WHY?

[ericole]

The majority of the national parks and reserves. You simply not allowed, for no good reason. I can understander not flying over wilderness, as to not upset the animals, but why am I not allowed to fly in an amazing locations such as the one in the picture: Valley of fire, in NV? You can park motorhomes there, you can put a tent, but drones... oh no.

I agree. I visit a lot of NP and the flat "you can't fly" rule is asinine. The part about scaring animals, etc is nonsense would you consider the most heavily visited parks have crazy loud motorcyclists and vehicles all the time - way louder than a drone. And on and on the other risks/concerns are that are allowed.

 

[ericole]

As an American I agree about the parks. Seems the park service is anti drone. I could see not wanting a lot of noise, but once you get up to 400 feet there's not much noise. As I've said previously, I'm against almost all drone restrictions except around airports.

honestly, once you get up to 50' or so there isn't much noise - at least not from my original Mavic Pro.

 

[Ty Pilot]

The part about scaring animals, etc is nonsense would you consider the most heavily visited parks have crazy loud motorcyclists and vehicles all the time - way louder than a drone.

Yeah, but have any of those motorcycles or vehicles ever been abandoned in one of the largest, and most visited hot springs in Yellowstone? Or have they ever had to remove a Harley Davidson from the facial features of one of the presidents faces carved into the side of Mt Rushmore? Has there ever been a station wagon; break out of the parking lot and force juvenile Big Horn sheep to be separated from the herd in Zion Nat'l Park?

All this and much more was done by drones years ago.

It's not just about the sounds drones make.

 

[ericole]

I am aware of all of that. I think a simple solution is to only allow licensed pilots AND they can even require them to get a permit beforehand. It should be simple - some online thing - but you can submit that you are going to be in such-and-such a place, would like to fly, etc. That way it is controlled and those kinds of pilots are much less likely to do the dumb things that would result in those kinds of mishaps. The reality is that people who won't obey they law will always not obey the law (or regulation, whatever). But making blanket restrictions is very limiting when it probably doesn't need to be.

 

[RedBaron2]

I am aware of all of that. I think a simple solution is to only allow licensed pilots AND they can even require them to get a permit beforehand. It should be simple - some online thing - but you can submit that you are going to be in such-and-such a place, would like to fly, etc. That way it is controlled and those kinds of pilots are much less likely to do the dumb things that would result in those kinds of mishaps. The reality is that people who won't obey they law will always not obey the law (or regulation, whatever). But making blanket restrictions is very limiting when it probably doesn't need to be.

Drone pilots are viewed as an "invasive species", comparable to spies. Until that perception changes, you can anticipate "more", not "less" restrictions.

 

[BobaFut]

Yeah, but have any of those motorcycles or vehicles ever been abandoned in one of the largest, and most visited hot springs in Yellowstone? Or have they ever had to remove a Harley Davidson from the facial features of one of the presidents faces carved into the side of Mt Rushmore? Has there ever been a station wagon; break out of the parking lot and force juvenile Big Horn sheep to be separated from the herd in Zion Nat'l Park?

All this and much more was done by drones years ago.

It's not just about the sounds drones make.

This is a specious argument, and you highlight some very disruptive things! How much noise do Harley Davidsons make, especially when a group ride rolls into a park? How much wildlife is killed by cars every day? Snowmobiling, which is famously known for being super quiet and non-disruptive, is a huge draw in Yellowstone and there has been endless debate over whether it should be allowed (it still is). Overall, cars and other motorized vehicles are probably the most disruptive thing you could bring to a national park, but we dedicate massive amounts of space for them in parks, from roads to parking, not to mention all the disruption and damage that maintenance and things like snowplowing cause. Then you have things like hikers, who oftentimes require medical assistance or rescue, or who bring dogs that bark or maybe even chase wildlife. A person throwing a cigarette out their car window, or not properly maintaining their campfire, are more of a danger than drones by several orders of magnitude.

But drones are niche, so the "disruption" they cause is not familiar to most people and so they get banned, even though parks are filled with much more disruptive things. Those other things are just "normal" to everyone and so not perceived as disruptive.

 

[shawgod]

Around here in Wisconsin there are tons of places to fly. There are restrictions on flying in state parks. There is only one state park you can fly in. But otherwise there is a large amount of the state to fly in.

 

[Dmcvey]

Not sure where you're trying to fly but I can fly ANYWHERE I want around here in the south Eastern US with the exception of National Parks. Not sure where you might be.
Hell, I fly up to several miles out in all directions.
Obviously, I stay within FAA guidelines but I haven't seen ANY restrictions like you're mentioning.

I can tell you right now Savannah, GA is 100% drone friendly as well as OneWheels, scooters, electric skateboards and electric bikes all over our streets. Couldn't ask for more freedom around here!!


Maybe way up north where they like to tell people how to live its different but we still enjoy our freedom in the dirty south.

I fly up to several miles out in all directions. Obviously, I stay within FAA guidelines

3 words... "see and avoid" ... unable to that "several miles out" so you are not in FAA guidelines.

 

[Dmcvey]

All one has to do is visit a US National Park and watch the tourists for a few minutes: it quickly becomes clear people do the most stupid, childish, and idiotic things to get selfies. If these same people had drones, the parks would be trash heaps even worse than they are today.

People putting kids next to moose, bears, buffalo for a photo op? Seriously? Yes, watched a gal run up a hill to get within ten feet of a bull moose to get a selfie. Another wanting her kid to go stand next to a buffalo. The park servive has even more experience than I do, I trust the rules are there for good reason. Also - someone commented a hundred visitors a day: no, it is like average 13,000 visitors a day, 4.8M a year. On good summer days, more than 25,000 isn't uncommon.

Add tourist climbing Mayan temples, taking nakey pics on pyramids. People are stupid and have no restraint.
The sign at the zoo that says "Don't feed the bears" is there because someone tried.

 

[Dmcvey]

I agree. I visit a lot of NP and the flat "you can't fly" rule is asinine. The part about scaring animals, etc is nonsense would you consider the most heavily visited parks have crazy loud motorcyclists and vehicles all the time - way louder than a drone. And on and on the other risks/concerns are that are allowed.

But some would fly out several miles and still claim VLOS. What about crashes or forced landings, now you have to go find it.

 

[karlblessing]

If you're planning visits and such. Michigan is one of those states where you can pretty much fly in any public area (Not "National"/Federal parks, and the obvious controlled airspace needs additional authorization). Any county or township with "No Drone" signs are actually not legal as Michigan prohibits any political subdivision from regulating the ownership or operation of drones. There's just a couple minor gotchas like staying 100 yards away from historical structures and not launching from places like the viewing platform of Tequamenon falls.