Hey, GREAT video. Really, really beautiful work.
But, JROK is absolutely correct in his assessment of the illegality of overflying the Statue of Liberty and any lands in the National Park System - regardless of where you take off and land. The rule is primarily about drones in the air, not about the takeoff and landing phases of flight. Regulators and judges look at the intent of the rule. Have you ever read, "those **** drones are taking off and landing and ruining everything"? It's about the flight.
"Launching, landing, or operating an unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service within the boundaries of [insert name of park] is prohibited except as approved in writing by the superintendent."
Using your argument, a waterfowl hunter hunting from a blind adjacent to NPS land could shoot a duck flying inside of the park, as long as it was in flight.
I am a forest ecologist and have long-term ecological research (LTER) sites in a national park (and elsewhere). One of the sites was even located on a small NPS parcel isolated from the main block. We asked for permission to overfly the NPS sites and we were denied, even though the launch/recover location for the small parcel was not on NPS land. Nope.
We were told to make a request to fly in the far depths of the off-season ... which doesn't work for us since we are doing foliage studies. Because the rangers have busted several hobbyist operators over the past year alone, the superintendent is being cautious right now. Completely understandable. But it's because of illegal fliers that he's being restrictive on permissions.
Also, with all of the hysteria about terrorists using drones, it's easy to understand that the government would be on high alert and prosecute "potential threats" to American icons. Prohibition is prohibition, whether it hurts law-abiding citizens or not. Let's work to change the regs.
It's your choice to make such a flight and it's your 107 license to put at risk. You can argue airspace and insist that "banning operating from lands and water does not mean banning operating above the park" but that's not going to fly with FAA, NPS, or the courts. In some way, the mere presence of this video is taunting FAA or NPS to come after you. You've given the regulators and courts all of the evidence they need to find you, take your license, and fine you ... you've even given them the blueprint for your defense. There is no doubt that you created a lovely film - absolutely - but if I were you, I'd pull that video in a second and delete all of my comments in this forum, and get a new membership and screen name. But that's just me.
BTW, this ain't "drone police" stuff ... it's fair discussion. You can do what you want to do. As for the commenters who think that this is over-regulation, that may be the case, but this is NOT the way to get the rules changed. If you guys think that you're overburdened by the rules, how do you think that those of us who have flown long-range FPV fixed/rotor for many years feel right now? I have a fleet of 20-mile RT autonomous Pixhawk-based mapping planes that are pretty much grounded right now. But I'm not going to go and violate the law because I know I am a safe, responsible pilot with well-maintained gear and thus the rules don't apply to me. I'm going to wait for the shake-out and see where it all goes, and go for the waivers wherever and whenever possible.
Personally, I am grateful to JROK for his analysis and contribution. It was logical and well-supported. We need this kind of discussion as the business or hobby progresses. There is no need to censor such opinions.
