harm in doing a permit system and only allowing a few people at specific times or days? I know some who would say what if they damaged something, but that is the idea behind the permit. You have to apply for one, or purchase one (more revenue for the Parks) and then if something gets damaged you are liable and since you had to get a permit to fly the NPS knows who did the damage. Maybe you could have a something where you must show your aircraft to a Ranger when you get the permit and then when you close out your permit you show it to them again. If yours is gone or in pieces then they know you crashed into something. I dunno there are a lot of ways you could come to a balance. The thing is if you don't do it, people are going to fly anyway hoping they don't get caught, and those are the ones you have to worry about.

 

[Classic flyer]

I like the way you think sir

 

[Seattle_Steve]

I have mixed feelings on this one. I love the solitude of a hike in the woods, and I do not for one minute agree with letting drones fly just anywhere in a NP, especially somewhere like Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore, . BUT, there are places in NP lands that I think it would be perfectly acceptable as long as they did a permit system and only issued so many in a day. For instance, in the Grand Canyon, Badlands, and a lot of the huge parks out west, you can go places in there and not see a single sole all day long. When I was in the Badlands we drove 50 miles to a campsite and didn't see anyone until we got to the campsite. Another one is here at home in some of the National Seashore. I kayak, and we do a lot of paddling in places that is controlled by the NPS where there is a ban in place. There are some places there that you don't see anyone all day long, because not just anyone can go there without a kayak or small no motorized boat. Around the light houses here are another good example. They close down to climbing in the winter months and there are very few tourists out there so what would be the problem with flying when no one is there? Cape Lookout? you can only get there by boat, so what would be the harm in doing a permit system and only allowing a few people at specific times or days? I know some who would say what if they damaged something, but that is the idea behind the permit. You have to apply for one, or purchase one (more revenue for the Parks) and then if something gets damaged you are liable and since you had to get a permit to fly the NPS knows who did the damage. Maybe you could have a something where you must show your aircraft to a Ranger when you get the permit and then when you close out your permit you show it to them again. If yours is gone or in pieces then they know you crashed into something. I dunno there are a lot of ways you could come to a balance. The thing is if you don't do it, people are going to fly anyway hoping they don't get caught, and those are the ones you have to worry about.

This makes a lot of sense to me. In Canyonlands you can take any kind of off road vehicle and rock crawl all over and chew up as much land and plant life that you want. Nearby, in Arches,there is a lot of open space without anyone around (usually). This continues in many of our western parks that are more reserved spaces than they are populated or even moderately used and drones won't impact the environment. Joshua Tree or Death Valley parks anyone? rarely and there's not even wildlife to bother.

 

[2nckayakers]

This makes a lot of sense to me. In Canyonlands you can take any kind of off road vehicle and rock crawl all over and chew up as much land and plant life that you want. Nearby, in Arches,there is a lot of open space without anyone around (usually). This continues in many of our western parks that are more reserved spaces than they are populated or even moderately used and drones won't impact the environment. Joshua Tree or Death Valley parks anyone? rarely and there's not even wildlife to bother.

Yep agreed. Just like on the National Seashores here. You can get a permit and ride 4 wheelers, dune buggies, huge camper fishing rigs, anything you want on the beaches but you can't fly a drone? Seriously which one causes more damage and is more annoying a drone or a 4 wheeler? Noise wise, here on the National Seashores where I paddle, outboard motors on boats make more noise and do more to scare birds and wildlife than my drone would if I were flying it.

 

[dbparti24]

Fort Bragg is in North Carolina...3000 miles from the Pacific Ocean...what type of batteries did you use?

Yes my son is stationed in NC. FT Bragg California is in by Mendacino. The park was actually a The State Park MacKerricher located in FT Bragg.[emoji1]

 

[Classic flyer]

Yes my son is stationed in NC. FT Bragg California is in by Mendacino. The park was actually a The State Park MacKerricher located in FT Bragg.[emoji1]

Yes my son is stationed in NC. FT Bragg California is in by Mendacino. The park was actually a The State Park MacKerricher located in FT Bragg.[emoji1]

 

[Classic flyer]

Awsome...thank you...just wanted to know what kind of batteries were used

 

[tcope]

Here is the issue and I'm 99% sure it's why there is an entire ban and it won't be lifted....

If they were to allow drones in certain areas people would be "confused" and fly their drones in other areas. I'm sure some would be "confused" and fly in very populated areas of the park. Trust me... it _would_ happen and it would happen often. Sure, they could start issuing citations but you'd still have "confused" people bothering others with their drones and citations are not going to help.

You don't think it would be an issue? Feel free to look back at a post I made of person flying right next to Delicate Arch in Arches National Park. Look at some of the responses from people right here in this form. They felt that they should be able to fly anywhere they wanted. They even took offense to my public service video, stating it was actually part of the problem.

So, many people would see that drones were allowed in National Parks and either not know where the boundries were or not awknowledge the boundies at all. We know that the NPS is stating that National Park attendance is at all time highs and that they don't have the man power to do there job so I don't see them looking to make their jobs more difficult.

I know first hand that there are thousands of acres managed by the NPS where there is not a sole for hundreds of miles. Some people think it should be okay to fly there. Well, if there is no one around, what are the chances that a ranger would be in that area and know that you are flying at a given time?

Personally, I would not fly in any area of a National Park but I have accidently flown in an area managed by the NPS (feel free to look at Hite, UT). In that case it's not a National Park and is about 70 miles from anything. I had no idea that the area was managed by the NPS so it fell under this restriction. I _should_ have known.

 

[Classic flyer]

Here is the issue and I'm 99% sure it's why there is an entire ban and it won't be lifted....

If they were to allow drones in certain areas people would be "confused" and fly their drones in other areas. I'm sure some would be "confused" and fly in very populated areas of the park. Trust me... it _would_ happen and it would happen often. Sure, they could start issuing citations but you'd still have "confused" people bothering others with their drones and citations are not going to help.

You don't think it would be an issue? Feel free to look back at a post I made of person flying right next to Delicate Arch in Arches National Park. Look at some of the responses from people right here in this form. They felt that they should be able to fly anywhere they wanted. They even took offense to my public service video, stating it was actually part of the problem.

So, many people would see that drones were allowed in National Parks and either not know where the boundries were or not awknowledge the boundies at all. We know that the NPS is stating that National Park attendance is at all time highs and that they don't have the man power to do there job so I don't see them looking to make their jobs more difficult.

I know first hand that there are thousands of acres managed by the NPS where there is not a sole for hundreds of miles. Some people think it should be okay to fly there. Well, if there is no one around, what are the chances that a ranger would be in that area and know that you are flying at a given time?

Personally, I would not fly in any area of a National Park but I have accidently flown in an area managed by the NPS (feel free to look at Hite, UT). In that case it's not a National Park and is about 70 miles from anything. I had no idea that the area was managed by the NPS so it fell under this restriction. I _should_ have known.

So what I'm hearing is that Stupidity ie: (confusion) rules the world?

 

[Marko9219]

So, I can't fly my little Mavic in any NP, because it might "disturb" someone? However, I can be fly-fishing in Yellowstone NP and have to listen to the sound of 50 Harley Davidson motorcycles riding through the park on their way to or from Sturgis or somewhere. Multiple times per day. From 2 miles away! Or, some redneck gunning his deleted Ram diesel FROM 2 MILES Away! But our little Mavics are disturbing people? Laughable.

 

[Classic flyer]

So, I can't fly my little Mavic in any NP, because it might "disturb" someone? However, I can be fly-fishing in Yellowstone NP and have to listen to the sound of 50 Harley Davidson motorcycles riding through the park on their way to or from Sturgis or somewhere. Multiple times per day. From 2 miles away! Or, some redneck gunning his deleted Ram diesel FROM 2 MILES Away! But our little Mavics are disturbing people? Laughable.

I like the way you think sir

 

[beachcombing]

So, I can't fly my little Mavic in any NP, because it might "disturb" someone? However, I can be fly-fishing in Yellowstone NP and have to listen to the sound of 50 Harley Davidson motorcycles riding through the park on their way to or from Sturgis or somewhere. Multiple times per day. From 2 miles away! Or, some redneck gunning his deleted Ram diesel FROM 2 MILES Away! But our little Mavics are disturbing people? Laughable.

To my knowledge, these motorcycles haven't crashed into the Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone. That's what prompted the ban.

 

[Nickvr628]

Make a part 107 required for flying in those areas, that should separate the flying trolls from the pilots.

 

[Classic flyer]

Make a part 107 required for flying in those areas, that should separate the flying trolls from the pilots.

Let's hold people accountable for there actions and stop punishing everyone

 

[tcope]

So what I'm hearing is that Stupidity ie: (confusion) rules the world?

Perhaps not the world but with 331 _million_ people visiting a National Park in 2016, how many do you think are going to be "confused" about where a drone can and cannot be flown? Remember 35% of these people are not from the US. So their first and only exposure to the rule may only be once they arrive to the park.

 

[Classic flyer]

Perhaps not the world but with 331 _million_ people visiting a National Park in 2016, how many do you think are going to be "confused" about where a drone can and cannot be flown? Remember 35% of these people are not from the US. So their first and only exposure to the rule may only be once they arrive to the park.

I agree however people need to be involved enough with flying to be motivated to research the local and federal regulations if they are "confused"...ignorance is no excuse

 

[Classic flyer]

I agree however people need to be involved enough with flying to be motivated to research the local and federal regulations if they are "confused"...ignorance is no excuse

Here's a thought...in Florida if you get busted for boating under the influence it goes against your drivers license...maybe the same should be done for drone pilots violating restricted airspace...what do you think?

 

[mph300]

Here's a thought...in Florida if you get busted for boating under the influence it goes against your drivers license...maybe the same should be done for drone pilots violating restricted airspace...what do you think?

Whatever would potentially be done needs to enforce personal responsibility and not blanket restrictions on the people who follow guidelines for flying.