Told I Couldn't Fly in a National Park

[FLYBOYJ]

The general rule I've been following - National "Parks" are off limits.

National "Forests" are ok.

I've flown in Pike national forest in full view of rangers, no issues

 

[mojpoj]

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.

One word... youtube. NPS has ticketed people for posting videos on youtube, not worth the risk.

I'm saying the similarities between Newton and NPS are that they went "round about" to accomplish the same task, ban drones.

Newton said drones couldn't fly below 400' without property owners permission. Effectively banning drones from the city airspace.

NPS is saying we own all the property and you can't take off from it. Effectively banning drones from the park airspace.

 

[Peterdivergbr]

I have just recently returned from a road trip encompassing Monument Valley, Grand Canyon, and Yosemite. I had managed to get my drone registered with the various required agencies and had even received information as to the means of bringing my drone into the country without problems.
Sadly, wherever I wished to fly it was made clear, either with posted notices or warning by staff that drone flight was strictly prohibited.
Ah well, other than that we had a wonderful holiday. Thanks to all in the USA who made us welcome and our holiday a success.

 

[ReadyKilowatt]

Much of the forest area around Aspen Colorado is designated wilderness. I know on the part 107 test they stressed that it is a grey area for flying, in that you can't take off or land in the wilderness but you can fly over as long as you're not harassing wildlife (or something, it doesn't really seem to be spelled out). I'm guessing that the same rules apply for hobby pilots, because in wilderness areas the rule is "no motorized vehicles." So if the area around the monument is also a designated wilderness area you might have another layer of regulation to get through. But it sounds like you took off and landed from the parking lot, so OK either way.

Years from now I imagine a precedent setting court case when a real life Steve Austin's bionic legs are defined as a motorized vehicle just because some idiot in the forest service does't want him running around the woods at 60 mph, but that's going off topic...

 

[ac0j]

I dont think the drones themselves caused all the bans.
I believe it was more about a FEW idiot drone pilots doing dumb things in national parks, with their drones, that gave drones a bad name. I think national parks would be a great place to get aerial photos and videos, but thanks to a few bad apples we all get penalized.

I look at the drone bans like the gun control campaign. Its too hard to control and educate idiots, so you ban the tools they use.

 

[Alex 13]

Very soon we will be ask management of FPS " Can I use my camera to do a photos ?"

 

[ReadyKilowatt]

I dont think the drones themselves caused all the bans.
I believe it was more about a FEW idiot drone pilots doing dumb things in national parks, with their drones, that gave drones a bad name. I think national parks would be a great place to get aerial photos and videos, but thanks to a few bad apples we all get penalized.

I look at the drone bans like the gun control campaign. Its too hard to control and educate idiots, so you ban the tools they use.

There's also the culture of the park service, that stewardship means keeping humans out and that the ecosystem is extremely fragile. There are lots of places where a crashed drone (these things still crash even without pilot error) wouldn't necessarily cause problems, but the human trying to retrieve it will. So the park now has to have someone go out and retrieve it, taking time away from "normal" activities. Eventually if drones were permitted drone retrieval will become a normal activity, but bureaucrats tend to prefer a static world.

And of course if it is just left there to rot it detracts from the nature stuff. I'm sure to many people (especially those who tend to viscerally overreact to anything less than perfection), an abandoned crashed drone is just like someone letting their stupid teenager carve their initials into sandstone along the trail.

 

[beachcombing]

Very soon we will be ask management of FPS " Can I use my camera to do a photos ?"

Cameras typically do not end up in precious natural features such as the Grand Prismatic Spring as a Phantom did when a tourist crashed his into it.

 

[LivinLarge]

Very soon we will be ask management of FPS " Can I use my camera to do a photos ?"

Some places already ban tripods (but there is a way around it.)

 

[wankel7]

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.

A staggering percentage of park visitors never leave the pavement in NPs. Many venture onto trails but not far from their cars. Those two things are a reason drones are banned. Your average drone operator is going to fire it up in the super popular areas and annoy the heck out of a bunch of other park users with little disregard for safety.

I doubt your average drone operator is going to hike off trail for 8 miles with a 5 lbs of drone equipment to get epic footage.

There is a reason boondocking isn't allowed, mountain biking isn't allowed, camping where ever you want isn't allowed, and permits for everything exsist in NPs. There are simply too many users concentrated in a small area.

Maybe ban within the popular areas but allow them deep within the park.

 

[Mavic_Sohail]

So Whats the verdict here? To fly or not to fly in National Parks/National Forests?

What documentation can i carry with me if i can fly? I live close to Sequoia National Park and it sucks that I am not sure if I can fly.

 

[sar104]

So Whats the verdict here? To fly or not to fly in National Parks/National Forests?

What documentation can i carry with me if i can fly? I live close to Sequoia National Park and it sucks that I am not sure if I can fly.

If you mean what is the law, then it's simple; in National Parks and designated wilderness National Forest sUAS operations (takeoff/landing) are prohibited, while regular National Forest has no general rules against sUAS operations.

 

[Xtreme Drone Pilot]

I dont think the drones themselves caused all the bans.
I believe it was more about a FEW idiot drone pilots doing dumb things in national parks, with their drones, that gave drones a bad name. I think national parks would be a great place to get aerial photos and videos, but thanks to a few bad apples we all get penalized.

No. NPS has a very long history of hate towards any aerial activity. I'm a BASE jumper, and BASE jumping is not allowed in any National Park. I wish I could fly my wingsuit off the magnificent walls in Yosemite or jump into Grand Canyon, but I can't. They use the same law, "aerial delivery", used to prohibit airplanes dropping supplies to people living illegally on NPS land, and apply it to any aerial activity you can imagine. See
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2007-title36-vol1/pdf/CFR-2007-title36-vol1-sec2-17.pdf

The ONLY exclusion to this is some very limited hanggliding allowed by permits from the Glacier Point in Yosemite. That's it, for the whole country!

So no, it's not because some idiots ruined it for everyone. I doubt NPS is going to allow drones, ever.

 

[Xtreme Drone Pilot]

Much of the forest area around Aspen Colorado is designated wilderness. I know on the part 107 test they stressed that it is a grey area for flying, in that you can't take off or land in the wilderness but you can fly over as long as you're not harassing wildlife (or something, it doesn't really seem to be spelled out). I'm guessing that the same rules apply for hobby pilots, because in wilderness areas the rule is "no motorized vehicles."

Good site to check wilderness boundaries:

Wilderness.net - U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System Map

 

[LeighD]

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.

You cannot fly in any National Park unless you took off outside it’s boundary and landed outside it’s boundary. All National Parks are off limits to take off and landing in the National Parks. They know it too and they are quick to stop it. Lost drone in the famous hot spring initiated it all in Yellowstone.

 

[HapK]

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.

Interesting. I like how you knew your rules or laws regarding flight. For what it's worth I fly in a Calif. State Park almost daily. I asked a ranger last week if it was okay and he said that from October to March it is but for the other months the Snowy Plover has priority and no drones allowed.

 

[hs106]

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.

Actually, yes they can, and they often do. Civil asset forfeiture. And good luck getting your property back.

 

[ColinF]

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.


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.

A very articulate, reasoned and rational approach. Too bad the bureaucrats in the NPS have no common, nor, sense of fairness.

 

[SteveCA]

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.

I carry a hard copy of that memo in my drone backpack just for occasions like this.

 

[ColinF]

I carry a hard copy of that memo in my drone backpack just for occasions like this.

The NPS ban was supposed to be temporary. Check out my video that spells this out before I fly over a National Park:

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