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

[FlyGuy8675309]

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!

You. Are. Screwed.

 

[Ryder]

They don’t even have to regulate for takeoffs and landings... the can regulate YOU while you are on park property. “You may not operate...” and to hell with what and where the drone is. It’s you... not the flying machine.

 

[Ryder]

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.

Not according to the poster. It says nothing about the operator. It COULD, but in this case does not.

 

[Ryder]

Unmanned Aircraft System (Drones) in State Parks

"Drones are currently allowed in State Parks, State Beaches, State Historic Parks, State Recreational Areas, and State Vehicular Recreation Areas except where prohibited by a District Superintendent’s posted order."

This would seem to cover it if you were on park property while operating. Whether not that is codified in any strict legal sense, I don't know.

You are missing the point... CA is in violation of federal law in creating these regs. They are null and void.

Here’s an example that might be easier to understand.

Let’s say that slavery is against federal law (it is), now let’s say that California has different ideas and says slavery is legal in 37 specific counties in California...

Would you REALLY read this California law and conclude that slavery was again legal in certain areas of California?

I would hope not.

 

[Ryder]

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.

His point would be that :

1 - even if he took off 10 fee OUTSIDE the park and flew IN, they would still cite him (they would)
2 - the posting says it is the FLIGHT that is prohibit, not the ground use.

Item 2 is easily dealt with simply by taking off of the hood of your car... where there is no question of land use.

 

[Jeff7577]

In my state the head of the parks department cannot print signs outlawing whatever they want. It seems California doesn’t work that way. Here the legislature must pass regulations before they can be enforced.

If you ask Nebraska Game and Parks, they will tell you using a UAS is not legal. The problem is there isn’t a specific drone regulation, they simply try to lump it in with the motor vehicle laws. Unfortunately for them they define a motor vehicle as something that draws persons or property, which my Mavic Pro does not do. I cannot ride my Mavic, or tow my boat with it.

 

[ScubaBob]

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.

EXCELLENT posting. Very well done. Thanks.

 

[ScubaBob]

Have you ever seen a Posted Notice similar to the photograph below in ANY State Park in the United States before?
View attachment 42721 On May 25, 2018 I was approached by the California State Park Police Officer informing me that it is ILLEGAL TO FLY a DRONE over ANY State Park!

I immediately informed the officer that his statement was NOT TRUE!

I informed him that I was flying LEGALLY under F.A.A. Section 336/101E and that I was flying in Class G Airspace.

I had submitted a flight plan that was approved by the F.A.A using the L.A.A.N.C system through the AIRMAP app but the officer did not even look interested in what I had to say.

The Park Police Officer gave me a citation for flying my UAS over Chino Hills State Park

The State of California Parks and Recreation Department has absolutely NO JURISDICTION or LEGAL AUTHORITY to prohibit UAS flight over the Chino Hills State Park. The U.S. airspace including the airspace over each and every California State Park are solely controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Now here is the where the fun part of this story gets very exciting! On July 20, 2018 the F.A.A. gave a Press Release for Immediate Release:

Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

View attachment 42737

FAA Statement – Federal vs. Local Drone Authority

Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety, the efficiency of the navigable airspace, and air traffic control, among other things. 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.

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.

In the context of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) – popularly called “drones”— the Department of Transportation’s UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP), directed by the President, will provide the FAA with insight on how to best involve local jurisdictions in the integration of UAS into the airspace (PDF) in a way that also alleviates their concerns. On May 9, the Secretary of Transportation announced the selection of 10 state, local, and tribal governments as participants in the pilot program. These entities will partner with private sector participants to safely explore the further integration of drone operations. We’re looking forward to working with the IPP participants as we look to the future.

I will be requesting the California Superior Court to inform the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation to immediately remove all of the NO DRONE Flight View attachment 42721 signs that are currently posted in several of the California State Parks.

I will also request that the court redact all and any State Park district orders that prohibits UAS flight over the California State Parks immediately.

I would love to hear the thoughts from the other UAS Pilots in the U.S. over this issue.

Thank you,

L. Kent Elliott

This is another good reason why I neither visit nor want to live in the People's Republic of California. Too many dang confusing laws and way too many taxes.

 

[Classic flyer]

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.

I believe that to be the loop hole that hangs him in the end...point of take off and landing....be safe fly safe

 

[tccraiger]

Even though I like flying my drone, have my 107, and a drone business; I really hope they keep drones out of the state parks.
Last thing I want to hear and see when vacationing in a State Park are a bunch of drones buzzing around.

 

[sar104]

You are missing the point... CA is in violation of federal law in creating these regs. They are null and void.

Here’s an example that might be easier to understand.

Let’s say that slavery is against federal law (it is), now let’s say that California has different ideas and says slavery is legal in 37 specific counties in California...

Would you REALLY read this California law and conclude that slavery was again legal in certain areas of California?

I would hope not.

That's a completely spurious argument. Park regulations may be promulgated to prohibit activities such as operating a UAS - nothing about that contravenes existing federal law because there is no federal law that explicitly gives you the right to operate a UAS.

Now if the park were to attempt to override federal law by permitting an activity that is illegal under federal law, then that would be a different matter, but they are not doing that.

If you and the OP cannot understand that fundamental and obvious distinction then further explanation is pointless.

 

[nealh]

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.

How about taking off and landing from your hand, wouldn’t that legal?

 

[Mechrya]

It’s my understanding that the law reads you can fly over state parks but you can’t take off or land from them....

 

[sar104]

His point would be that :

1 - even if he took off 10 fee OUTSIDE the park and flew IN, they would still cite him (they would)
2 - the posting says it is the FLIGHT that is prohibit, not the ground use.

Item 2 is easily dealt with simply by taking off of the hood of your car... where there is no question of land use.

Then his point would continue to be wrong.

(1) is baseless speculation - if they did that, which is not what they did, then they would be in the wrong unless they were citing for other than simply flying, such as harassment of wildlife.

(2) is a deliberate attempt on your part to obfuscate the obvious meaning of that sign. If you want to try that then note that it says "no flights in the park", not "no flights over the park". And it's not dealt with by taking off from the hood of the car. If a park bans smoking, you cannot stand on your vehicle and smoke.

 

[sar104]

In my state the head of the parks department cannot print signs outlawing whatever they want. It seems California doesn’t work that way. Here the legislature must pass regulations before they can be enforced.

If you ask Nebraska Game and Parks, they will tell you using a UAS is not legal. The problem is there isn’t a specific drone regulation, they simply try to lump it in with the motor vehicle laws. Unfortunately for them they define a motor vehicle as something that draws persons or property, which my Mavic Pro does not do. I cannot ride my Mavic, or tow my boat with it.

Do you have a reference for that claim? In National Parks the superintendents have broad authority to regulate most activities. Many, if not all, state parks have the same provision. The National Park UAS ban, for example, stemmed from a simple directive to the park superintendents from the Park Service to put that in place as appropriate. It does not require any additional legislation. This has been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere - it's remarkable that there is anyone left who is not completely aware of the situation.

 

[sar104]

It’s my understanding that the law reads you can fly over state parks but you can’t take off or land from them....

To be quite precise - the airspace above the park is regulated only by the FAA, which means that if you follow FAA regulations you can fly there as long as you don't violate any privacy or other laws - just as applies to a manned aircraft. What you do on the ground is regulated by the park, and if they say that you cannot operate UAVs from their land then that is a valid regulation.

 

[baddog]

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.

This my concern as well. I am heading into the Adirondacks tomorrow and could possibly face the same citation. I am going to Algonquin Summit and it is a tough hike in 3000 + ft gained in elevation. No way to fly into the state park from non state park land.

I am probably gonna get in trouble but worth the footage for my digital coffee table book.

"Waterfalls & High Peaks of the Adirondacks"

 

[sar104]

How about taking off and landing from your hand, wouldn’t that legal?

No - of course not.

 

[sar104]

This my concern as well. I am heading into the Adirondacks tomorrow and could possibly face the same citation. I am going to Algonquin Summit and it is a tough hike in 3000 + ft gained in elevation. No way to fly into the state park from non state park land.

I am probably gonna get in trouble but worth the footage for my digital coffee table book.

"Waterfalls & High Peaks of the Adirondacks"

That's your call. The alternative is too seek permission in advance - the park superintendents can authorize operations if they choose. Success with that approach has been variable according to those who have tried. For example, we have blanket Forest Service authority to fly in designated wilderness (where UAS operations are also prohibited) for search and rescue operations, but have been unable to get similar authority from the Park Service.

 

[Roc Rat]

Well if flight is allowed but landing and takeoff can be dictated by the state, how about if my truck (or car) is in the park legally and I use it (hood, trunk, truck bed,etc) to land and takeoff. The vehicle is private property; hence not using the parks property. That should complicate the scenario to confuse the park officials. Just a thought!