This Issue is VERY IMPORTANT to All UAS Pilot in the U.S.A.

[chezedog]

The posted order clearly states to prohibit the flight of any UAS flying over the park.

No it doesn't. It says, "No Model Aircraft or UAS Flights in the Park"

 

[beachcombing]

I was following the F.A.A. regulations to the letter. I was flying LEGALLY under F.A.A. Section 336/101E. I was flying in Class G airspace where I legally do not need the approval from the F.A.A. to fly in Class G airspace.

I also did not need to submit a flight plan with the F.A.A. but I did submit a flight plan that was approved by the F.A.A using the L.A.A.N.C program as an insurance policy so that my flight was recorded using the AIRMAP app.

My flight was 100% legal under F.A.A. regulations.

And once again, you are wrong. If you launched and/or landed from property that is part of the state park, then you are in violation.

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

The signs he posted say "IN the park". To me that's a totally legit sign. You cant fly, take off, land or operate a drone while you're IN the park. It doesn't claim "over".

If the OP was standing inside the park to takeoff, land OR operate the drone he has committed an offence.

You need to understand that the State Park currently has NO current laws or regulation to prohibit a UAS from taking off or landing inside the State Park. The State Park will need to enact a new law that prohibits UAS aircraft to takeoff and land in the State Park.

The new law will also need to address hand launching and hand catch landings in the park as well since these operations do not cause the UAS to contact the ground at any point during takeoff or landing.

The landing and takeoff of an aircraft has to do with touching the ground in the state park. This operation is separate the moment the aircraft leaves the ground, the aircraft operation instantly becomes fully under the control of the F.A.A. federal regulations and no city, county or state government has any jurisdiction over flight operations. The F.A.A. controls all aircraft operations from the ground up!

 

[sar104]

You need to understand that the State Park currently has NO current laws or regulation to prohibit a UAS from taking off or landing inside the State Park. The State Park will need to enact a new law that prohibits UAS aircraft to takeoff and land in the State Park.

So just to be clear, you observed a "No Drone, Model Aircraft or UAS Flights in the Park" but you are now arguing that there are no regulations preventing a UAS from taking off or landing inside the State Park? Instead, you are insisting that the stated prohibition is on the airspace over the park (even though that's not their jurisdiction and that's not what the sign says). Your position is completely illogical.

And it doesn't require the enactment of a new law to prohibit activities - it's at the discretion of the District Superintendent.

Unmanned Aircraft System (Drones) in State Parks

You are not going to win this argument with the state, because your argument is simply wrong.

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

I wish you lots of luck with that in California. They seem to ignore both laws and the Constitution when they do not agree with it. It may take a California Supreme Court decision to resolve the issue.

Keep us posted. I truly do hope you prevail.

Thank you for your comment!

 

[Red Baron]

I'm with you bro but---Read the FAA letter- Land rights and or ownership comes in to play for the state to have a say so- Chino state park they have the right to tell you can not take off or land inside the park. I live in Laguna and I deal with the city all the time regarding this BS. The good news is FAA is pro drone--But someone is going to have to duke it out with cities in the courts before this goes away. Beach comber is right- Wonder if you could be inside the park and launch and land in your hand???lol Once anything is off the ground FAA 100% authority. Bottom line somebody will be in for a long fight with the state of Ca and the cities. I just fly and deal with the bs- If you can't dazzle them with brilliance-Baffle them with ********

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

in alaska the state parks adopted the same flight rules for drones that apply to regular aircraft.,,,, so if you want to say take video or pics of animals of any kind you have to be at 1,400' ,,,, if you can only fly 400' this effectually outlaws animal photag with drones on state parks. and yes if you are standing in the park when you launch you are breaking the rules. i dont have enough zeros in my bank account to force the issue. eventually enough folks will make their voices heard and change things. took years to get airboat access to federal land and we are still fighting for it.

The minimum flight altitude for sustained flight of a human piloted aircraft is 500ft. The only time that a piloted aircraft is permitted to fly under 500ft is during takeoff or landing. This is the current F.A.A. regulation for the entire U.S. airspace.

14 CFR 91.119 - The minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(b) Over congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet to the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(1) Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.

 

[ac0j]

Your screwed. Pay the fine and move on. It was posted, you ignored it and got caught. Dont think for a minute that it has anything to do with airspace when you are ON THEIR GROUNDS breaking their rules. They have full authority to say no drones on our property.
Quoting FAA stuff that mostly applies to full sized aircraft is just wasting your breath. You fly a TOY. You are not a fighter pilot.

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

Good luck, let us know how it turns out!

Thank you for your comment. I will keep the forum with an update after the court case has finished next

The problem was not the legality of the flight itself, which local authorities cannot regulate, as you stated. The problem is the legality of aircraft operations (takeoff and landing), which they certainly can regulate. All National Parks, for example, ban aircraft operations, even though they acknowledge that flying over their land is perfectly legal. Many state and local parks do the same. They are not regulating the airspace.

Had you taken off from outside the park and flown over it you would be correct but, assuming that you took of from inside the park then the UAS operation ban is legal and you broke that law.

The operation of takeoff and landing inside the park would have be illegal "IF" the State Park had a law prohibiting aircraft to takeoff of land inside the park. In this situation the state did not have any current law prohibiting aircraft to takeoff or land inside the park.

Remember, I did have an approved flight plan from the F.A.A. through the L.A.A.N.C. system for my flight. Any city, county, or state law or regulation on aircraft operations MUST be consistent with the current F.A.A. regulations. This situation was NOT consistent with the current F.A.A. regulation in effect. In order for local authorities to be legal, the regulation MUST be consistent with current F.A.A. regulations, If the state had consulted with the F.A.A. and the F.A.A. had placed a NO FLY ZONE in the digital geofencing above the park, the F.A.A. would not have received approval for my flight plan that was submitted using the L.A.A.N.C.

 

[microlinux]

Thank you for your comment. I will keep the forum with an update after the court case has finished next

I don't think you're going to have much luck if if you were operating on park grounds, I thought you were just flying over park grounds. The Rec department has an unambiguous notice on drone operation. Whether or not there is direct legal support, I don't know. But as sar104 said, it's a pretty good bet there is legal precedent for the parks Director to make discretionary calls.

In any event, if you do try to fight it, it would be an interesting legal saga.

 

[Bazzam]

Your screwed. Pay the fine and move on. It was posted, you ignored it and got caught. Dont think for a minute that it has anything to do with airspace when you are ON THEIR GROUNDS breaking their rules. They have full authority to say no drones on our property.
Quoting FAA stuff that mostly applies to full sized aircraft is just wasting your breath. You fly a TOY. You are not a fighter pilot.

Take a deep breath, hold it for 5 seconds and exhale slowly, repeat this as often as you feel necessary until your calm and relaxed [emoji6]

 

[CanyonRunVideos]

You seem to be continuing to ignore the distinction between regulating flights over the park vs. taking off and landing within the park. This issue has been debated to death previously on this forum and PP. Individual states can, and in many states do, regulate UAS operations.

Yes, the ONLY difference is weather the state had a current law prohibiting UAS from taking off and landing inside the park. In my situation, the state did NOT have any law that prohibits the takeoff or landing of UAS inside the State Park. The Park Police cannot wright a citation for something that is NOT ILLEGAL to do in the park currently.

I do not understand why some people cannot understand that there MUST be a current law against the act before the local police can enforce that act!

 

[ac0j]

Yes, the ONLY difference is weather the state had a current law prohibiting UAS from taking off and landing inside the park. In my situation, the state did NOT have any law that prohibits the takeoff or landing of UAS inside the State Park. The Park Police cannot wright a citation for something that is NOT ILLEGAL to do in the park currently.

I do not understand why some people cannot understand that there MUST be a current law against the act before the local police can enforce that act!

The sign in YOUR OP put you on notice. Dont think because you didnt break federal rules, that you didnt break LOCAL rules. States and city's can make rules and regulations at will. When you are facing them, in there courts, about their rules. YOU LOSE!
States can choose if they want to agree with federal regulations. I.E., Marijuana use and possession is against federal law, but look how many states are ignoring that. Also, you cannot buy legal alcohol in Dry counties in many states even though it is NOT against federal laws. There is NO relevance between FAA rules and state park rules.

 

[melmartin]

The only outrage here is the OPs misunderstanding of basic law. The posted sign is all the park needs. Your refusal to admit where you launched from is suspicious in the extreme. You can fly over these parks all you want, but you can't land or takeoff within their boundaries. Get it? This is a tremendous waste of bandwidth from a person who feels a privilege but has none. Pay the 2 dollars and stifle the misplaced outrage. .

 

[ac0j]

He seems to think that the state cares what the FAA says about airspace, when he broke the rule by carrying the drone onto the park property weather he took off with it or not. Has nothing to do with airspace.

 

[Qoncussion]

...

 

[sar104]

He seems to think that the state cares what the FAA says about airspace, when he broke the rule by carrying the drone onto the park property weather he took off with it or not. Has nothing to do with airspace.

I'm pretty sure that he did not come here looking for information or answers. He clearly doesn't understand how parks are administered, and that superintendents may be authorized to ban certain activities, as they explicitly are in this case. But it's clear that pointing that out is not welcome. First it was that the FAA were being usurped, now it's that the State has not passed the appropriate laws. Deflection taken to the extreme.

 

[UAVNV]

having worked on set at location, most land management agencies from parks to parking lots, see hobby drone pilots as a nuisance. they watch only videos of a
drone accidents it seems, and blame it on consumer purchases or drones. In my opinion it is because most are seen as flying without a purpose.

have a flight plan, get your shots and get out. aimlessly flying around looking for something to film, probably gonna have a bad time.

if you cannot present information as an industry professional when you are approached, you will be treated like a civilian pilot, and rounded down to the lowest common denominator of those drone videos they watch on youtube

 

[microlinux]

Ithere MUST be a current law against the act before the local police can enforce that act!

It seems they thought of that.

View Document - California Code of Regulations

 

[ac0j]

I'm pretty sure that he did not come here looking for information or answers. He clearly doesn't understand how parks are administered, and that superintendents may be authorized to ban certain activities, as they explicitly are in this case. But it's clear that pointing that out is not welcome. First it was that the FAA were being usurped, now it's that the State has not passed the appropriate laws. Deflection taken to the extreme.

exactly! Just like they can say No swimming, No alcohol consumption, No motor vehicles, no hunting......... No drones is just the same. Quoting FAA rules will not mean a thing in this case.