That's most likely correct, and obviously is the federal government's express position. If I were a state trying to argue otherwise, I think there's at least a possibility that a court (or the Supreme Court) could say that flights at a low altitude (400 and below, or 300, or whatever) completely within a state's boundaries are not within interstate commerce or otherwise subject to federal regulation, and therefore the FAA's claims are beyond congress's constitutional authority (the FAA deriving any powers it has from congressional legislation, and ultimately from the Constitution). For the most part, the last 80 years of cases suggests that Supreme Court would NOT rule that way and would say the FAA has full authority to govern the flights (although I don't think federal preemption would preclude local laws on nuisance and things like that). I think it would be a slightly better argument for the states with respect to purely recreational flyers, but it's still not a case I'd want to argue on behalf of the state.
State parks rule
- Thread starter Gioba59
- Start date
That's most likely correct, and obviously is the federal government's express position. If I were a state trying to argue otherwise, I think there's at least a possibility that a court (or the Supreme Court) could say that flights at a low altitude (400 and below, or 300, or whatever) completely within a state's boundaries are not within interstate commerce or otherwise subject to federal regulation, and therefore the FAA's claims are beyond congress's constitutional authority (the FAA deriving any powers it has from congressional legislation, and ultimately from the Constitution). For the most part, the last 80 years of cases suggests that Supreme Court would NOT rule that way and would say the FAA has full authority to govern the flights (although I don't think federal preemption would preclude local laws on nuisance and things like that). I think it would be a slightly better argument for the states with respect to purely recreational flyers, but it's still not a case I'd want to argue on behalf of the state.
OK, I am not a lawyer, but...
I wanted to do some stock footage flights on the wharf in San Francisco. San Francisco has laws on the books that prohibit drones in any city park. However, there is a lot of people flying around the wharf, and including some of the park areas. So, I did my research (somewhat sloppy, I admit) and found:
1> Airspace is owned by the FAA. This is allowed by the constitution as the courts have determined that all airspace is part of the interstate commerce system, which is clearly a federal responsibility.
2> What local and state regulators want in terms of managing airspace is something that should be worked through the FAA. The local and state agencies do not want to do this because their porposed restrictions generally do not hold water under administrative review, so they are rarely "ratified" by the FAA. (Bird sanctuaries are often supported by the FAA if properly presented.)
3> While the FAA does have different rules for different types of aircraft, local authorities cannot discriminate by aircraft type. If an airliner can fly over a state park, then a drone can as well (assuming no FAA regulations prohibit it.)
So, legally, you can fly over any location that is not marked by the FAA as prohibited or restricted airspace.
Local authorities can restrict where you take off and land.
So, the most direct answer to your question is that if the FAA has not restricted flight, then yes, you can fly over the state park.
However:
1> At a mile from the park, how well are you going to be able to maintain visual line of sight?
2> If your drone is attacked by a bird (just as an example) over the park, you are very likely to land in the park. Now you have lost your drone, and if a ranger gets to the drone before you, you could end up running afoul of the state laws by having "landed" in the park. Remember that even though you can legitimately claim that you had no intention to land in
the park, you can be held guilty if the courts determine that the landing was due to carelessness, or an intentional attempt to "skirt the law".
3> As simple due diligence, you are courting a confrontation with local authorities. A slight incursion into the park is probably not going to be a problem, but a deeper incursion could get noticed and could create ill will on the part of the local authorities.
4> Privacy issues are still something to contend with, so if you are caught, your drone "footage" could easily be demanded to ensure that you did not film someone in a "Private Act". The local authorities can do this legally even when it only amounts to harassment.
and 5> As mentioned above, the local authorities can make life difficult for you by arresting you, fining you, and if you want to fight it, you have to pay for the defense, and the authorities hove your tax money to fight against you. Even if you win, you lose. (Unless you have an organization behind you that wants to make a point.)
Contact the local rangers an let them know what you are planning. If they have any gray matter above their shoulders, chances are decent that they will provide options that you can both live with. If you stay within those operating parameters, arresting you is entrapment, which is a (I believe) federal crime. But in reality, you end up getting most of what you want, and everybode stays happy.
I wanted to do some stock footage flights on the wharf in San Francisco. San Francisco has laws on the books that prohibit drones in any city park. However, there is a lot of people flying around the wharf, and including some of the park areas. So, I did my research (somewhat sloppy, I admit) and found:
1> Airspace is owned by the FAA. This is allowed by the constitution as the courts have determined that all airspace is part of the interstate commerce system, which is clearly a federal responsibility.
2> What local and state regulators want in terms of managing airspace is something that should be worked through the FAA. The local and state agencies do not want to do this because their porposed restrictions generally do not hold water under administrative review, so they are rarely "ratified" by the FAA. (Bird sanctuaries are often supported by the FAA if properly presented.)
3> While the FAA does have different rules for different types of aircraft, local authorities cannot discriminate by aircraft type. If an airliner can fly over a state park, then a drone can as well (assuming no FAA regulations prohibit it.)
So, legally, you can fly over any location that is not marked by the FAA as prohibited or restricted airspace.
Local authorities can restrict where you take off and land.
So, the most direct answer to your question is that if the FAA has not restricted flight, then yes, you can fly over the state park.
However:
1> At a mile from the park, how well are you going to be able to maintain visual line of sight?
2> If your drone is attacked by a bird (just as an example) over the park, you are very likely to land in the park. Now you have lost your drone, and if a ranger gets to the drone before you, you could end up running afoul of the state laws by having "landed" in the park. Remember that even though you can legitimately claim that you had no intention to land in
the park, you can be held guilty if the courts determine that the landing was due to carelessness, or an intentional attempt to "skirt the law".
3> As simple due diligence, you are courting a confrontation with local authorities. A slight incursion into the park is probably not going to be a problem, but a deeper incursion could get noticed and could create ill will on the part of the local authorities.
4> Privacy issues are still something to contend with, so if you are caught, your drone "footage" could easily be demanded to ensure that you did not film someone in a "Private Act". The local authorities can do this legally even when it only amounts to harassment.
and 5> As mentioned above, the local authorities can make life difficult for you by arresting you, fining you, and if you want to fight it, you have to pay for the defense, and the authorities hove your tax money to fight against you. Even if you win, you lose. (Unless you have an organization behind you that wants to make a point.)
Contact the local rangers an let them know what you are planning. If they have any gray matter above their shoulders, chances are decent that they will provide options that you can both live with. If you stay within those operating parameters, arresting you is entrapment, which is a (I believe) federal crime. But in reality, you end up getting most of what you want, and everybode stays happy.
If the pilot is in the park then he would certainly be conducting sUAS operations in the park, and that may be regulated/prohibited by the park. That's not in dispute and has been discussed ad nauseam on these forums. You must have missed it.
Not that I have the time, money or even inclination to do so, but lower court judge's rulings are overturned by higher courts for over reaching when they are wrong.
Once again we have slipped into the gutters and made the conversation(s) personal. Debate all you want but as soon as you make it personal it become a problem. If you can't be considerate then just don't post at all!!
I've sent out warnings, deleted posts, and if I have to do any more in THIS thread it's going to be VACATION for those members. Enough is ENOUGH people!
I've sent out warnings, deleted posts, and if I have to do any more in THIS thread it's going to be VACATION for those members. Enough is ENOUGH people!
brett8883
Well-Known Member
Yep exactly right and I misspoke as well as used language not consistent with my intended tone in my original comment. Thank you for your polite and educated response so that I can set the record straight.
I’m all for safety but parks are the best opportunity for officials to check up on drone operators. Park rangers actually have the time to check our registration and give out a summons if we aren’t registered or following rules. They should be more concerned about the people who trash our state parks, then a few people flying drones to get amazing pictures. Drones do not harm or bother the animals as much as people polluting the park, or climate change. If it’s an empty park it’s absolutely stupid not to allow us to fly there.
The FAA keeps creating more rules, but has no way to enforce them..
The FAA keeps creating more rules, but has no way to enforce them..
brett8883
Well-Known Member
@sar104 I was talking about taking off from outside a park but inside a State that has a State Law restricting a pilot (who is OUTSIDE a park but INSIDE a state ON THE GROUND) from piloting a remote vehicle over a certain area.
I think I may have answered my own question though.
“State and local governments are not permitted to regulate any type of aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the navigable airspace.
However, these powers are not the same as regulation of aircraft landing sites, which involves local control of land and zoning. Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.”
So they can’t say where you can and can’t operate your drone to fly while it’s in the air but they could potentially make a law that you can’t take off from a wide enough area around the Park that would put it out of range if they really didn’t want you to fly there. I haven’t heard of such a law being enacted but this was point about checking State and local rules before flying even if it’s outside a Park.
Maybe I should have said check local and state law regarding take off and landing.
@sar104 I was talking about taking off from outside a park but inside a State that has a State Law restricting a pilot (who is OUTSIDE a park but INSIDE a state ON THE GROUND) from piloting a remote vehicle over a certain area.
I think I may have answered my own question though.
“State and local governments are not permitted to regulate any type of aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the navigable airspace.
However, these powers are not the same as regulation of aircraft landing sites, which involves local control of land and zoning. Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.”
So they can’t say where you can and can’t operate your drone to fly while it’s in the air but they could potentially make a law that you can’t take off from a wide enough area around the Park that would put it out of range if they really didn’t want you to fly there. I haven’t heard of such a law being enacted but this was point about checking State and local rules before flying even if it’s outside a Park.
Maybe I should have said check local and state law regarding take off and landing.
A landowner can regulate takeoff and landing, but obviously cannot regulate it outside their land. So if a state wanted to prohibit takeoff and landing from an area outside a state park then that would need to be state land.
brett8883
Well-Known Member
But a state can make laws and certainly zoning for land they do not own. For example if a State makes a law that prohibits drilling for oil in a certain region wouldn’t that be their right?
If a law said “no aircraft shall take off or land in an area within 4 miles of x State Park without permit from the State.” Wouldn’t that be within their right? I don’t believe State Laws can only apply on State owned property no?
I don't see how they can arbitrarily regulate activities by location on land that they do not own.
brett8883
Well-Known Member
I mean there’s laws usually in most places that you need to a permit to build a home, set up a business, dig a hole for a mailbox, host an outdoor concert etc. I don’t like it but to say it doesn’t happen all the time I mean...
brett8883
Well-Known Member
Right - but those are not location-specific, and are in place for reasons that are not just a transparent attempt to use a law to regulate airspace. This would be a bit like banning bicycles within 4 miles of a state park, or banning parties within 4 miles of a state park, even on private property. It would never survive a legal challenge.
AMann
Well-Known Member
There have been rogue drone operators that chased bighorn sheep and seperated lambs from ewes -plus they’re noisy were people expect to only hear natural sounds, and quite frankly they do upset some people. No, they do not belong in wilderness areas for your photography pleasure.
As a state park ranger in Maine I can tell you we don't have authority to do those things. The Feds would have to check registrations, etc. We do enforce state park rules, even the stupid ones sometimes. I've spoken to exactly four drone operators, all of whom were polite and landed their aircraft. If I were to see a drone over the park I would try and determine if the operator was in the park and ask that the operation cease. I would not be looking outside the park. In this state we don't issue fines for this, we just ask the folks to stop flying. As a new drone owner, state park photos are of great interest to me. I'll be planning some flyovers this Summer, but with extreme caution as I'm not quite ready to retire!
Last edited:
Bigbird48
Well-Known Member
How do you liken this to shooting off fireworks Nowhere near like it at all poor example. Firework Are extremely loud, they start fires and they kill and mame many people each year.Wow thats absolutely the poorest example anyone could come up with . wow
brett8883
Well-Known Member
Interesting. I hope you are right. I was trying hard to think of a State Law that applied only to a specific location that was private property and couldn’t come up with much which surprised me.
At any rate hopefully there won’t be any states that try it or the FAA fights it on our behalf.
brett8883
Well-Known Member
It’s similar in that the person is on the ground and something does up into the air while the person remains on the ground.
It occurred to me that those are usually local ordinances not State Laws as far as I know. I was comparing the legal context, I was not comparing fireworks to drones.
Similar threads
