Still find it stupid, because if drone doesn't make something harmful while flying, then the drone user shouldn't make something harmful, too.
And I'm talking about logic.
The NAS; The FAA makes a stand.
- Thread starter dirkclod
- Start date
And I'm talking about logic.
The activities of flight operation and flight itself are differently regulated. It's fine for the parks to prohibit the ground-based activity of takeoff, landing and even controlling the aircraft from the ground, even if they are unable to prohibit overflight. It's not a conflict of jurisdiction.
ac0j
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,794
- Reactions
- 2,274
- Age
- 61
Nothing about any government is always logical.
The parks dont want drones in them, people should just respect that.
Just as if a guest in your home was asked not to smoke, but does it anyway because smoking isn't illegal.
Ok, we're talking about public authorities, and law makers.
None will send me to court, because someone asked me not to smoke in his house, and I didn't follow.
This case of flying being allowed, but flying operations not being allowed, IS a conflict to my opinion, and it's worth for a court to decide if drone banning from parks is legal.
None will send me to court, because someone asked me not to smoke in his house, and I didn't follow.
This case of flying being allowed, but flying operations not being allowed, IS a conflict to my opinion, and it's worth for a court to decide if drone banning from parks is legal.
ac0j
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,794
- Reactions
- 2,274
- Age
- 61
Flying is allowed because the FAA controls the sky and the parks are not allowed to control the airspace above them. The Parks have the power to decide what is allowed on their grounds. Smoking, drinking, hobby flying, horse shoes..... what ever they want to ban they can. And their bans have the power of law if properly posted.
Just like you have the right to decide what is allowed in your property and what is not. The only difference is YOU dont have the power to legally ban anything.
There is no need to explain all this regulation dance, again and again.
Everyone understands that park association wants airspace above parks to be an NFZ. FAA doesn't want it, possibly because the reasons the Parks claims are not clear, or they are bs.
So Parks found a trick, using their ability to set rules regarding their land use, to ban drones from parks.
If drone flights are disturbing something in parks, Parks should convince FAA, that parks are nfz. Until they succeed this, drone use should be legal.
The real issue is the FLIGHT, not the ground on which is standing the operator.
It is totally fullish to consider, that STANDING on a park's ground, doing something LEGAL, is ILLEGAL.
This has been explained multiple times - do you really still not understand even the basics here or are you simply amusing yourself by being argumentative? There is no evidence that the state or national parks have even requested the FAA to consider restricting the airspace over the parks. But the NPS, in particular, has been perfectly clear why they don't want people operating drones in the parks. Just like they don't allow people to land helicopters in the parks, which are also legal to fly over the parks. It's not a trick - they are fully authorized to prohibit unwelcome activities in the park. There is no obligation on them to involve the FAA at all.
Ok, you don't understand my point.
But you understand better than me that, according to NPS, a flying drone disturbs nothing, but at the moment of takeoff or landing, it disturbs people and wildlife. I quit.
Please, don't tell me again that NPS has the authority on parks land and FAA has the authority of airspace above ground. It's clear, thank you.
Many of us who frequent NPS lands don't want a drone over head and I'm one of those many. We go out into the NPS to get some peace and quiet and enjoy nature as it's intended. With so many other places to fly why spoil it for everyone else because a few must fly their toys. I would be perfectly fine with the FAA making them NFZ but they didn't ask me LOL.
"But you understand better than me that, according to NPS, a flying drone disturbs nothing, but at the moment of takeoff or landing, it disturbs people and wildlife. I quit."
That is a straw man argument. No one has said that. I'm sure that the NPS and state parks managements think that drones can be a nuisance at any stage in their use. So they have regulated what they are authorized to regulate - flight operations. Since that pretty much achieves the restriction that they want - why would they bother fighting over restricting the airspace?
I understand that, I don't like all machines out there. If faa had make parks nfz, it would be clear.
In fact, this is exactly what I told. They wanted to ban drones (make parks nfz), they couldn't because of faa (you say why bother), and they regulated the ground.
You "are sure" for something, I am sure for something too.
And I still find this situation stupid. Faa rules airspace, they should rule drone flights everywhere.
That's my point, never named some of you straw man, an idiot, or incapable of understanding the laws.
This is exactly what has happened. The FAA controls where a drone, or any aircraft, can be in the air.
They are not however the FLA (Federal Land Authority). There is no such entity and as a result, as explained, those that control that land, control the activities therein.
It might be simpler to do things as you suggest, but that isn't the case. Wanting it to be, so it's clearer will not change the fact that it isn't.
The NPS regulation should probably read "No remote aircraft may be operated from a location within the physical boundaries of the park". That would certainly put this to rest, but government has never been interested in being anything less than obtuse.
A straw man argument is where you invent a position to dispute. In this case it was the assertion that "according to NPS, a flying drone disturbs nothing, but at the moment of takeoff or landing, it disturbs people and wildlife". The NPS has not said that and nor has anyone else.
Really?
Reading the regulation, I think that NPS (and everyone) say what I wrote exactly.
The please cite a reference for that, because I have not seen any such statement.
There's not such statement, never could be, because it's stupid.
I conclude it reading all this about parks regulations.
It's like your conclusion about NPS thinking that drones can be a nuisance in every stage of their flight. Didn't see such a statement either.
The difference is that I stated that as my opinion of their position. Your statement was about what they had said, or written. So if they haven't written it, or stated it, don't attribute it to them.
beachcombing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2016
- Messages
- 660
- Reactions
- 405
You are concluding incorrectly. And are just making up stuff at this point.
You said you were sure. So you stated it as a fact.
And I don't want to continue this word-by-word analyzing. It is boring and offers nothing to the community.
I think everybody's point, is clear. I hope all this mess about regulations and who has the power to rule drone flights, to end well for us all.
Last edited:
Similar threads
