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

[wombat]

a bit off topic really but here in Australia I paid to enter a NP, after driving into the park some 10 klms I see a no fly notice (on the left) now it is my belief that the sign should have been at the point of payment not after one gets into the NP.

I could not resist putting my sign (yellow one) next to the NP sign.

 

[moonlitnite]

Wombat - too funny, you made my day!!! And next time when you say goodbye, be sure to use the immortal words of the Texas State Governor and you will feel even better (see 00:39)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[wombat]

I feel better already, it did bring a smile to a few others about to start that track, I could not resist doing that

 

[John Locke]

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.

I agree, something should happen states that violate federal law, but that doesn't seem the case nowadays. State violations to federal law go unchallenged. Sanctuary cities and cannabis are two examples.

 

[John Locke]

I'd just like to know what the cost is for this Chino State Park violation. If it's $25, not a big deal. If it's $250+, we need to know.

I've flown in Chino State Park myself, but I was on my ebike, way back in the hills. I entered from the south side of the park from Yorba Linda. No ranger could see me, or even have vehicle access from where I was flying from. I always try to fly stealth, away from all humans as best possible. I have no reason to let someone interrupt and break my concentration on the fun I'm having.

 

[JustViewerFun]

This system of what's allowed and what isn't allowed is ridiculously difficult to follow. In my opinion and experience, it makes it really difficult for us to follow the rules. CA State Parks in general allows UASs, but then they give local district superintendents the authority to disallow UASs. So, you have to go dig deep to find if they are NOT allowed. Chino Hills SP is a perfect example of this. I've been there many times, and I never saw any posted signs that disallowed UASs. After reading this entire thread, I dug deeper and did find this...

https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/648/files/Chino Hills SP Posted Orders.pdf

It was linked in the Chino Hills SP web page... Chino Hills SP

What really makes my blood boil is how the letter blows everything out of proportion, like there is a high risk of endangering people and negative impact on wildlife. I know from experience that UASs flying around wildlife has minimal if no impact unless a UAS comes really close to them. Otherwise they just think it is a really odd extremely noisy (by comparison only) bird. The general presence of people is far more threatening and negative impact on wildlife than a UAS is. They allow dogs on a leash in the park, yet dogs can be more threatening to some species of wildlife. Manned aircraft flying much higher above the ground than a UAS is far noisier and far more intrusive to the soundscape of the state parks. Fire danger is the only item that I can see as a possibility for legitimate concern - but that would only be during the dry seasons in the park, and for a UAS that had an exposed electrical system in a crash. Virtually all, if not all, commercially made UASs have the electrical systems protected well enough that they would not be exposed in a crash.

I think there is way too much of this "blanket order" generalization crap going around. Before you know it, nobody will be able to fly UASs anywhere.

Unfortunately, for the OP, I don't think anyone is going to win the battle by arguing about legality. I think the only way to gain some ground is for all of us to pressure the State Parks district superintendents that have placed such orders to lift the ban. I would take each of the arguments that are posted in their orders and argue about how they are incorrectly assumed or overblown, and because they are erroneous, the order should be removed.

 

[jsh102]

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

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.

So, did you end up paying the citation, or were you exonerated?

 

[John Locke]

I'd love to find a position where the ranger couldn't find me and mock him

I've actually done this, by chance, not intentionally. I always try to avoid confrontation with "authorities" and fly from places that are legal and usually stealth at the same time. I was flying on the side of the river where it's legal to launch and land. I saw another pilot on the other side of the river that I knew was flying illegal, according to AirMap. I went over the river fairly close to check him out because I saw this guy's Phantom flying around, then he landed, so I took off. I went over there to check out the guy. When I got close to the pilot I noticed a state park truck with a ranger talking to him. I was hovering nearby, staring at them FPV, and the ranger started looking around for the pilot of my drone. The pilot appeared to be getting a citation from the ranger for flying his drone. The victim was getting very animated with me flying over the same area he was flying, pointing at my drone. The ranger kept looking around for me. Finally I whistled at him from across the river and waved at him while I'm holding my RC. I was just sitting on the shoreline in the shade having a good time. I was legal, but I think the ranger was ticked. I was hoping the ranger would let the guy off, me trying to neutralize the pilot's offense, but I don't think that happened.

 

[John Locke]

California is the biggest JOKE in this country.

I agree, and I live here as a native to So. Calif! Makes me sad for the state. Our leadership is brain dead IMO.

 

[Dmanoak]

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

Wish u the best but....
California is a very liberal area, especially where I live in the Bay Area. The state Gov. is very willing to be aggressive regarding these types of things. I would probably have to get a lawyer, and possibly go all the way to the supreme court to get resolution of a ticket?
I reccomend you DO NOT argue with Cal. police authorities. It's a huge state with millions of empty acres to fly over. Also rember, NO ONE WANTS A DRONE BUZZ OVER THEIR HOUSE.

 

[787steve]

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!

I think you would have to takeoff with your balloons outside the park. Dont forget your bb gun!

 

[jazar]

I saw a similar sign at a state park in Georgia. I asked the attendant at the entrance and he said as long as I don't take off or land within the park, there will be no problem. I went to a roadside stop across the river from the park and flew with no problems.

 

[coliwabl]

California is a huge problem in the U.S when it comes to laws but mainly the constitution .I agree with you about the California supreme court or U.S supreme court .

What specific examples can you provide that California is a huge problem in the US and the constitution? With regard to UAS operation, just keep following the FAA rules and it will all work out. We as a group should be promoting UAS operation by educating communities as well as state and local agencies, including LEA. That is how change should be made.

 

[ac0j]

What specific examples can you provide that California is a huge problem in the US and the constitution? With regard to UAS operation, just keep following the FAA rules and it will all work out. We as a group should be promoting UAS operation by educating communities as well as state and local agencies, including LEA. That is how change should be made.

It seems it is not just California law that is the issue, It seems Californians are the reason it is what it is, Since it is they who have the problems with authority.

 

[skiptv]

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.

That was just a stupid uniformed answer. No doubt from someone who thinks Trump follows the letter of the law when committing treason. The drone laws are ever evolving and the rules put in place by California were put in place when the feds, the FAA were twittling their thumbs. Some Cali parks are preventing landing and taking off which they can, you are afterall on their property. But fly overs are legal

 

[JoBri]

Why ban drone operations? Drones are for recreational purposes not for crime

 

[sar104]

Why ban drone operations? Drones are for recreational purposes not for crime

So are dirt bikes. And fireworks. Both broadly prohibited in Parks. And more widely, cocaine. Does that help steer your thinking?

 

[JoBri]

So are dirt bikes. And fireworks. Both broadly prohibited in Parks. And more widely, cocaine. Does that help steer your thinking?

You can fly your drone without taking drugs

 

[Qoncussion]

You can fly your drone without taking drugs

You're scaring me

 

[sar104]

You can fly your drone without taking drugs

I guess it didn't. Your argument was that flying drones should be legal because it is recreational. I pointed out three recreational activities that are widely banned, to make the point that just because something is recreational doesn't make it allowed.