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

[melmartin]

I don't think I've ever seen such a stream of irrelevant responses in a thread. The OP walked past a sign that said basically don't fly here and did it anyway. The numerous posts from the OP miss the point. When I see a lot of all caps typing and purposely missing the point I know I'm dealing with someone who likely has anger issues.

He's ignored the regulation, and will pay the fine. He fails to understand local rules vs. FAA regs. If he appeals his fine, I'd love to be in the courtroom to listen to the judge.

This thread has gone on long enough. I'm sure the OP will advise us of his expected legal victory, but I'm not holding my breath. If he had expended 1/3 the effort he made complaining to finding a proper place to fly his drone he'd be better off. We'd be better off too.

 

[chezedog]

Then answer this question, Is it possible to fly a UAS and at the same time the UAS in also on the ground?

Can't. It makes no sense. Keep quibbling if you must, but it will serve no purpose. I'm done.

 

[ac0j]

Let me try to explain this,
If there had been a sign that said temporary ban on campfires is in affect in the park. And, you make a fire anyway, even though there is no laws against camp fires would you not expect a ticket? You did not break any FAA rules just like you say. But you did break a state park rule. Keep trying to justify your mistake, but it isn’t making you look very smart!

 

[LINXXL]

Currently there are currently NO laws that prohibit UAS flight over the airspace of any California State Park. The NO Drone Flight signs do not have any existing law that will back up what the signs are saying.

The Class G airspace over the Chino Hills State Park will continue to remain Class G airspace unless the California State Park asks for the F.A.A. to install a NO FLY ZONE Geofencing above the park.

The Posted Order Notice from the State Park Superintendent made several fictitious statements about the negative impact of drone flight over the park. These statements do not have any Environment Impact Reports to back them up at all. The State of California simply made up the derogatory stories about the extremely negative information to attempt to justify a reason to prohibit UAS flight over the part.

It’s ALL smoke and mirrors!!!! Don’t believe them for one minute.

California is not the only state. New Jersey also bans UAV from taking off or landing in state parks. It is stated in the park rules available online. There are only 7 exceptions which are "Safe" areas to fly and the rules for these said areas specify fixed wing R/C aircraft only

 

[sar104]

The authority for the posted order is trivial to determine - especially as it is stated at the end of the order:

14 CCR § 4326. Violation of Posted Orders or Special Use, Special Event, Film or Collection Permit.

No person shall

(a) violate any provision of an order posted pursuant to the provisions of section 4301(i) hereof including, but not limited to, prohibited areas, use periods, no alcoholic beverage areas, no smoking areas and no parking areas, where posted in accordance with 4301(q), or,

(b) violate any provision or restriction of a Special Use, Special Event, Film or Collection permit issued pursuant to these regulations.

Note: Authority cited: Section 5003, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 5008, Public Resources Code.
​

referencing 4301(i):

(i) Posting of Notices. The term “posted” as used herein, unless otherwise indicated, shall mean and require that the Department shall set aside at the district headquarters and at the unit affected and in a location convenient to the general public, a bulletin board or similar device upon which shall be posted all special instructions, orders, pertaining to units of the district including but not limited to special hours of operation, swimming and boating restrictions, hunting and camping restrictions, and special instructions pertaining to areas where activities are curtailed or restricted. Proof of posting shall be filed in the offices of the division chiefs or the Sacramento California Office of the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation.​

and based on:

California Public Resources Code Section 5003. (Amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 897, Sec. 2.)

The department shall administer, protect, develop, and interpret the property under its jurisdiction for the use and enjoyment of the public. Except as provided in Section 18930 of the Health and Safety Code, the department may establish rules and regulations not inconsistent with law for the government and administration of the property under its jurisdiction. The department may expend all moneys of the department, from whatever source derived, for the care, protection, supervision, extension, and improvement or development of the property under its jurisdiction.​

It's a legal posted restriction, backed up by California state law.

 

[melmartin]

It won't matter to the OP. He is in an alternate universe, but one where fines are still collected.

 

[sar104]

It won't matter to the OP. He is in an alternate universe, but one where fines are still collected.

I gave up on the OP some time ago, but I thought I'd clarify just for the sake of anyone else left watching this thread.

 

[Dabrain]

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.

@sar104 now it's deflection to the extreme.

 

[melmartin]

Completely ridiculous and irrelevant. The example in no way speaks to the legality of the California rule. Chuckle chuckle, you guys just don't give up.

 

[microlinux]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink . . .

 

[BikerGeek]

The Chino Hills State Park currently has no laws that prohibit the takeoff or landing of UAS in the park. The posted order clearly states to prohibit the flight of any UAS flying over the park.

I was not hiding, I was clearly visible and my vehicle was parked right next to where I was operating my UAS.

The point I am trying to convey here is that 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.

You still make no mention as to whether you were outside the park flying over or within the park.

 

[2020HeinSite]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink . . .

"And you can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."

 

[dirkclod]

And I believe you guy's have killed this horse .