Told I Couldn't Fly in a National Park

[mojpoj]

I recently visited Gila National Monument (owned by the National Park Service) to see the Cliff Dwellings with my family. When we walked up to go into the Cliff Dwellings, I saw a US Forestry Service and a National Park Service sign, side by side. The ranger said the parking lot and everything around the Dwellings was USFS land.

I used our hike up as a scouting mission to see if I could maintain line of sight to get some drone footage if I took off from the parking lot. It looked very doable.

So we re-positioned the truck for a better launch location (safer), and shortly after takeoff we could hear the ranger radios crackling on the other side of the parking lot trying to figure out where the operator was located.

As I was landing, a NPS volunteer spotted me, she came over (incorrectly) telling me I couldn't fly in the National Park. I told her she was wrong, and tried to explain the rule (memo 14-05) to her as I was putting the Mavic away, but she just kept telling me I couldn't fly in the National Park. She finally just said the Park Ranger (who had gone up) was on her way down to talk to me. I said I didn't do anything wrong and wasn't waiting around to speak to her. We left and that was that.

Has anyone else had "run-ins" with the law regarding National Parks specifically? Would love to know how your conversation went.

BTW, there were no special TFRs and it was not a wildlife sensitive area.
I kept the Mavic below 400' and maintained LOS even though I was doing this as a hobbyist and those FAA rules don't strictly apply.

 

[WIMMPYIII]

Don't expect ranger or law enforcement to know the laws and how they apply.

 

[mojpoj]

Don't expect ranger or law enforcement to know the laws and how they apply.

Yep. Chatting with the ranger prior to flight, she was fairly new too.

And the volunteer only knew what she was told. Got the discussion on the GoPro that was rolling when she walked up. She was pretty confused when I tried to explain the technical rule.

I wasn't expecting to fly that day, but I will keep a copy of the relevant laws printed and on hand for future reference. Expecting to butt more heads as we head off for travel next summer.

 

[mojpoj]

Funny also... last week I went to a local park that borders USFS land. At the gate was a sign in sharpie marker that said "no drones". I asked the guy manning the gate ($1 fee to get in) what city ordinance the sign was based on (knowing the city and state does NOT have any rules against drones). The guy said there wasn't any (good answer), just that they discourage drones because they bother people. I told him I was going to fly and he needed to take the sign down or risk his job.

 

[Xtreme Drone Pilot]

I told her she was wrong, and tried to explain the rule (memo 14-05)

Do you have a link to this memo, by chance? I want to have it, too, to be prepared in situations like this.

I think if an area is managed jointly by NFS or BLM _and_ NPS, it's better not to risk it.

As far as NFS ranger's typical knowledge of drone regulations, I was flying in "vanilla" National Forest (not wilderness, not wildlife refuge) one day and a ranger stopped by and said I can't fly drone in NF. I said, to the best of my knowledge, I can, but landed immediately. We chatted a bit about unrelated things and he softened a bit, called the office on the radio and asked, what's our policy on drones? Got an answer I was expecting - it's allowed unless in wilderness or wildlife refuge. So, don't expect rangers to be versed in these things. It's better to have a package of official policies printed out and in your gear bag.

 

[lisadoc]

Do you have a link to this memo, by chance? I want to have it, too, to be prepared in situations like this.

Here's the link:

Policy Memorandum 14-05

 

[tcope]

I recently visited Gila National Monument (owned by the National Park Service) to see the Cliff Dwellings with my family.

This post is killing me. The NPS does not _own_ the park. They are charged with managing it.[/quote]

As I was landing, a NPS volunteer spotted me, she came over (incorrectly) telling me I couldn't fly in the National Park. I told her she was wrong, and tried to explain the rule (memo 14-05) to her as I was putting the Mavic away, but she just kept telling me I couldn't fly in the National Park. She finally just said the Park Ranger (who had gone up) was on her way down to talk to me. I said I didn't do anything wrong and wasn't waiting around to speak to her. We left and that was that.

What part of the memo sent to all National Parks did you explain to her? The following from that memo?

The purpose of this Policy Memorandum is to ensure that the use of unmanned aircraft is addressed in a consistent manner by the NPS before a significant level of such use occurs within the National Park System. Accordingly, I direct each superintendent to use the authority under 36 CFR 1.5 to close units of the National Park System to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft, subject to the conditions and exceptions described below. This action must be taken by superintendents no later than August 20, 2014.

The entire memo is about not being allowed to launch, land or operate a UAV from any land managed by the NPS (which includes Gila National Monument. Are you thinking that Gila is a National Monument so the "National Park" ban does not apply? If so, you are incorrect. If the NPS manages the land, memo 14-05 applies and you are in violation of the park rules and subject to a fine.

Take a look at the official website for the park:

Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument (U.S. National Park Service)

Notice, it's "NPS". You can feel free to argue that it's not a "National Park" all the while they are issuing you a citation. But the National Park Service has authority over and manages this National Monument Area... so they _will_ go by the memo. I'm guessing this is your argument. Feel free to say that it does not apply.... you would be incorrect.

Edit: I'd also refer you to Gila's website and their rules:

https://www.nps.gov/gicl/learn/management/lawsandpolicies.htm

DRONES BANNED AT GILA CLIFF DWELLINGS

Effective immediately the use of drone (Unpiloted) aircraft at Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument is banned. The ban will stay in effect until a complete national policy on drone use in the National Park Service is completed.

BTW, there were no special TFRs and it was not a wildlife sensitive area.
I kept the Mavic below 400' and maintained LOS even though I was doing this as a hobbyist and those FAA rules don't strictly apply.

As I said, this whole post is simply killing me. Why do you think VLOS does not apply to hobby use? It's a regulation that _DOES_ apply to hobby use. it's part of Section 336 which you are obligated to follow if you want to be considered hobby use.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—

...

(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

I think this bares a repost:

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

 

[tcope]

Don't expect ranger or law enforcement to know the laws and how they apply.

In this case, the DO know the laws and how they apply. They are _exactly_ correct.

 

[tcope]

I won't edit my post above as that would be confusing. You don't spell this out but I read a prior post from you. I think what you did not add was that the parking lot was not within the National Monument (though, I'd think if it were a parking lot for the park, it would be on the park property). I'm guessing this because you mentioned walking a distance to it. I think it would also be less confusing (if this is the case) to mention that it's flying _over_ the park, not "in" the park as you mentioned. The park is not the airspace above it... it's the ground itself. So you were not flying _in_ the park... you were _outside_ the park and flying _over_ it. That would be far less confusing and more accurate.

 

[BigAl07]

Just to clarify:

* Property "Managed" by the NPS is a No-Go for UAS without very specific authorization from the Superintendent over that particular area. This is for take-off/landing from their land but they can't legally enforce any "flyover" restrictions.
* They can't stop you from taking off on adjacent property and flying over the area so long as they are not "managing" that property as well.
* Just because you're not busting any FAA regs by flying from adjacent property don't be surprised if they come up with other citations such as reckless flying, harassment, or any number of other local ordinance they wish to throw your way. Sometimes when you play with the bull you get the horns.
* If you decide to buck the system and fly from adjacent land and you have a WHOOPS and are forced to land on NPS maintained land be prepared to lose your UAS to confiscation at least temporarily.

Sometimes just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's the best option/idea to do it.

 

[sar104]

I won't edit my post above as that would be confusing. You don't spell this out but I read a prior post from you. I think what you did not add was that the parking lot was not within the National Monument (though, I'd think if it were a parking lot for the park, it would be on the park property). I'm guessing this because you mentioned walking a distance to it. I think it would also be less confusing (if this is the case) to mention that it's flying _over_ the park, not "in" the park as you mentioned. The park is not the airspace above it... it's the ground itself. So you were not flying _in_ the park... you were _outside_ the park and flying _over_ it. That would be far less confusing and more accurate.

The OP states in his first post that the parking lot is USFS, which has no blanket ban on sUAS operations, not Park Service, which does. I think that was the entire point of the post.

 

[m0j0]

Just to clarify:


* If you decide to buck the system and fly from adjacent land and you have a WHOOPS and are forced to land on NPS maintained land be prepared to lose your UAS to confiscation at least temporarily..

On what authority would they seize your AC? LEO's can't just take your property because you have broken a law or regulation. They couldn't seize your car for failing to use a turn signal.

I'm all for providing feedback and opinion but let's not add false information to the process. A citation is likely seizure of property is not likely at all.

 

[tcope]

The OP states in his first post that the parking lot is USFS, which has no blanket ban on sUAS operations, not Park Service, which does. I think that was the entire point of the post.

Thank you. That does appear to be the case.

 

[mojpoj]

@tcope, I was clear about the parking lot being USFS land. (third sentence) That was the point, I was legal and following the letter of the law, and still got yelled at.

You're playing semantics with "own" vs. "manage", you understood what I was saying. The NPS manages the land, sure, but not the airspace.

And the video you posted, yeah probably bad form given the number of people present, but we should be allowed to fly in the NPS "managed" properties. The 14-05 memo is BS. The authority sited in it, 36 CFR 1.5 says that any "new" park "use" considered controversial should be made rule in the federal register in a timely manner (paraphrasing from memory). So tell me, why hasn't the NPS published a rule (law) regarding airspace? Oh yes, they're not the FAA and can't.

I like the part of the memo, where Director Jarvis says basically "pick a reason" and you are hearby ordered to ban drones via your compendium. Whether the superintendent's wanted to or not, they had to pick reason and band the operation of drones from within the parks.

3. Pursuant to 36 CFR 1.5(c), prepare a written determination justifying the closure.

The determination must explain why the action is necessary for one or more of the reasons set out in 36 CFR 1.5(a). These reasons include the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use activities

To further that point... even the USFS spells it out on their drone FAQ page which clearly states ONLY the FAA can make rules (laws) on drone flights and that they work with the FAA when TFR's are needed.

Interestingly, USFS and NPS both belong to the Deptarment of Interior who doesn't appear to have much a stance on drones.

I concede the point of VLOS, but stated that I had positioned myself to keep VLOS. So I was still hobby, not that any of that would have made sense to the Park Ranger.

If I had stuck around, she may have still written me a ticket and then I would have had to fight it.

* If you decide to buck the system and fly from adjacent land and you have a WHOOPS and are forced to land on NPS maintained land be prepared to lose your UAS to confiscation at least temporarily.

As far as a "whoops" I crashed, then you get into "land" vs. "crash" which have very different meanings in aviation. Not that we need to open that "can of worms".

 

[tcope]

I do certainly agree with that.

It is a little weird that such a small area, and outside of the parking lot, is the monument area and then such a large completely surrounding area is USFS area. I I did miss in your post that you went to the parking lot and launched. My apologies.

There were several discussions over the past couple of years about flying into a "National Park" (which would really be any location managed by the NPS) and how it would most likely be "frowned upon" by the NPS. It was suspected that, at the least, the person would be given hard time about the flight.

 

[mojpoj]

Yep, they completely DO NOT want drones in their personal space (parks).

The Cliff Dwellings are the reason the Park Service manages it. It's better than Mesa Verde in my opinion. More intact and less visited due to the remote location.

That memo 14-05 has a section at the bottom, that specifically says people are allowed to take off outside, fly into, and land outside the park. And that they have no problem with it.

9. Does it matter where an unmanned aircraft is used for the required closures to apply?


Yes. The NPS has the authority to regulate or prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS. As a result, the compendium closures required by the Policy Memorandum only apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS within the boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on non-federally (e.g., private or state) owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS.

This, combined with FAA regulations effectively puts up a 1/2 to 3/4 mile (VLOS) invisible line of demarcation that no drone is "legally" capable of flying past, into a National Park. Thus regulating about 15 million square miles of airspace, which in my opinion is illegal and steps way beyond FAA jurisdiction.

That memo also basically says "throw the book at them" if you catch someone flying a drone. And lists off things to consider citing them for, disturbance, hazard, etc. Just an abuse of power in my opinion.

But I also think that drones shouldn't be flying around heavily populated park areas such as old faithful at Yellowstone. It's plain dangerous and stupid. But there has to be a balance, and the NPS hasn't in the least tried to strike that balance, they just say "no!" which forces some people to say **** it and go rogue.

 

[tcope]

The NPS is not saying, it's okay. What they are acknowledging, and correctly so, is that they cannot regulate public airspace. Not being able to fly on NPS managed land has been discussed many times. I don't see anyone changing that memo any time in the near future. I agree that it covers too much land but I also look at it this way... it they were to carve out smaller areas, people in general would not understand those boundaries and/or us those smaller boundaries to simply fly into areas where drones are not appropriate. I also don't see the NPS doing much to enforce the unpopulated areas of their land.

 

[mojpoj]

The NPS is effectively regulating 15 million or so square miles of airspace from unmanned flight.

They just went "round about" in doing so. I think any reasonable person can see that, no?

Look up Singer Vs.City of Newton. The city tried a "round about" way of banning drones and a judge struck it down.

Singer v. City of Newton-(Case Declaring Local Drone Law Illegal)

The NPS NEEDS a better policy. One that can generate revenue (permits), police the safety of the park, and allow for responsible drone operators to fly anywhere within the park boundaries.

My profile pic is me (Navy) and I fully understand aviation safety. I appreciate the need for regulation and rules, but the NPS needs to make theirs make sense. Flying a drone up a random box canyon ( way off the beaten path ) for some epic family video drone shot and never needing to go over 100 feet shouldn't result in a $1200 dollar fine.

 

[RC5728]

The NPS is effectively regulating 15 million or so square miles of airspace from unmanned flight.

They just went "round about" in doing so. I think any reasonable person can see that, no?

Look up Singer Vs.City of Newton. The city tried a "round about" way of banning drones and a judge struck it down.

Singer v. City of Newton-(Case Declaring Local Drone Law Illegal)

The NPS NEEDS a better policy. One that can generate revenue (permits), police the safety of the park, and allow for responsible drone operators to fly anywhere within the park boundaries.

My profile pic is me (Navy) and I fully understand aviation safety. I appreciate the need for regulation and rules, but the NPS needs to make theirs make sense. Flying a drone up a random box canyon ( way off the beaten path ) for some epic family video drone shot and never needing to go over 100 feet shouldn't result in a $1200 dollar fine.

Completely agree.

A permit should not even be needed. A lot of the National Parks are big enough that there are spacious areas where you could fly a drone all day long and never be heard or seen by anyone.

The noise excuse is BS. Most of the parks have thousands of motorcycles going through them all day, every day.

The wildlife excuse is also BS. Sure, people should be cited if they harass wildlife and cause a problem, but that applies REGARDLESS of drones.

 

[tcope]

The NPS is effectively regulating 15 million or so square miles of airspace from unmanned flight.

They just went "round about" in doing so. I think any reasonable person can see that, no?

Look up Singer Vs.City of Newton. The city tried a "round about" way of banning drones and a judge struck it down.

Singer v. City of Newton-(Case Declaring Local Drone Law Illegal)

There is a big difference that makes them completely different. The NPS is specifically not regulating airspace, the city was attempting to do that. The NPS has their ruling correct. They have every right to dictate the rules that apply to people on the property that they manage.

I don't disagree that the entire ban is excessive. Someone can say that but coming up with something less that works is the problem. Does flying in a canyon 30 miles from anyone harm anyone? No. But do you think the NPS should then add an exception just for that one canyon? Pointless. So it should be a bigger area. Now you get to the problem... how close to used areas will that boundary be? Make it too close and people could simply do as you did, fly from outside the boundary right into a well used area. So the reasoning behind the ban has been defeated. If you create these artificial boundaries how is everyone supposed to know exactly where they are? If the NPS allows drones to a certain extent, people will fly where they should not and claim that they thought drones were allows and did not know where the boundary was. Lastly, if you are 30 miles from anyone/anything... I don't see that a park ranger is going to be in that area to see you flying.

So, do I think the ban is excessive? Yes. But I can also see somehow allowing drones would create other issues.