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

[Jeff7577]

Hi! I am from Nebraska too.
Tell me, Do you remember being informed of the public hearing where Game and parks decided to outlaw alcohol on state parks? I dont, then it was done. A couple years ago I must have missed the other public hearing when they made it legal again. I read it in the paper AFTER the fact both times. Even though you think this is how it works, if game and parks posts a sign, you better pay attention to it!

Nebraska Game and Parks votes to lift state-park drinking ban

Wasn’t very hard to find.

 

[Signs]

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

O.K. You wanna hear it. This is exactly what happened in U.S. parks. They banned flying in a few parks and then people like you made a big deal over it to the point they banned it in ALL U.S. Parks. They posted a sign. That means they don’t want you flying there. But your right! Like the boys on C.O.P.s that say “ You can’t do this to me!” Don’t ruin it for us who do read the signs..by the way, my friend has a video that explains how it’s unconstitutional for the government to make us pay taxes.

 

[ac0j]

Nebraska Game and Parks votes to lift state-park drinking ban

Wasn’t very hard to find.

I said I saw in in the paper, After it happened.

Game and parks can do what they want when they want. I have a friend that owns land for deer hunting. He didnt want other people to hunt on it to save it for himself, I mean he owns it. So he posted several "No hunting" signs around it perimeter. When deer season came along and he went hunting on his own property, A Game and parks officer came and gave him a ticket. "no hunting" means NO HUNTING he said. The ticket stood up in court.
Now the signs say no trespassing.
The main problem here doesnt have to be about legal or not legal.
It is about arrogant drone owners.
If the parks wish is for no drones, they post signs asking you to not use your drone. It seems normal/expected for you to respect their wishes. Just as No fireworks in the park, no firearms in the park, No wake on the lake.... The list goes on and on.
The fact that I have to be associated with the Law and regulation spouting rule breakers because I own a drone bugs me. But it is what it is.

 

[Jeff7577]

I said I saw in in the paper, After it happened.

Game and parks can do what they want when they want. I have a friend that owns land for deer hunting. He didnt want other people to hunt on it to save it for himself, I mean he owns it. So he posted several "No hunting" signs around it perimeter. When deer season came along and he went hunting on his own property, A Game and parks officer came and gave him a ticket. "no hunting" means NO HUNTING he said. The ticket stood up in court.
Now the signs say no trespassing.
The main problem here doesnt have to be about legal or not legal.
It is about arrogant drone owners.
If the parks wish is for no drones, they post signs asking you to not use your drone. It seems normal/expected for you to respect their wishes. Just as No fireworks in the park, no firearms in the park, No wake on the lake.... The list goes on and on.
The fact that I have to be associated with the Law and regulation spouting rule breakers because I own a drone bugs me. But it is what it is.

Sir, there are rules and regulations for everything you listed...wake, fireworks etc. There are none for UAS. There are no signs because there is no regulation. I’m sorry your friend had issues, but you are obviously not telling the whole story. They have no jurisdiction over private property unless there is an agreement.

I’m sorry you missed the Public hearing for alcohol. Hopefully you won’t miss the one for UAS if it ever comes up.

 

[ac0j]

Its not going to be an issue for me. I have no desire to fly where I have been asked not to fly. Out of simple courtesy you know, or maybe you dont. It takes a special kind of dumb to fly places just because you feel the need to prove you can.
I am not compelled to set out to prove I can do something by doing it and awaiting the recoil.

 

[sar104]

Sir, there are rules and regulations for everything you listed...wake, fireworks etc. There are none for UAS. There are no signs because there is no regulation. I’m sorry your friend had issues, but you are obviously not telling the whole story. They have no jurisdiction over private property unless there is an agreement.

I’m sorry you missed the Public hearing for alcohol. Hopefully you won’t miss the one for UAS if it ever comes up.

The state does have jurisdiction over hunting on private property, because the game does not belong to the landowner. Landowners (including in Nebraska) must follow hunting laws and obtain a permit.

Where the situation described above seems to have gone wrong is that it has been established quite broadly (but maybe not in Nebraska?) that a landowner can post "No hunting" signs but still legally hunt on his/her land, provided that other requirements are met.

 

[ac0j]

The keyword here is "posted" This act has meaning. Thats why you see signs that say "POSTED No trespassing" When printing the word "posted" on the sign seems to be not needed.
The act of "Posting" some rule or regulation makes that rule enforceable. If My earlier mentioned friend had started with simple "no trespassing" signs, he would have been fine. By posting "no hunting" He made it a no hunting zone. Doesnt matter who owns it.

 

[sar104]

The keyword here is "posted" This act has meaning. Thats why you see signs that say "POSTED No trespassing" When printing the word "posted" on the sign seems to be not needed.
The act of "Posting" some rule or regulation makes that rule enforceable. If My earlier mentioned friend had started with simple "no trespassing" signs, he would have been fine. By posting "no hunting" He made it a no hunting zone. Doesnt matter who owns it.

That's an interesting perspective. The word "Posted" on no hunting or trespassing signs has a long history. Some states require it for the sign to have legal standing, although most do not. But where it is required, the purpose of the word is to make the enforceable, as you note. That doesn't however, at least generally, mean that the prohibition applies also to the landowner who posted the sign, most obviously because it would normally be the landowner enforcing the prohibition. Again - it's possible that NE is different.

 

[ac0j]

That's an interesting perspective. The word "Posted" on no hunting or trespassing signs has a long history. Some states require it for the sign to have legal standing, although most do not. But where it is required, the purpose of the word is to make the enforceable, as you note. That doesn't however, at least generally, mean that the prohibition applies also to the landowner who posted the sign, most obviously because it would normally be the landowner enforcing the prohibition. Again - it's possible that NE is different.

Nebraska is not unlike many other states, this particular case could go either way on any given day before any given judge. Just like no drone signs, you are at the risk of whatever the deciding parties frame of mind is at the time of the hearing (if it gets that far).
It is much easier to respect the no drone signs where posted weather you agree with them or not. It is the right thing to do. Taking off "next to and flying in" is a selfish loophole. Used by arrogant people with something to prove. I am not an Ansel Adams wanna be, so I dont assume that I have more liberties than anyone else.

 

[sar104]

Nebraska is not unlike many other states, this particular case could go either way on any given day before any given judge. Just like no drone signs, you are at the risk of whatever the deciding parties frame of mind is at the time of the hearing (if it gets that far).
It is much easier to respect the no drone signs where posted weather you agree with them or not. It is the right thing to do. Taking off "next to and flying in" is a selfish loophole. Used by arrogant people with something to prove. I am not an Ansel Adams wanna be, so I dont assume that I have more liberties than anyone else.

I agree entirely on the drone issue - I was just curious about the landowner hunting question.

 

[TxArch DroneGuy]

I live in Texas and under Texas law you can not launch operate or land a drone while physically within the state park unless the state park superintendant allows it of there is a designated area within the state park. So you might be able to fly if you submitted a request and they approved it or they have a designated area. The same is true for the county owned parks where I live. I am in a drone club that flies at a local county park once a month in the area approved for drones and model fixed wing aircraft.

CHRIS, I’m a TEXAN as well, Texas House Bill 1643, passed last year, specifically makes any ordinances from TEXAS cities or Counties, disallowing UAS flights From these areas Null And Void.
Google Texas HB 1643 for the entire bill.
Following are excerpts:

Section 423.009 to read as follows:
Sec. 423.009. REGULATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT BY POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION. (a) In this section:
(1) "Political subdivision" includes a county, a joint
board created under Section 22.074, Transportation Code, and a municipality.
(2) "Special event" means a festival, celebration, or other gathering that:
(A) involves:
(i) the reservation and temporary use of all
or a portion of a public park, road, or other property of a political subdivision; and
(ii) entertainment, the sale of merchandise,
food, or beverages, or mass participation in a sports event; and
(B) requires a significant use or coordination of a political subdivision's services.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), a political subdivision may not adopt or enforce any ordinance, order, or other similar measure regarding the operation of an unmanned aircraft.
(c) A political subdivision may adopt and enforce an
ordinance, order, or other similar measure regarding:
(1) the use of an unmanned aircraft during a special
event;
(2) the political subdivision's use of an unmanned aircraft; or
(3) the use of an unmanned aircraft near a facility or infrastructure owned by the political subdivision, if the political subdivision:
(A) applies for and receives authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt the regulation; and
(B) after providing reasonable notice, holds a public hearing on the political subdivision's intent to apply for the authorization.
(d) An ordinance, order, or other similar measure that violates Subsection (b) is void and unenforceable.

 

[TxArch DroneGuy]

CHRIS, I’m a TEXAN as well, Texas House Bill 1643, passed last year, specifically makes any ordinances from TEXAS cities or Counties, disallowing UAS flights From these areas Null And Void.
Google Texas HB 1643 for the entire bill.
Following are excerpts:

Section 423.009 to read as follows:
Sec. 423.009. REGULATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT BY POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION. (a) In this section:
(1) "Political subdivision" includes a county, a joint
board created under Section 22.074, Transportation Code, and a municipality.
(2) "Special event" means a festival, celebration, or other gathering that:
(A) involves:
(i) the reservation and temporary use of all
or a portion of a public park, road, or other property of a political subdivision; and
(ii) entertainment, the sale of merchandise,
food, or beverages, or mass participation in a sports event; and
(B) requires a significant use or coordination of a political subdivision's services.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), a political subdivision may not adopt or enforce any ordinance, order, or other similar measure regarding the operation of an unmanned aircraft.
(c) A political subdivision may adopt and enforce an
ordinance, order, or other similar measure regarding:
(1) the use of an unmanned aircraft during a special
event;
(2) the political subdivision's use of an unmanned aircraft; or
(3) the use of an unmanned aircraft near a facility or infrastructure owned by the political subdivision, if the political subdivision:
(A) applies for and receives authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration to adopt the regulation; and
(B) after providing reasonable notice, holds a public hearing on the political subdivision's intent to apply for the authorization.
(d) An ordinance, order, or other similar measure that violates Subsection (b) is void and unenforceable.

This Texas Bill applies to Political Subdivisions, which are defined as cities and counties. Flying within, but not over, State Parks In TEXAS is the prerogative of the individual Park Directors. But is good to know that Counties and Cities in TEXAS can no longer create or Enforce No Flying in their cities as long as the pilot abides by the FAA rules, as per TEXAS HB 1643

 

[wsalopek]

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.

You are correct that governments sometimes over-reach their authority and need to be held in check by concerned citizens, and hopefully, by state and federal Supreme Courts, but generally speaking, what you just said (and remember YOU started this),

( Mod Removed )

 

[Guy Driver]

I too wish the National Parks system could hurry it along as I am not getting any younger and want some pictures in the parks.

 

[jinglestheelf]

I went to Monument Valley with the family. It's clearly marked that drones are not allowed. For much of the time we were near the visitor's center, enjoying the beautiful scenery, there was the high-pitched whine of a drone. I was too far way to see what kind.

Very selfish.

 

[gnirtS]

I went to Monument Valley with the family. It's clearly marked that drones are not allowed. For much of the time we were near the visitor's center, enjoying the beautiful scenery, there was the high-pitched whine of a drone. I was too far way to see what kind.

Very selfish.

...and thats the problem. If people continue to act selfishly and not care about anyone else the things get banned.

The place i was on Friday has a very clear no drone sign with writing and a photo. Stood 2ft from the sign flying his spark was a tourist. Flying the drone 40-50ft over people, hovering, a distracting noise and not caring.

I flew mine too - but after 5pm when the place was closed, no people around, standing outside their property and no lower than about 150ft.

There are some workarounds, some places here offer an opening an hour before general public so drones can be flown BEFORE a certain time but not after and so on. There are solutions for sharing the area with drones and with the non drone owning public who by and large dont want to hear the things constantly.

 

[Earthman]

It is apparent that most folks that aren't familiar with FAA regulations assume that they (the subject folks) own or control the sky. Some have felt that they have the right to shot down drones (I'm thankful they don't feel the same about other aircraft). The FAA says that they don't in both cases, but the FAA does not regulate the ground, so they (the subject folks again) do control the land and, strictly speaking, they can post a sign or make a local law that prohibits drones from taking off from or landing on the ground. Some municipalities (in violation of current FAA regs) are passing local laws that prohibit flying within a few hundred feet of homes for privacy reasons.

In any case, it is clear that some folks have concerns about flying drones in the airspace within some distance of their property or "ground." I interpret the last part of the FAA's statement as recognizing that some of the concerns may be legitimate and so FAA has formed a task force to figure out a way to recognize and regulate such airspace. Right or wrong, this will further limit where drones can fly legally.

Maybe it's time to stop griping and join/support the AMA or another organization that represents our interests or we won't have a voice at the table.

 

[moonlitnite]

Sigh, okay I'll continue to make more responses to the address the original poster and the State of California's law (aside from the Fed vs. State jurisdictional issue and technicalities of fly-overs vs Take Off and Landing in the jurisdiction). BTW it only takes a few seconds to google "california state park drone uav" and for the self-righteous types who don't give a flip about respecting the reasons WHY such a sign would be posted... well, have a nice day...
OTOH, I see very few signs and I'm delighted by the Cal State reversal a few years ago that now allows me to safely fly over almost every California State Park!

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. Posted orders may prohibit drones for numerous reasons, including: protection of threatened species; threats to cultural and natural resources; high fire danger; public safety; recreational conflicts; impacts upon visitor experience privacy; and park unit classification. Therefore, drone users should always check with their local State Park District for any specific posted orders....

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

What if you went in the park and then used a bunch of helium balloons to lift you a few feet off the ground, hand launch your Mavic, fly around how you like, then hand catch your Mavic and let go of the balloons. That'll show Ranger Rick!

 

[787steve]

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.

It will confuse them about as much as if you decided to launch your own 4th of July fireworks display from the bed of the same truck, while parked in the park. Not much.