The NAS; The FAA makes a stand.

[sar104]

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.

No - I'm not letting you wriggle off with that one. I do happen to know that, but I did not say that they had publicly stated it. You, on the other hand, misattributed to NPS a statement that not only was never made, but is also incorrect, purely in order to construct a completely fallacious argument.

 

[dbyantis]

So if I'm interpreting this correctly - all of those state and city parks that have been "locally" designated as no-drone-zones, are in fact open to drones, unless otherwise designated directly by the FAA...?

Most of the time I have been asked to not-fly, it was based on "operating on their land", so I think that it is still a case-by-case depending on local landowners.

 

[lmel2005]

No - I'm not letting you wriggle off with that one. I do happen to know that, but I did not say that they had publicly stated it. You, on the other hand, misattributed to NPS a statement that not only was never made, but is also incorrect, purely in order to construct a completely fallacious argument.

Ok then, I think that everything you say about me, is exactly what YOU are doing.
You "happen" to know something, but they didn't say it "publicly" and bs.

On the other hand, I made it clear, that it is a conclusion of mine, reading regulations, and it was ironic because I find it stupid.

Once again:
- flying a drone over parks is legal (faa is responsible for airspace, and allows it).
- standing on parks ground and flying a drone is illegal (NPS is responsible for land and doesn't allow landing and takeoff mainly).

And my thought is, that isn't logical, someone to be illegal, just standing and making something legal.
As flight itself is the issue for the parks, faa should have made them nfz (if they agreed with NPS claims of drones hazard).
I understand that drones make some noise, as many other machines and devices, and NPS wants to do something about it, but still think that the whole logic is stupid.

THIS is the only I said, as a distant observer of a regulations procedure.

You analyzed every word I wrote, you called me with various insulting names, and in the end accused me for everything YOU did and said.

If this is a way to flirt me, I appreciate that, but i like women only.

 

[sar104]

Ok then, I think that everything you say about me, is exactly what YOU are doing.
You "happen" to know something, but they didn't say it "publicly" and bs.

On the other hand, I made it clear, that it is a conclusion of mine, reading regulations, and it was ironic because I find it stupid.

Once again:
- flying a drone over parks is legal (faa is responsible for airspace, and allows it).
- standing on parks ground and flying a drone is illegal (NPS is responsible for land and doesn't allow landing and takeoff mainly)
And my thought is, that isn't logical, someone to be illegal, just standing and making something legal.
As flight itself is the issue for the parks, faa should have made them nfz (if they agreed with NPS claims of drones hazard).
I understand that drones make some noise, as many other machines and devices, and NPS wants to do something about it, but still think that the whole logic is stupid.

THIS is the only I said, as a distant observer of a regulations procedure.

You analyzed every word I wrote, you called me with various insulting names, and in the end accused me for everything YOU did and said.

If this is a way to flirt me, I appreciate that, but i like women only.

I'll spell it out simply for you one last time. You stated in post #88 that "according to NPS, a flying drone disturbs nothing, but at the moment of takeoff or landing, it disturbs people and wildlife". From that you argued that their policy makes no sense. But they have never said that, or anything like that. In fact what they have said directly contradicts that, which you would know had you even bothered to read the 2014 memo on this subject from the Director of the NPS, in which he states:

The compendium closures required to implement this interim policy are necessary to maintain public health and safety in units of the National Park System and to protect park resources and values until the NPS can determine whether specific uses of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS are appropriate and will not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values. These closures by the superintendents implement Section 1.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006, which provides that a new form of park use may be allowed within a park only after a determination has been made in the professional judgment of the superintendent that it will not result in unacceptable impacts on park resources and values. When proposed park uses and the protection of park resources and values come into conflict, the protection of resources and values must be predominant.

Except for the limited existing use of model aircraft in some parks, the use of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS is a new park use. As unmanned aircraft have become more affordable and easier to operate, they have begun to appear in some park areas. Although their use remains relatively infrequent across the National Park System, this new use has the potential to cause unacceptable impacts such as harming visitors, interfering with rescue operations, causing excessive noise, impacting viewsheds, and disturbing wildlife. Recent incidents at Grand Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial support the need for the required closures to enable a proper evaluation of this new use. These closures are a necessary, interim measure while this new use can be properly evaluated.

Another reason for the required closures is that current NPS regulations do not specifically address launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft. The prohibition on operating or using an aircraft in 36 CFR 2.17(a)(1) does not apply to unmanned aircraft because the definition of “aircraft” in 36 CFR 1.4 is limited to devices used or intended to be used for human flight. Further, section 2.17(a)(3) could be construed to apply only to unmanned aircraft when used to deliver or retrieve an object from NPS-administered lands. Exhibit A to this Policy Memorandum lists other regulations in 36 CFR that may apply to the use of unmanned aircraft under certain circumstances.

Because the existing NPS regulations can only be used to address unmanned aircraft in certain circumstances, the best way at this time for superintendents to address the use of unmanned aircraft is to exercise their authority pursuant to 36 CFR 1.5.
​

Hence my observation that your statement was incorrect and the argument that you made from it was a straw man fallacy. Your "distant observation" is simply wrong, and your assertion that, for some reason, the FAA needs to implement airspace restrictions, is completely contrived and baseless. It is your attempt at logic that makes no sense. The NPS has no need at all to request the FAA to restrict the airspace if simply prohibiting flight operations achieves their desired goal.

And there is no point trying to pull the victim card here. No one has "called you insulting names". You simply cannot write whatever nonsense you feel like and expect not to get called out on it.

 

[lmel2005]

I'll spell it out simply for you one last time. You stated in post #88 that "according to NPS, a flying drone disturbs nothing, but at the moment of takeoff or landing, it disturbs people and wildlife". From that you argued that their policy makes no sense. But they have never said that, or anything like that. In fact what they have said directly contradicts that, which you would know had you even bothered to read the 2014 memo on this subject from the Director of the NPS, in which he states:

The compendium closures required to implement this interim policy are necessary to maintain public health and safety in units of the National Park System and to protect park resources and values until the NPS can determine whether specific uses of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS are appropriate and will not cause unacceptable impacts on park resources and values. These closures by the superintendents implement Section 1.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006, which provides that a new form of park use may be allowed within a park only after a determination has been made in the professional judgment of the superintendent that it will not result in unacceptable impacts on park resources and values. When proposed park uses and the protection of park resources and values come into conflict, the protection of resources and values must be predominant.

Except for the limited existing use of model aircraft in some parks, the use of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS is a new park use. As unmanned aircraft have become more affordable and easier to operate, they have begun to appear in some park areas. Although their use remains relatively infrequent across the National Park System, this new use has the potential to cause unacceptable impacts such as harming visitors, interfering with rescue operations, causing excessive noise, impacting viewsheds, and disturbing wildlife. Recent incidents at Grand Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial support the need for the required closures to enable a proper evaluation of this new use. These closures are a necessary, interim measure while this new use can be properly evaluated.

Another reason for the required closures is that current NPS regulations do not specifically address launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft. The prohibition on operating or using an aircraft in 36 CFR 2.17(a)(1) does not apply to unmanned aircraft because the definition of “aircraft” in 36 CFR 1.4 is limited to devices used or intended to be used for human flight. Further, section 2.17(a)(3) could be construed to apply only to unmanned aircraft when used to deliver or retrieve an object from NPS-administered lands. Exhibit A to this Policy Memorandum lists other regulations in 36 CFR that may apply to the use of unmanned aircraft under certain circumstances.

Because the existing NPS regulations can only be used to address unmanned aircraft in certain circumstances, the best way at this time for superintendents to address the use of unmanned aircraft is to exercise their authority pursuant to 36 CFR 1.5.
​

Hence my observation that your statement was incorrect and the argument that you made from it was a straw man fallacy. Your "distant observation" is simply wrong, and your assertion that, for some reason, the FAA needs to implement airspace restrictions, is completely contrived and baseless. It is your attempt at logic that makes no sense. The NPS has no need at all to request the FAA to restrict the airspace if simply prohibiting flight operations achieves their desired goal.

And there is no point trying to pull the victim card here. No one has "called you insulting names". You simply cannot write whatever nonsense you feel like and expect not to get called out on it.

Nothing new here. Same statements again and again.

Did I say that NPS has the need of FAA to regulate everything? Did I say that they haven't the power to restrict drone use?

NPS director says that drones are a new different case than manned aircrafts. I don't agree, everything flying in the airspace, must be regulated by one authority, it's in my opinion a matter of good government. IN MY OPINION.

They regulated what they could, it's obvious. They used "land and waters" to regulate something being in airspace.

Do you think that my statement about ONE authority regulating everything in airspace is "completely contrived and baseless"? You're free to believe anything you want.

You think that the one simple thing I said, is nonsense? You want it to be over-analyzed with 10 pages of bs? Do it, you're doing it perfectly.

 

[dirkclod]

And I think enough is enough so lets chill guys . This can go on but if it keeps on the way it is then I will just close it .
Horse about dead guys .

​

 

[pftarch]

Before the horse is taken off life support.....


I just got back from a family vacation that included the Grand Canyon and a drive from the canyon to Monument Valley and up to Salt Lake City. This area has some of the most spectacular landscapes that I have ever encountered. (As a side note, three weeks ago Utah would have been about #7998 on my priority list of places I need to see. After my drive through parts of it is now #1 or #2 of places I MUST get back to. It's absolutely beautiful as is Navaho country.)

I brought my Mavic and hoped to use it.

When you eliminate National Park Land (the ENTIRE Grand Canyon, and it's a BIG canyon, Zion, Arches, Canyonlands, etc, AND you eliminate Navaho controlled land (which is even MORE land than the above), I was driving through drone heaven, and I didn't dare take it out of its case. (I did use the usb adapter to use the Mavic batteries to charge my kids iPads in the airport, which was VERY helpful, but, not really the main reason I brought my Mavic.)

I fear that as the precedent has been established, MANY more local, state, and federal authorities are simply going to ban all drone take offs and landings. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to stop a state legislative/executive body from simply saying, for example, although you can "fly" in Florida, you can't take or land ANYWHERE in the state that is not private property, including all parks and roadways.

Although there are many consumer drone owners out there, presently we don't carry the political weight to make REASONABLE drone restrictions the norm, and instead we will continue to see more and more "NO DRONE" signs.

Maybe if the Park Service figures out that we would probably be willing to be gouged another $50 for a one day "Drone Take Off/Landing Permit in Designated Areas Only" they may embrace us as a revenue stream.............

Peter T

 

[hherbson]

Before the horse is taken off life support.....


I just got back from a family vacation that included the Grand Canyon and a drive from the canyon to Monument Valley and up to Salt Lake City. This area has some of the most spectacular landscapes that I have ever encountered. (As a side note, three weeks ago Utah would have been about #7998 on my priority list of places I need to see. After my drive through parts of it is now #1 or #2 of places I MUST get back to. It's absolutely beautiful as is Navaho country.)

I brought my Mavic and hoped to use it.

When you eliminate National Park Land (the ENTIRE Grand Canyon, and it's a BIG canyon, Zion, Arches, Canyonlands, etc, AND you eliminate Navaho controlled land (which is even MORE land than the above), I was driving through drone heaven, and I didn't dare take it out of its case. (I did use the usb adapter to use the Mavic batteries to charge my kids iPads in the airport, which was VERY helpful, but, not really the main reason I brought my Mavic.)

I fear that as the precedent has been established, MANY more local, state, and federal authorities are simply going to ban all drone take offs and landings. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to stop a state legislative/executive body from simply saying, for example, although you can "fly" in Florida, you can't take or land ANYWHERE in the state that is not private property, including all parks and roadways.

Although there are many consumer drone owners out there, presently we don't carry the political weight to make REASONABLE drone restrictions the norm, and instead we will continue to see more and more "NO DRONE" signs.

Maybe if the Park Service figures out that we would probably be willing to be gouged another $50 for a one day "Drone Take Off/Landing Permit in Designated Areas Only" they may embrace us as a revenue stream.............

Peter T

That's a real bummer, but you may be on to something about a fee, since everyone likes money. If I were at such a spectacular place, I'd pay $50 to get some good footage, but I'm be mumbling curses on the bureaucrats the whole time.

Regards,

Kevin

 

[nicoloks]

I fear that as the precedent has been established, MANY more local, state, and federal authorities are simply going to ban all drone take offs and landings. As far as I can tell, there is nothing to stop a state legislative/executive body from simply saying, for example, although you can "fly" in Florida, you can't take or land ANYWHERE in the state that is not private pr

Although there are many consumer drone owners out there, presently we don't carry the political weight to make REASONABLE drone restrictions the norm, and instead we will continue to see more and more "NO DRONE" signs.

Maybe if the Park Service figures out that we would probably be willing to be gouged another $50 for a one day "Drone Take Off/Landing Permit in Designated Areas Only" they may embrace us as a revenue stream.............

Peter T

End of the day, I think you are right Peter. Hobbyist droners in particular don't have a strong united front and we are getting shut out as a result. Until we have properly formed and funded associations lobbying effectively for our interests I don't see this changing.

Unfortunately Australia has followed the example set by the USA in many ways. Apart from CASA (aus FAA equiv) there were no anti drone laws in place when I started 5 years ago, now only one state still allows drones in parks without written permission (or at all) and there are countless local council laws preventing drone use in massive amounts of public space.

For me the annoying thing is it seems we are being shut out predominantly on a nuisance basis. Parks Vic manage most of the larger public park area in my home state and in their statement about the drone ban they are fairly generalised about the justification for it. Second paragraph does talk about enjoyment of others, injury to others and nuisance to others wanting to enjoy the parks. If this style of rules were to be applied universally then no trail bikes, 4wd's or hunting would be allowed in parks they manage either, but they are.

 

[Bakasura]

@CanyonRunVideos

I would like to apologize. I saw your other post where you posted the image of the sign and the sign stated " NO Drone, Model Aircraft , Or UAS Flights in the Park " As you stated you got fined for flying over the Park and not the take off or landing as it appears they don't issue citations for that specifically which would be a win for you. Although I couldn't get the legal definition of flight, the general definition of flight is " the action or process of flying through the air " Therefore I completely agree with you as worded I personally believe their actions are going against what the FAA Stated and they CAN'T fine you for that in my opinion as they have no jurisdiction over airspace. I wish you the best of luck and truly believe this court case is in the benefit of us all as it would once against define that the Local government can't govern airspace.

 

[Twodumbdogs]

My trial in on September 5th.

Today is the 6th. How did things work out?

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

To anyone who cares, I did win the case against the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation on September 5, 2018 in Superior Court in Fontana, CA. It did not happen the way I wanted it to because the Park Police officer did write the wrong date on the citation but he did catch that before the trial date. Then the officer forgot to write down the posted order number on the citation and that would have also thrown the case out of court as well. Then the officer did not even show up in court at all so the case was dismissed. So I will keep my $239 in my pocket for the next time a LEO starts telling me that the state can prohibit aircraft flight in all state parks because they certainly cannot because that violates federal law......

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

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.

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.

The state park currently does NOT have a law against taking off or landing in the Chino Hills State Park and again, I was NOT cited for taking off or for landing on the park property of for operating the UAS on park property. I was cited for FLYING in the park which is technically impossible to "FLY in the park". The park only has jurisdiction over the the ground itself, the state does not control over the airspace. The FAA has the exclusive control over the ENTIRE National Airspace from U.S. Congress, period! It's very simple but some people just don't understand the difference between the ground and the airspace above the ground!

Cities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft.
However, as indicated, they may generally determine the location of aircraft landing sites through their land use powers.

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

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.

I did win the case by the way.......

 

[macoman]

To anyone who cares, I did win the case against the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation on September 5, 2018 in Superior Court in Fontana, CA. It did not happen the way I wanted it to because the Park Police officer did write the wrong date on the citation but he did catch that before the trial date. Then the officer forgot to write down the posted order number on the citation and that would have also thrown the case out of court as well. Then the officer did not even show up in court at all so the case was dismissed. So I will keep my $239 in my pocket for the next time a LEO starts telling me that the state can prohibit aircraft flight in all state parks because they certainly cannot because that violates federal law......

You can see how important was the case for that officer that forgot almost all details of the ticket. You saved a lot of money in there for sure in that win, congratulations.

 

[dirkclod]

I did win the case by the way.......

By default ,So I don't see where you won nothing . Lost your time involved so what did you win really .
Don't get me wrong I am glad you walked away but with what .

 

[ChopperLinc]

I’ve spent the last 30 minutes reading through this thread on my phone. It’s disappointing, to say the least.

I too, was a new drone owner, excited about the possibilities of photographing and filming from a new vantage point. However, it quickly became clear that the restrictions involved in flying UAS are fairly prohibitive, and in my opinion, unrealistic. The laws, like many, are contradictory and confusing, and in some cases don’t serve any practical purpose. I think there’s a significant future risk that hobbyist UAS activities will be limited to the point where it’s no longer enjoyable. Given that, as stated previously, the “hobby lobby” is underfunded, I hope that manufacturers at least support an effort to make practical law making regarding the topic possible.

In the meantime, I respect the fact that @CanyonRunVideos is challenging the status quo and willing to take risks. I would take a technical win all day long for a chance to shoot in an amazing place. So kudos for standing up for your right to fly. Despite what others here have expressed, I think you had a compelling legal argument only because of the nature of the citation. Funny that some here chose to question your morals and ethics.

I guess I’m immoral and unethical too. I’m going continue to fly and shoot at the lake where my family and I recreate, despite the fact that it’s a national recreation area, because there isn’t another soul that will even see it, let alone be bothered or threatened by it. That risk is mine. That’s assuming I can get my drone back from DJI after it failed...while I was flying at night...over houses...out of visual line of sight, because I can’t see the **** thing when it gets more than 100 feet away, especially during the day. Oh yeah, and my house where I took off from sits just inside Class B airspace. DJI App tells me to exercise caution, so I do. Thanks, DJI GO 4.

And I intentionally drove ten miles an hour over the speed limit on the way home from the lake today, but ironically got pulled over for turning right on red next to a cop, because I didn’t know it was posted. Nice guy, no warning or citation. Just helpful information.

 

[rcglider]

Singer v. City of Newton-(Case Declaring Local Drone Law Illegal) -

 

[ac0j]

Singer v. City of Newton-(Case Declaring Local Drone Law Illegal) -

Well, Looks like it might be temporary at best. BUT it still wont allow taking off, operating from, or landing from city, county, state, or federal property that has been specifically posted that there will be no drone use on their property. It says, as we already know, flyovers cannot be regulated by anyone but the FAA, Which HAS established NFZ's over some national monuments.


Problems With This Ruling/Issues Not Addressed:
• The court ruled on the grounds of conflict preemption but did not rule that aviation was field preempted or whether the airspace was expressly preempted.
• United States v. Causby is a U.S. Supreme Court case which raises the idea of a person owning airspace from the ground up to the “immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.” What if the City of Newton were to create drone laws that applied to Causby airspace over their property or require permission to operate in Causby airspace over private property?
• The judge gave too much deference to the FAA’s guidance document to state and local governments when preemption is primarily focusing on Congress, not an agency’s thoughts, which constantly change, on what it thinks Congress wanted.
• With conflict preemption, the City of Newton can just go back and rework the law and see if Singer files suit again or see if they get struck down again. It would have been more beneficial for the drone industry to have a ruling on whether the airspace was expressly preempted or the field of aviation is field preempted. Instead, the court ruled very narrowly to resolve the case, but leave many issues on the table.
• The court struck down particular provisions which means other states and sub-divisions will just rework their laws to not step on any of the particular “land mines” that the City of Newton stepped on.
• How low does navigable airspace descend for drones? I would argue it goes all the way to the blade of grass because that is where drones take off and land from but the judge seems to indicate navigable airspace is somehow related to 14 CFR 91.119.
• What happens if the state or government does a copy-paste of the FAA regulations or says something along the lines of “You must do whatever the FAA says”?