The NAS; The FAA makes a stand.

[CanyonRunVideos]

I read your post (actually about 4 times to fully digest your thought process) and it still is a bit confusing. Even other members are reading it the same way I am.

If you were charged with "flying over the park from non-park land" you might have a case. But It sounds like you was physically standing on park property and charged as such. If, you were not standing on park property (or adjacent property managed by the park) then I stand corrected and I apologize. Until that time you're in the wrong.

Hi Big Al, to be very clear, I was not charged by the state for taking off or for landing my UAS in the state park. I was charged for "flying" over the park of which no state or local government has the right to prohibit any aircraft operations such as flight paths or altitudes, or the U.S. navigable airspace. Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

My comments were spot on and I even quoted YOUR comments. How is that even remotely off topic?



So you were standing on park land at the time you launched your aircraft? A Flight includes takeoff and landing and if any portion of it violates the law then the "Flight" is in violation.

Had you taken off from non park controlled land and simply over flew the park land this conversation (and your ticket) would by null and void. If you launched from PARK LAND you are in violation of flying from park land.

Please show me any California state law that allows the state to prohibit aircraft flight operations in the U.S. airspace over the park?

 

[sar104]

My comments were spot on and I even quoted YOUR comments. How is that even remotely off topic?

So you were standing on park land at the time you launched your aircraft? A Flight includes takeoff and landing and if any portion of it violates the law then the "Flight" is in violation.

Had you taken off from non park controlled land and simply over flew the park land this conversation (and your ticket) would by null and void. If you launched from PARK LAND you are in violation of flying from park land.

He steadfastly refuses to answer the question of where he took off from, but, from his original thread, it was quite clear that it was within the park:

The Chino Hills State Park currently has no laws that prohibit the takeoff or landing of UAS in the park. The posted order clearly states to prohibit the flight of any UAS flying over the park.

I was not hiding, I was clearly visible and my vehicle was parked right next to where I was operating my UAS.

He even posted a photograph of the sign prohibiting drone flights in the park that he ignored. He is trying to assert that the park sign did not mean that he could not take off or land, and that it instead meant that he could not fly over the park, even though that is a logically ridiculous assertion, not least because the former immediately leads to the latter, but also because the sign language is actually "in the Park" not "over the Park" as he keeps claiming.

The sign stated "No Drone, Model Aircraft or UAS Flights in the Park", and the relevant posted order states "To protect wildlife and cultural resources, and for the safety and welfare of visitors and staff; the Park Units in the lnland Empire are closed to the use of Model Aircraft, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Gliders in flight."

The posted order references the legal authority it is based on (Authority: California Public Resources Code Section 5003 and California Code of Regulation, Title I 4, Sections 430 I, 4326.) and is clearly legitimate.

This is going nowhere.

 

[Wilbur&Garth]

Why is there no "I'm dying from laughter" emoji on here?!

 

[ac0j]

He still doesn’t get that it is not what the drone did, it is what HE did. The FAA has as much authority in park grounds as the US postal service.
But I think I now see what he’s trying to do, playing with the wording of the violation. That said flying in park. He’s wrong, but I applaud his steadfastness. Can’t wait to hear the outcome.
I got a ticket once for drag racing on the street. There is no law against drag racing so it was dropped. Should have written reckless or exhibition of speed on the ticket instead of drag racing.

 

[sar104]

He still doesn’t get that it is not what the drone did, it is what HE did. The FAA has as much authority in park grounds as the US postal service.
But I think I now see what he’s trying to do, playing with the wording of the violation. That said flying in park. He’s wrong, but I applaud his steadfastness. Can’t wait to hear the outcome.
I got a ticket once for drag racing on the street. There is no law against drag racing so it was dropped. Should have written reckless or exhibition of speed on the ticket instead of drag racing.

Sure - if he can get the ticket dropped because it is badly worded then he should go for it. But all the nonsense about challenging the posted order in the courts is either grandstanding or a pointless way to run up a large legal bill with no hope of winning.

 

[ac0j]

In my drag race example, there was no sign posted. Within a week the site was posted with "NO DRAG RACING" signs. Now it is a ticketable offense.
The drone was flying in the air, he was flying in the park. DONE DEAL!

 

[BigAl07]

Please show me any California state law that allows the state to prohibit aircraft flight operations in the U.S. airspace over the park?

If you are ON state land and the state has forbid you from "flying" (part of flying is the launching of the aircraft by the way) FROM state property and you initiate flight, launch, take off, cause to fly an aircraft from state property you have violated the law against flight FROM that property. The law doesn't say, "Thou can't fly OVER state property" but FROM that property.

By all means exhaust all of your resources trying to fight this and who knows you might get lucky and get in front of a sympathetic judge but the odds are against you in so many ways.

@CanyonRunVideos going from your screen name I would assume you're operating as a Professional sUAS operation and as such I would have thought your integrity and morals would be stronger than attempting to drum up support from the masses for something you know is wrong and illegal. You've intentionally avoided answering the direct questions asked to you (where were you standing when you flew) and jump around the truth. Surely you don't run your business like this all the time.

 

[ac0j]

I am thinking there was an exhibition of attitude with the Officer, that probably assured the ticket instead of a verbal warning.

 

[BigAl07]

I am thinking there was an exhibition of attitude with the Officer, that probably assured the ticket instead of a verbal warning.

BINGO!

 

[ac0j]

@CanyonRunVideos going from your screen name I would assume you're operating as a Professional sUAS operation and as such I would have thought your integrity and morals would be stronger than attempting to drum up support from the masses for something you know is wrong and illegal. You've intentionally avoided answering the direct questions asked to you (where were you standing when you flew) and jump around the truth. Surely you don't run your business like this all the time.

In his thread he stated this a few times;
"I informed him that I was flying LEGALLY under F.A.A. Section 336/101E and that I was flying in Class G Airspace".

I think he might not think part 107 applies to his business either. I kind of think I read in one of his posts that he was THINKING of getting part 107. I might be in error.........

 

[BigAl07]

In his thread he stated this a few times;
"I informed him that I was flying LEGALLY under F.A.A. Section 336/101E and that I was flying in Class G Airspace".

I think he might not think part 107 applies to his business either. I kind of think I read in one of his posts that he was THINKING of getting part 107. I might be in error.........

Very well played sir.

Part 107/336 makes no difference for him considering he was in Class GOLF airspace. Operating under 336 makes the LAANC authorization even more pointless now and I wonder if that's not FRAUD to some degree. The more this tangled web unravels the less it makes any sense.

 

[lmel2005]

I'm not living in us, but I read this thread, and I can say that all this "drones and parks" regulation, is very confusing.

For example, if op hand-launched, was drone launched from park's land, or from park's airspace? He could even jump off the ground and launch, so he could be in the airspace too, during launching.

The main case should be model flight, everywhere in the park, in the air, in the ground, and on the trees. All this "launching from" and "flying in" dance is not serious, I think.

 

[BigAl07]

I'm not living in us, but I read this thread, and I can say that all this "drones and parks" regulation, is very confusing

I can see where reading a thread like this one with some horrible information could be confusing.

For example, if op hand-launched, was drone launched from park's land, or from park's airspace? He could even jump off the ground and launch, so he could be in the airspace too, during launching.

In this scenario where is the "launch person" standing? If they are standing on ground that is controlled by an entity that states "No flying from our land" they are still violating the rule. The PERSON is FLYING the aircraft from land that is restricted for such an action. It's not where the AIRCRAFT is flying but where the person is located when they initiated flight.

Contrary to what some people want to believe it's a LAND USE case and not about where the aircraft is in the NAS because the FAA and only the FAA controls airspace.

 

[lmel2005]

I can see where reading a thread like this one with some horrible information could be confusing.


In this scenario where is the "launch person" standing? If they are standing on ground that is controlled by an entity that states "No flying from our land" they are still violating the rule. The PERSON is FLYING the aircraft from land that is restricted for such an action. It's not where the AIRCRAFT is flying but where the person is located when they initiated flight.

Contrary to what some people want to believe it's a LAND USE case and not about where the aircraft is in the NAS because the FAA and only the FAA controls airspace.

Thank you for the info.
I understand, you're a law expert and you can distinguish the terms.

But to me, and some other drone users, I think, it's not logical.

Every law or regulation, must have some logic behind. If THIS regulation has, as a scope, the wild life, I think that a drone is disturbing it, not only during takeoff and landing, but during flight, also.

It's not logical, someone, to be legal if he launches and lands his drone outside park's gate, but flies inside the park for an hour, and someone else who launched from inside, and flew for five minutes, to be guilty of disturbing the wild life (or park visitors, it's the same).

This regulation, I think, is confusing for police officers, too. If an officer sees someone flying a drone, inside the park, he doesn't know where he took off.

Anyway, it's obvious, that authorities in every country, don't know what to do with drones (yet). It's hard to control and regulate them, and it is even harder to divide them in categories, as technology runs always faster that governments do.

 

[BigAl07]

Thank you for the info.
I understand, you're a law expert and you can distinguish the terms.

Very kind words but I'm far from an expert at anything let alone LAW. I've just been in this industry for many decades and I look at things from a different perspective and spend a lot of time reading and researching these items. I just happen to be very immersed in sUAS operations from a Hobby, Commercial, and Govt standpoint.

As is often the case, many of our regulations are not "Logical". But in this case it's not about logic but WHO controls what space:

Land Owner/Manager - Controls land and anything that happens from/on land. Land ONLY!
FAA - Controls Airspace and only airspace.

Parks can only control what happens ON their land. They can't say, "You can't over fly our park" because only the FAA can control where you fly. But the Park can say, "You can not fly FROM our land". This means you can't launch/land from our land also you can't stand on our land to manipulate the controls of your sUAS. It's about LAND USE and if you own/manage the land you can dictate what happens on/from your land.

If a person launches from outside park land, never walks onto park land to "manipulate the controls of their aircraft" and then lands outside of park land it doesn't violate the park's Land Use authority. That doesn't mean that other existing laws/regulations can't be brought up (may get tossed in court may not.. who knows) against the person flying the aircraft OVER the park land such as reckless behavior, sound ordinance, or who knows what else can be written against a person. But if they never step foot on park land or land managed by the park then the park has no say over them. If they step foot on park land for any portion of the flight then it IS a land use case.

I hope that helps clear it up a little bit.

 

[Top Hat]

I will not go into argument, it is very clear to me what's going on.
I will be rooting for you to prevail on this issue for hobbyist like us.
GOOD LUCK!

 

[lmel2005]

Very kind words but I'm far from an expert at anything let alone LAW. I've just been in this industry for many decades and I look at things from a different perspective and spend a lot of time reading and researching these items. I just happen to be very immersed in sUAS operations from a Hobby, Commercial, and Govt standpoint.

As is often the case, many of our regulations are not "Logical". But in this case it's not about logic but WHO controls what space:

Land Owner/Manager - Controls land and anything that happens from/on land. Land ONLY!
FAA - Controls Airspace and only airspace.

Parks can only control what happens ON their land. They can't say, "You can't over fly our park" because only the FAA can control where you fly. But the Park can say, "You can not fly FROM our land". This means you can't launch/land from our land also you can't stand on our land to manipulate the controls of your sUAS. It's about LAND USE and if you own/manage the land you can dictate what happens on/from your land.

If a person launches from outside park land, never walks onto park land to "manipulate the controls of their aircraft" and then lands outside of park land it doesn't violate the park's Land Use authority. That doesn't mean that other existing laws/regulations can't be brought up (may get tossed in court may not.. who knows) against the person flying the aircraft OVER the park land such as reckless behavior, sound ordinance, or who knows what else can be written against a person. But if they never step foot on park land or land managed by the park then the park has no say over them. If they step foot on park land for any portion of the flight then it IS a land use case.

I hope that helps clear it up a little bit.

Yes, you made all clear to me, thanks a lot for your patience.

 

[ac0j]

I believe canyon runs court case is today. Can’t wait to see what happens. If he comes back to let us know.

A look at his Facebook page shows he is no stranger to flying in scenic parks!

 

[ac0j]

**** snip****I am going to the State of California Superior Court on 8/2/2018 regarding this exact issue. ****snip****

YEP, today it is!