Well, there he goes- pilot flying in a National Park (US)

[NEWorldPhoto]

We are being singled out because we are not cohesive as a community and we are easy victims because our hobby is stereotyped. This will change....soon.

Correct! Society is always paranoid of everything new that emerges, and drones as a new technology are being vilified and stereotyped.
And unfortunately at the government and specially at the "municipal" level the paranoia is usually worse! It's a shame that the people in the "government arena" are usually the ones that most lack common sense and reasonability, while they should be the most reasonable and have better intelligence, as their decisions affect all of us.
Yes, I'm talking specifically about those in charge of our public lands and parks, be "national" or "state" or "city" park or whatever.. those are usually the most unreasonable and the ones that impose the worst restrictions!
Fortunately they cannot control the airspace, that's controlled by the FAA which seems more reasonable regarding drone flying than those people who control land use, and that affects WHERE we can takeoff and land. In fact, as long as I know, we can even fly legally OVER a National Park area IF we takeoff and land OUTSIDE such prohibitive zone, because the NPS cannot have jurisdiction over their airspace that's regulated by the FAA and not by them.
Oh, and I don't think the NPS prohibits something like a paraglider or ultralight or small plane or helicopter from flying over a NP? And a small plane is bigger and more "dangerous" than a tiny drone, right? Isn't it ironic that the NPS doesn't see a normal airplane with such bad eyes like they see the less dangerous drones??????
Hope that somebody with enough power and enough intelligence and common sense pushes for a change in the near future! Doesn't any of them ever read these threads? Do they have any sort of forum themselves where we can give them feedback? Apparently they are not open to any feedback from the common people with common sense????

 

[NEWorldPhoto]

I keep seeing people making claims of predicting sheer chaos and devastation by allowing drones in certain areas (NP, state parks, city parks, etc) and using those hyped-up claims to justify the banning of drones (think of the children!) in pretty much all areas of the public. I believe there are those even on this forum, surprisingly seeing as this should be the most pro-drone community around, who seem like they would support bans of drones flying anywhere except right over the pilots own land.

Can anyone show any evidence of this chaos and devastation that happens right now in the few places that drones are actually allowed? I'm not talking about one or two egregious stories by some idiot. You can find those things in literally every activity known to man. And I'd bet you'll find those types of stories tens or hundreds of times over in all those other legal activities more than you will with drones. And as mentioned if those idiots actually do something to cause damage then I'm sure we could find a law already in existence to hold them responsible.

I just got back from Colorado Springs and I was pretty disappointed to find out I couldn't fly my drone pretty much anywhere in the vicinity of the city. However, pretty much every park I went to allowed dogs ("clean up after your dog" - yeah right), horses (has anyone seen what horse hooves do to the "national gems" not to mention there's no rule to clean up after your horses), mountain bikes (same as horses in potential damages minus the deposits but a lot more of them), etc.

Do you think I enjoyed having to give dog owners who kept there dogs on a 15 ft leash (that is if they even followed the leash rules at all and there were a few that didn't) a wide birth because you have no idea if the dog is dangerous or not or having to watch where I walked so I didn't take part of the dog or horse home with me on my shoes or having to watch for cyclists who would come whizzing by on the trails who think (know?) they are "entitled" to ride their bikes there?

In the meantime my drone flying at 200 feet up not one person would likely notice and it has zero impact on the natural surroundings. Heck I'm fairly positive it even has way less impact than me and my wife and the thousands/millions of others hiking in those locations year after year.

Can anyone give another example of such an inconsequential activity that is just banned outright without needing to show an overwhelming need to do so for the public good? I thought laws were supposed to be tightly tailored to the obvious concern at hand and not overly broad. At least that's the way the vast majority of laws are written...except when it comes to drones.

I just don't get it.

Can't be said any better!
See my other responses to this thread. This should be forwarded to all people in administrative charge of all those public lands and open their eyes to the facts! Specially the ones at Colorado Springs! This has to change! Somebody must take action and do something!!

 

[NEWorldPhoto]

People cite the annoying noise of a drone, but I have yet to see motorcycles banned.

And the noise of helicopters, planes, cars, and so many things that make noise? Oh, and don't say that motor vehicles are something necessary but drones are not... if drones are used for "unnecessary" "recreational" purposes, aren't motor vehicles also used for pleasure and recreation too? There's no excuse!

 

[BroomRider]

I'm ob

The National Parks were the “compromise” granted by Congress, they were created to protect just a small percent of the best places owned by the US government for their natural grandeur and wildlife for the benefit of all people, not for the benefit of a few with special interests. It’s true that certain negative impacts and uses have been allowed, but adding more to that adds to the cumulative negative impacts. The National Park Service recognizes this and has been trying to rein in some of it and start reversing the impacts by using management such as lottery systems to limit visitation as there are so many people at some sites, to start permit system for special uses (there are many other larger numbers of special users besides a minority of hobby drone pilots who also want access to the parks), and better habitat management techniques such as using prescribed fire.

I'm obligated to point out the US gov't has no business owning anything, least of all, places that it deems “public parks”.

Lest anyone forget, the gov't is not a separate entity unto itself – it's made up of its citizens, the people, of which the group is called “the public”, but that “public” equally consists of each person, each citizen, of whom each pays taxes, & therefore, owns those “public parks”.

Reasonable accommodations need to & must be made for those who also enjoy flying in those areas, provided they don't incur any specific or unreasonable danger to those areas.

Several ideas have already been brought up to describe reasonable restrictions, but to outright ban UAVs & their pilots from also enjoying those “public parks” – simply because others may not like them there, surprisingly, even some in this forum! — is at least, a disservice, & certainly unjust.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Isn't it a pity that drone-whingers don't adopt the same live-and-let-live mindset? Or more to the point - just mind their own business.

Isn't it their business if a drone is flying around spoiling their experience of the natural beauty and gentle sounds of the wilderness?

By saying this, don't assume I share this view. But I don't have to to understand I share that public space, and their desired use is important too.

In fact, given the rules, clearly the "enjoyment of nature" use has been deemed far more important by us, collectively, through the best process we've come up with to peacefully resolve such differences. This means everyone has to make compromises in their lives to have peace and order, and it's way better than the alternative.

Karens are annoying and irritating. But she was right in this case.

 

[Droning on and on...]

A great big “you got that right” when it comes to noise levels. There are things allowed that are considerably louder and more disruptive than a consumer grade sUAS. Even wilderness areas only request that pilots fly aircraft higher than 2000’ AGL over those areas. I’m here to attest that single engine fixed wing aircraft at 2000’ AGL are way louder than a multirotor sUAS at only 50’ AGL. The disturbing wildlife myth needs to be debunked at some point.

Somehow you've missed the plethora of vista points and other locations far from roads or habitation in these parks where there is complete silence other than the wind in the trees and other natural sounds. You have to leave the populated areas, like Yosemite Village, to have this experience.

Go backpacking miles into the wilderness, and the silence and calm are continous. An aircraft low enough to hear is rare.

The solution to this is to have regular, scheduled days where drone flight is permitted in the park, with populated, concentrated camping areas prohibited. So you could take off from some location without people around, get awesome shots of Yosemite Falls, and anyone that wants to enjoy the natural beauty of the falls doesn't that day.

The FAA could even allow some sort of exception in the rules for exceeding 400' AGL if staying within 1000' (or whatever the deemed safe envelope) near natural attractions like waterfalls.

It's been done before. Why this isn't a routine, regular compromise is a mystery.

 

[DoomMeister]

Somehow you've missed the plethora of vista points and other locations far from roads or habitation in these parks where there is complete silence other than the wind in the trees and other natural sounds. You have to leave the populated areas, like Yosemite Village, to have this experience.

Go backpacking miles into the wilderness, and the silence and calm are continous. An aircraft low enough to hear is rare.

The solution to this is to have regular, scheduled days where drone flight is permitted in the park, with populated, concentrated camping areas prohibited. So you could take off from some location without people around, get awesome shots of Yosemite Falls, and anyone that wants to enjoy the natural beauty of the falls doesn't that day.

The FAA could even allow some sort of exception in the rules for exceeding 400' AGL if staying within 1000' (or whatever the deemed safe envelope) near natural attractions like waterfalls.

It's been done before. Why this isn't a routine, regular compromise is a mystery.

I agree there has to be a compromise that suits all involved including UAS use. My point was that planes, helicopters, trains, etc. can be heard for many miles whereas most consumer grade UAS aircraft can barely be heard at 650’ away (400’ AGL and 500’ out) much less miles away.

When I was younger and more fit I did get to places totally away from other people, but guess what? Planes, trains, and cargo ships could still be heard. At that time I could climb to get the vista shot. Now it is just too dangerous to attempt such stunts.

 

[Droning on and on...]

When I was younger and more fit I did get to places totally away from other people, but guess what? Planes, trains, and cargo ships could still be heard. At that time I could climb to get the vista shot. Now it is just too dangerous to attempt such stunts.

Yeah, I'm way too old and physically incapable of doing much of the rugged outdoor stuff I did younger than 61

While I can't dispute your point that aircraft can occasionally be heard, in my younger experiences it was rare, and in the Sierra mountains we didn't have to tolerate ships. Trains are, relative to the number of daylight hours, pretty rare too. Not a problem in Yosemite.

Regardless of opinions about how much/little of a problem there is, the argument is unnecessary, as a reasonable compromise and accommodation can be made, if only those in power would acknowledge drone operators fair and equal access to these sites.

Not holding my breath.

 

[mavic3usa]

In the desert in Arizona and Nevada, you can hear military jet aircraft you can't even see.

 

[Droning on and on...]

And in space, no one can hear you scream.

 

[dronesgoodsngpstsuck!]

Drones are not your problem. ****** screaming outrageous noise level single piston aircraft are your problem and yet they fly with impunity.