PSA: Drones in National Park Service Units

[Qwweb]

Hello I have been wandering through drone footage on Youtube (cause it's cool) and I have found some things that drone pilots may not be fully aware of yet. Some background on the issue is that my mom is a landscape architect who does contracted work for the National Park Service on a regular basis. Over the weekend while I was showing her footage that someone had taken of a National Monument she told me something interesting. Drones are not only illegal to fly without a commercial permit (only given for contractors for NPS use) in a National Park Service Unit (any piece of land belonging to the NPS). The penalties can vary in severity, I have heard as little as a $70 fine but the fines and penalties for flying over, say the Lincoln Monument or Arlington National Cemetery would be very different. Up to this year the policy would differ from park to park, but over this summer with the 100th anniversary of the National Parks a severe crackdown and emphasis on enforcing the law has been enacted, and yes even if you have a license you will be fined and/or arrested. Know before you fly, and know before you go. Have a good time flying!

https://www.npca.org/articles/951-flight-plan

https://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/PM_14-05.htm

https://www.nps.gov/search/?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nps&query=drones    

http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-recreational-users/

[Hackentosher]

That doesn't sound right. Commercial licenses are only necessary for when you are flying a UAS between 0.55-55lbs for money. Say you were using an Inspire 1 for footage of say Yellow Stone for a movie. That would need a commercial license, which is actually a really difficult test. I'm not familiar with the FAA's rules regarding national parks, but I assume if it's for personal use, users are fine with just the $5 registration. 

[Hackentosher]

After reviewing the four links you provided, the first and second ones are simply examples of inexperienced people operating something cool they found in Best Buy. There are an increasing number of (dji) Phantom Menaces and it's ruining the hobby for the rest of us responsible pilots. This here is what I'm talking about:

 

The third link is broken, and the fourth is just the FAA's rules regarding the fact operation of SUASs. 

 

I'm all for educated, competent pilots enjoying this hobby responsibly, but I think a "no fly zone" isn't the best option here. I think a quick online quiz with the FAA for a recreational use license is a good idea. If the NPS could work that into their admissions to the parks. Just some thoughts. 

[Qwweb]

16 hours ago, Hackentosher said:

That doesn't sound right. Commercial licenses are only necessary for when you are flying a UAS between 0.55-55lbs for money. Say you were using an Inspire 1 for footage of say Yellow Stone for a movie. That would need a commercial license, which is actually a really difficult test. I'm not familiar with the FAA's rules regarding national parks, but I assume if it's for personal use, users are fine with just the $5 registration. 

As clarification, FAA has authority in NPS units, and they are a separate division of the government; therefore a permit (for the Park) must be acquired from both agencies and express written permission given by the superintendent of the Park in question. An FAA license does not allow you to fly in National Park Boundries, the second link is an official memo from the director of the National Park Service in regards to US Title 36, CFR,  §1.5 regarding the right for the NPS to close and/or limit public uses of resources.

Paragraph (b) reads: Except in emergency situations, a closure, designation, use or activity restriction or condition, or the termination or relaxation of such, which is of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the park area, adversely affect the park's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, require a long-term or significant modification in the resource management objectives of the unit, or is of a highly controversial nature, shall be published as rulemaking in the Federal Register.

And Paragraph (f) reads:  Violating a closure, designation, use or activity restriction or condition, schedule of visiting hours, or public use limit is prohibited.

 

In regards to this the purpose of the NPS memo reads:

 

Purpose

 

 

 

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.

 

 

For purposes of this Policy Memorandum, the term "unmanned aircraft" means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the device, and the associated operational elements and components that are required for the pilot or system operator in command to operate or control the device (such as cameras, sensors, communication links). This term includes all types of devices that meet this definition (e.g., model airplanes, quadcopters, drones) that are used for any purpose, including for recreation or commerce.

 

In regards to the FAA:

 

8.      Does the Policy Memorandum affect the primary jurisdiction of the FAA over the National Airspace System?

 

No. Nothing in the Policy Memorandum will be construed as modifying any requirement imposed by the FAA on the use or operation of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System. A special use permit issued by the NPS does not exempt the operator from obtaining the appropriate authorization and permits from the FAA. For example, the NPS cannot issue a permit for a commercial unmanned aircraft activity unless the FAA has sanctioned the flight first. The NPS will continue to coordinate with the FAA on national or other appropriate levels regarding the use of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1.5 

https://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/PM_14-05.htm

[Hackentosher]

2 hours ago, Qwweb said:

Snip 

Damn that is a lot of lawyerese  thanks for clarifying. 

[corrado33]

Drones SHOULD be banned from national parks. For MANY reasons.

 

1: They're loud.

2: They're dangerous in inexperienced hands.

3: They can destroy landmarks. Do you know how sensitive the hot springs are in yellowstone? A leaking li-ion battery could destroy the ecosystem that people come to see.

4: They can't be recovered from certain landmarks. Springs in yellowstone have been ruined by people throwing things like change and rocks into them. Heck, a drone was crashed into the grand prismatic spring. 

5: A drone attracts the attention of everyone around it. When it's landing, when it's taking off, everyone within 10 feet has their eyes on it. That sort of thing should not be allowed in the main places of the park. The "walkway" next to the grand prismatic spring and morning glory pool is 10 feet wide. That's the only place to walk. Everything else is bacterial mats which you are not allowed to even touch, let alone walk on. How many drone owners do you know could land their drone on 10 foot wide path which is constantly filled with hundreds of people? What are they going to do? Block off the walkway to land their drone. Sure, the park rangers would LOVE that. 

6: They can and do scare animals. Do you know how dangerous a scared bull moose is? A scared bison? Most of you probably don't realize how big those animals are. Most people don't realize it until they're driving in yellowstone and the bison comes up beside the car and it's taller than most cars and almost as long as a compact car. They're freaking huge. 

 

These places, national parks, are places to come see the beauty of NATURE. Not hear the buzzing of dozens of drones all looking to get the exact same picture that's on every postcard of yellowstone...

 

Besides, the air around the springs is constantly filled with steam. It'd be very dangerous to fly a drone there. You'd EASILY lose sight of it. 

 

Look at the effects of people throwing things into the "Morning Glory" spring. The blue color is from a "heat loving" bacteria. Things thrown into the pool block the heat vents, killing the bacteria and changing it from a deep blue to the pale blue/orange/yellow you see today. 

 

In 1966: 

 

Now: 

[Hackentosher]

@corrado33 I'd argue that the photo of that hole thing look so cooler now, with its more diverse an de vibrant colors. I agree that's inexperienced pilots are dumbasses and need help, but have you ever seen really well done aerial videography? It's damn incredible. Now imagine that perspective on El Capitan or something. I want that footage too.

[straight_stewie]

On 10/19/2016 at 4:07 PM, Qwweb said:

As clarification, FAA has authority in NPS units, and they are a separate division of the government; therefore a permit (for the Park) must be acquired from both agencies and express written permission given by the superintendent of the Park in question. An FAA license does not allow you to fly in National Park Boundries, the second link is an official memo from the director of the National Park Service in regards to US Title 36, CFR,  §1.5 regarding the right for the NPS to close and/or limit public uses of resources.

Well duh the FAA has authority of airspace in NPS units. There is only one section of airspace in the United States that the FAA doesn't have authority over, and it's total size is 52 acres (interestingly enough, they are still obligated to be the first line of defense of this airspace). I just thought that I'd throw my two cents in there on that one.

 

7 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Drones SHOULD be banned from national parks. For MANY reasons.

 

1: They're loud.

2: They're dangerous in inexperienced hands.

3: They can destroy landmarks. Do you know how sensitive the hot springs are in yellowstone? A leaking li-ion battery could destroy the ecosystem that people come to see.

4: They can't be recovered from certain landmarks. Springs in yellowstone have been ruined by people throwing things like change and rocks into them. Heck, a drone was crashed into the grand prismatic spring. 

5: A drone attracts the attention of everyone around it. When it's landing, when it's taking off, everyone within 10 feet has their eyes on it. That sort of thing should not be allowed in the main places of the park. The "walkway" next to the grand prismatic spring and morning glory pool is 10 feet wide. That's the only place to walk. Everything else is bacterial mats which you are not allowed to even touch, let alone walk on. How many drone owners do you know could land their drone on 10 foot wide path which is constantly filled with hundreds of people? What are they going to do? Block off the walkway to land their drone. Sure, the park rangers would LOVE that. 

6: They can and do scare animals. Do you know how dangerous a scared bull moose is? A scared bison? Most of you probably don't realize how big those animals are. Most people don't realize it until they're driving in yellowstone and the bison comes up beside the car and it's taller than most cars and almost as long as a compact car. They're freaking huge. 

1. Yup, so are cars, tourists, maintenance equipment, and the occasional military flyovers (like the always awesome full afterburner flyovers of Mt. Rushmore on July 3rd)
2. Yup, so are cars, tourists, maintenance equipment, knowledge, money, water, well really anything is dangerous in inexperienced or evil hands.
3. I have no argument there. That is very true, however there might be a better solution than a blanket ban on toys on NPS controlled lands.
4. See number 3
5. It doesn't matter what park rangers "love" it matters whats morally and ethically correct. An experienced pilot can easily fly a drone overhead and catch it by hand. Beyond that, sometimes a blanket ban might be acceptable during very busy tourist seasons.
6. Yup, so do people, cars, maintenance equipment, other animals, and park rangers.

 

[Hackentosher]

I understand that drones can be disruptive and dangerous, but guess what, they can do all those things outside of a national park and still have the same negative effects. However, they can capture footage like this 

This isn't a national park but a national forest, but another good example of the photographic and videographic potential of these aircraft in the right location. 

[corrado33]

On 10/21/2016 at 9:31 PM, straight_stewie said:

Well duh the FAA has authority of airspace in NPS units. There is only one section of airspace in the United States that the FAA doesn't have authority over, and it's total size is 52 acres (interestingly enough, they are still obligated to be the first line of defense of this airspace). I just thought that I'd throw my two cents in there on that one.

 

1. Yup, so are cars, tourists, maintenance equipment, and the occasional military flyovers (like the always awesome full afterburner flyovers of Mt. Rushmore on July 3rd)
2. Yup, so are cars, tourists, maintenance equipment, knowledge, money, water, well really anything is dangerous in inexperienced or evil hands.
3. I have no argument there. That is very true, however there might be a better solution than a blanket ban on toys on NPS controlled lands.
4. See number 3
5. It doesn't matter what park rangers "love" it matters whats morally and ethically correct. An experienced pilot can easily fly a drone overhead and catch it by hand. Beyond that, sometimes a blanket ban might be acceptable during very busy tourist seasons.
6. Yup, so do people, cars, maintenance equipment, other animals, and park rangers.

 

Yes, cars and maintenance equipment CAN be lound, except for the fact that any place where cars can drive are HUNDREDS of meters away from any of the landmarks. So sure, you're welcome to make that argument, but you're wrong. Have you ever been to yellowstone? There is no "maintenance" on the springs. They can't DO anything to them. That's the whole point of trying to conserve them. 

 

Not only that, but drones are LOUDER than cars. The only source I've found (forums) of the loudness of drones puts them at about 80 dB. That's equivalent to a diesel truck traveling at 45 MPH 50 feet away, or a car at 70 MPH. Please show me any place where either of those two things happen in close proximity to any of the landmarks in yellowstone? 

 

And sure, military flyovers happen sometimes (never in yellowstone, it'd scare the animals.). For VERY short amounts of time. How many seconds does it take for a flyover to happen? 5? 10? How long would a person be flying their drone? 10 Minutes? 20 Minutes? Apples and oranges don't you say? Not to mention that flyovers are generally for everyone's enjoyment, not for a single person's entertainment. 

 

So it's morally and ethically correct to allow inexperienced people to fly their annoying toys over national landmarks, possibly damaging them and annoying everyone around them at the same time? Then obviously it must be morally and ethically correct to allow people to walk all over the bacterial mats, right up the edge of the spring. Hell, why not just let people swim in the cooler springs. In the sake of freedom of course. 

 

So your counter argument is basically "Other things can be loud and dangerous too, and I guess sometimes it makes sense to ban the drones." Not a very strong position you're sitting on there. 

 

People are idiots. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Rules and yellowstone have to be VERY clear cut because many of the people who visit there are foreigners, often many who don't speak english. (And many others are american idiots who wouldn't bother to read more than 3 words on a rulesheet.) "Drones are banned" Is much easier to get across than "Drones are only banned MWF from 11-5 PM. Drones are not allowed within 100 meters of animals. Drones must not be flown directly over any of the geysers. etc. etc. etc."

[corrado33]

On 10/21/2016 at 2:59 PM, Hackentosher said:

@corrado33 I'd argue that the photo of that hole thing look so cooler now, with its more diverse an de vibrant colors. I agree that's inexperienced pilots are dumbasses and need help, but have you ever seen really well done aerial videography? It's damn incredible. Now imagine that perspective on El Capitan or something. I want that footage too.

Oh I agree, I love drone footage, but they don't belong in parks in inexperienced hands. You could argue that the spring LOOKS cooler now, but that's only because the bacteria is dying. We can't recover that. Eventually the entire pool will be yellow. Won't be much to look at then. It'd be the same as purposely killing a tree to look at the leaves change colors. Sure, it'll probably look cool for a few days, but you'll never get it back. 

 

There is PLENTY of stunning aerial photography of the parks from actual airplanes. You can find ALL of those pictures online, there is no need to do it for yourself with a far inferior camera at the expense of the tranquility and safety of the park's patrons. 

 

You guys have no idea how hard the last couple of years have been for yellowstone. People picking up baby bison because they "looked" cold. People walking all over the bacterial mats, people flying drones into the springs, people trying to get selfies with moose. 

 

Let me tell you the outcomes of those things which all happened this last tourist season.

 

The bison was killed as it's herd wouldn't accept it back. The mats now have footprints in them and are damaged. Hopefully they'll grow back. The drone is now at the bottom of the spring, blocking the vents and making it a bit cooler, changing the color of the bacteria. The lady taking the selfie got charged by the moose and launched 20 feet.

 

You guys really have no idea how hard it is to keep the stupid out of yellowstone. If you knew better. If you lived here, you'd understand.

[straight_stewie]

13 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

And sure, military flyovers happen sometimes (never in yellowstone, it'd scare the animals.). For VERY short amounts of time. How many seconds does it take for a flyover to happen? 5? 10? How long would a person be flying their drone? 10 Minutes? 20 Minutes? Apples and oranges don't you say? Not to mention that flyovers are generally for everyone's enjoyment, not for a single person's entertainment. 

Military flyovers are far and above the "80 dB" that you alledge drones put out (which I highly doubt). Even if that number is correct, that puts them somewhere between vacuum cleaner and blender, in other words, not that loud. Beyond that, I think your "10" seconds is a little off. It took atleast 3 minutes from when I started hearing them to when I stopped hearing them at Mt. Rushmore, and they were only on afterburner for about 20 seconds (long enough to put on a show). But I digress, an F-111 and 2 F-16's in full afterburner is probably one of the loudest sounds you will ever hear.

But I see where our difference in position stems from: You believe that the benefit of the many is more important than the benefit of the individual (but, I mean, it's not like drone video has ever gotten 100's of millions of views on youtube or anything, just saying), while my basic position is that the benefit of the individual outweighs the benefits of the many when (and only when) those benefits are extended to all individuals. 

 

13 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

So it's morally and ethically correct to allow inexperienced people to fly their annoying toys over national landmarks, possibly damaging them and annoying everyone around them at the same time? Then obviously it must be morally and ethically correct to allow people to walk all over the bacterial mats, right up the edge of the spring. Hell, why not just let people swim in the cooler springs. In the sake of freedom of course. 

No, basically what I'm saying is that you can't limit everyone because a few people are dumbasses. That's one of the major factors of some of the problems that many countries are starting to have... Your position is that if people fly drones there is a chance that something might happen. If you "just let people swim in the cooler springs" something will happen. That, is your apples to oranges.

 

13 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

People are idiots. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Rules and yellowstone have to be VERY clear cut because many of the people who visit there are foreigners, often many who don't speak english. (And many others are american idiots who wouldn't bother to read more than 3 words on a rulesheet.) "Drones are banned" Is much easier to get across than "Drones are only banned MWF from 11-5 PM. Drones are not allowed within 100 meters of animals. Drones must not be flown directly over any of the geysers. etc. etc. etc."

So your argument here is that people are too stupid to understand three basic rules? Because you are basically arguing that no one can understand your three hypothetical rules and so therefore, the whole thing must just be banned. The fact of the matter is that there are certain areas where drones should not be allowed, and there are other areas where it probably really doesn't matter that much...

 

So the simple thing to do, atleast in my thinking, is to ban flying the drones over areas where people can never walk (extending that to the thin walkways around geysers), and allow it where people can... 

[corrado33]

Quote

But I see where our difference in position stems from: You believe that the benefit of the many is more important than the benefit of the individual (but, I mean, it's not like drone video has ever gotten 100's of millions of views on youtube or anything, just saying), while my basic position is that the benefit of the individual outweighs the benefits of the many when (and only when) those benefits are extended to all individuals. 

The benefit of the many DOES outweigh the benefit of the few. Always. Thinking otherwise is selfish. Especially over something so simple as a TOY. And that's funny, because millions of people visit yellowstone, in person, every year, unending, as long as the park has been open. 

 

14 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

No, basically what I'm saying is that you can't limit everyone because a few people are dumbasses. That's one of the major factors of some of the problems that many countries are starting to have... Your position is that if people fly drones there is a chance that something might happen. If you "just let people swim in the cooler springs" something will happen. That, is your apples to oranges.

You absolutely can. Why do you think rules exist that say "you must walk on the walkways" or "Don't approach the animals" or "Don't feed the animals" or "Don't hold children over railing (in zoos)" or "Don't climb on the rocks" or "Don't touch the ridiculously old and fragile painting" or "Don't walk in the old WWII minefield" or "Don't have campfires in late summer when the fire danger is "Extreme" Do you think any sane person would willingly break any of those rules, even if they didn't exist? They are there because the park has to make sure idiots don't try to approach an angry mama moose with her baby to get a selfie with it...

 

Rules are there to curb the stupidity. Especially in today's society. 

 

20 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

So your argument here is that people are too stupid to understand three basic rules? Because you are basically arguing that no one can understand your three hypothetical rules and so therefore, the whole thing must just be banned. The fact of the matter is that there are certain areas where drones should not be allowed, and there are other areas where it probably really doesn't matter that much...

 

So the simple thing to do, atleast in my thinking, is to ban flying the drones over areas where people can never walk (extending that to the thin walkways around geysers), and allow it where people can... 

 

Yes, that is my argument. And it wouldn't just be 3 rules. It'd be many more. 

 

What would be the point of flying a drone if you were only allowed to fly it over the pathways? Ignoring the fact that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce that rule, most of the pathways in yellowstone are only 10 feet wide. How many drone operators would be able to keep the drone within a 10 foot wide path hundreds of feet in the air? Did I mention that much of yellowstone is almost always ridiculously windy? Sure, some drones have GPS tracking and stabilization and sure, some of them could stay put no matter the wind, but is that ALL of them? Does that work ALL of the time? No. And what happens when it doesn't? The park would inevitably get hurt from someone either going to retrieve their hundreds of dollars toy or the toy itself doing the damage. So many rules exist to stop things that "could" happen. 

 

People today have no respect for national parks. They think they're entitled to do whatever they want because this is America. Take all of the rules away and the stupid people would ruin the parks for the rest of us. I don't know what changed from the past, but something certainly has. 

[straight_stewie]

9 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

The benefit of the many DOES outweigh the benefit of the few. Always. Thinking otherwise is selfish. Especially over something so simple as a TOY. And that's funny, because millions of people visit yellowstone, in person, every year, unending, as long as the park has been open. 

 

I disagree. When you structure a society such that the needs of the individual outweigh the needs of the group, and then extend that right to all individuals then all of the common needs of the many are met, while still allowing for individual freedoms and liberties. This is the basis of capitalism. Saying that this is not true is condemning capitalism.

And please re read what I wrote. Your last argument completely ignores 1/2 of the sentences I wrote in my response.

[Hackentosher]

This thread is a cluster fuck, most of it isn't even discussing the topic at hand.