The NAS; The FAA makes a stand.

[CanyonRunVideos]

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.

The Vehicle Code in your state does say that a “Speed Contest” is in fact an illegal act!

 

[Qoncussion]

Individual States do not have the jurisdiction to prohibit aircraft flight or operations of any kind.

U.S. Congress appointed the FAA as the sole government body that controls the National Airspace.

Take a look at the AIRMAP app to see if any state, county or city park has a TFR or NO FLY ZONE over them. You won’t find one because those local government bodies do not have the authority to place a TFR or NFZ over their parks, ONLY the FAA can do that!

Blah blah blah - but they can prohibit launching and landing. Please don't start this crap again. Hey - how did you do with your day in court? I don't think you've answered anyone who has asked this question of you...

 

[sar104]

Individual States do not have the jurisdiction to prohibit aircraft flight or operations of any kind.

U.S. Congress appointed the FAA as the sole government body that controls the National Airspace.

Take a look at the AIRMAP app to see if any state, county or city park has a TFR or NO FLY ZONE over them. You won’t find one because those local government bodies do not have the authority to place a TFR or NFZ over their parks, ONLY the FAA can do that!

Incorrect again. States, Counties and even private landowners can prohibit aircraft operations - they just do not have jurisdiction over the airspace itself.

TFRs can be implemented by the FAA at the request of almost any agency with jurisdiction, whether LE, public safety or whoever. I've put TFRs in place for search and rescue operations. The only drone NFZs that the FAA are for security or safety reasons. The FAA has been perfectly clear on this point on their website:

Airspace Restrictions

They have also made all the UAS-restricted airspace data available graphically:

Home | Federal Aviation Administration - Unmanned Aircraft System

Feel free to look for restrictions over National Parks. You won't find any. But you are going to keep posting nonsense anyway, I'm sure.

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

Blah blah blah - but they can prohibit launching and landing. Please don't start this crap again. Hey - how did you do with your day in court? I don't think you've answered anyone who has asked this question of you...

Hi Kevin, I TOTALLY agree with you, they can prohibit taking off and or landing on local government property. My case has nothing to do with that. I still can FLY over state, county or city parks as long as there aren't any TFR's or NO FLY ZONE over that airspace by the FAA.

My POINT is that states and local governments CANNOT PROHIBIT AIRCRAFT FLIGHT at any time in the U.S. airspace from the ground up! These local governments seem to believe that they control the U.S. airspace over their property and they simply do not have the jurisdiction to do that, only the FAA can prohibit aircraft flight, period.

 

[Qoncussion]

Hi Kevin, I TOTALLY agree with you, they can prohibit taking off and or landing on local government property. My case has nothing to do with that. I still can FLY over state, county or city parks as long as there aren't any TFR's or NO FLY ZONE over that airspace by the FAA.

My POINT is that states and local governments CANNOT PROHIBIT AIRCRAFT FLIGHT at any time in the U.S. airspace from the ground up! These local governments seem to believe that they control the U.S. airspace over their property and they simply do not have the jurisdiction to do that, only the FAA can prohibit aircraft flight, period.

So you're not going to answer the question..?

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

So you're not going to answer the question..?

My trial in on September 5th.

 

[Bakasura]

My trial in on September 5th.

This is such a frustrating thread to read. Just answer the **** question. Did you take off from the park property or not. That is the only thing people want to hear an answer for. I don't think there is much of a dispute of who controls the airspace but we just want to know if you took off from park property or not.

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

YES I TOOK OFF AND LANDED IN THE PARK. Are you happy now?

I was NOT cited for taking off or landing in the state park so it has nothing to do with this case since I was cited for FLYING in the state park. Of which the California State Department of Parks and Recreation CANNOT prohibit aircraft flight or aircraft operations of ANY KIND (including UAS), at ANY TIME simply because the state does not have the jurisdiction or the authority because NO STATE as the permission from the FAA. The Posted Order from the State Park Service is completely unlawful and the park service violated Federal regulations by prohibiting my flight.

 

[gnirtS]

So you just admitted the offence. Good luck with the legal case - you'll deservedly lose it obviously but if it gives you something to do then have fun!

 

[Lapeer20m]

The guy makes a great point. Some of you are missing the crux of the case. He wasn’t cited for landing/taking off, which is something local parks can prohibit.

He was cited for flying, something local parks cannot prohibit as they lack the jurisdiction to do so.

It’s not hard to understand.

It’s also not uncommon for court dates to get pushed back, especially if the other side thinks their case is weak...they may find ways to delay for months or years.

 

[gnirtS]

More wording than anything else.
The guy knew what he was doing, knew it wasn't allowed, did it anyway and got caught.
No sympathy for people like that.

 

[Lapeer20m]

More wording than anything else.
The guy knew what he was doing, knew it wasn't allowed, did it anyway and got caught.
No sympathy for people like that.

I appreciate people who realize when local units of government are acting outside their authority and take a stand to challenge the unlawful rules.

If the information as presented is correct, It appears the park is the one breaking the rules and flights over the park are not actually restricted.

 

[sar104]

The guy makes a great point. Some of you are missing the crux of the case. He wasn’t cited for landing/taking off, which is something local parks can prohibit.

He was cited for flying, something local parks cannot prohibit as they lack the jurisdiction to do so.

It’s not hard to understand.

It’s also not uncommon for court dates to get pushed back, especially if the other side thinks their case is weak...they may find ways to delay for months or years.

I'm not sure that distinction is going to win the case. What is prohibited is takeoff and landing, commonly referred to as "flight operations". If, as stated by the OP, the citation was for "flying in the park", then it's going to be argued to mean just that - flight operations - and I would expect it to stand. Had the citation been for "flying over the park" then he would have a much better chance of fighting it.

 

[ac0j]

LOL! it just keeps getting better.
Some courts will fall for the word play games, but i wouldnt get my hopes up.
Most park systems DO NOT want you to fly in or over the park at all. The know they dont have that authority they need, so they do all they can. The sign said NO DRONES in the park. Pretty obvious what that implies.
The OP knows exactly what the park did not want, he did it anyway. I think that is going to out weigh his childish word games in court.

 

[BigAl07]

YES I TOOK OFF AND LANDED IN THE PARK. Are you happy now?

I was NOT cited for taking off or landing in the state park so it has nothing to do with this case since I was cited for FLYING in the state park. Of which the California State Department of Parks and Recreation CANNOT prohibit aircraft flight or aircraft operations of ANY KIND (including UAS), at ANY TIME simply because the state does not have the jurisdiction or the authority because NO STATE as the permission from the FAA. The Posted Order from the State Park Service is completely unlawful and the park service violated Federal regulations by prohibiting my flight.

Can you fly w/o taking off and landing? Negative.

Flight, flying, aviation is:
Take off, fly, and land. You can’t word it to where you didn’t breath the ordinance no matter how you dice it up.

If they had said “You can’t fly over this property” you’d have a keg to stand on but they cited you Flight you’re busted.

I look forward to seeing this play out and see how you’re local court handles it.

 

[Norb_DAIS]

Thank you all for an informative and entertaining thread. This is of great interest because like many people, I want to make informed decisions about when and where I can fly my drones legally.

Specifically for this topic, I would take Big Al's side of it, but I understand Canyon Runs take on it. I believe he has an argument regarding the wording of the violation, but not on the flight operation as a whole (origin and termination of the flight.)

 

[ac0j]

So if I take a case of beer to a park with signs that say "No alcoholic beverages in the park" and get a ticket for DRINKING in the park, I might walk away with no fine? I bet not.

 

[ac0j]

Can you fly w/o taking off and landing? Negative.

Flight, flying, aviation get is:
Take off, fly, and land. You can’t word it to where you didn’t breath the ordinance no matter how you dice it up.

If they had said “You can’t fly over this property” you’d have a keg to stand on but they cited you Flight you’re busted.

I look forward to seeing this play out and see how you’re local court handles it.

He seems to think "the drone was flying over the park, not in it" is his salvation. BUT the drone didnt get the ticket. the guy FLYING they drone in the park did. There is no dancing around that.

 

[lmel2005]

I don't see some serious possibility for op to win the case, but it's stupid, flying a drone to be allowed, but takeoff and landing not to be allowed, in parks.

Every law must have some logic and purpose. If drones are a threat for some reason, it's their flight causing this threat.

If authorities disagree about that, they must cooperate and find a solution. Until the moment of agreement, the rules of the authority responsible for airspace (FAA in us?) are valid.

 

[ac0j]

I don't see some serious possibility for op to win the case, but it's stupid, flying a drone to be allowed, but takeoff and landing not to be allowed, in parks.

Every law must have some logic and purpose. If drones are a threat for some reason, it's their flight causing this threat.

If authorities disagree about that, they must cooperate and find a solution. Until the moment of agreement, the rules of the authority responsible for airspace (FAA in us?) are valid.

Yes FAA in US,. They ONLY control airspace. The OP's drone did nothing wrong and is ok to be in the airspace it was in. BUT the drone did not get the ticket. The OP WAS flying in the park, standing on its property. It was clearly posted at the entrance, the OP even posted a picture of the sign he ignored.