Banned from flying over the river HELP

[CarlJ]

Park Service is still reviewing the use of UAV's in the National Parks, and the memo that you are referring to takes into consideration the primary jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration over the National Airspace System, which already has regulations in place over the Nation's Parks.

“Technically we don’t have the jurisdiction if someone is standing just over the boundary and launches one across the park,” Skaggs said. “It’s in airspace we do not control.”

They CLEARLY dislike the idea of anyone flying in the park so proceed at your own peril. The fine is 5 thousand dollars and/or 6 months in jail.

 

[srandall25]

Park Service is still reviewing the use of UAV's in the National Parks, and the memo that you are referring to takes into consideration the primary jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration over the National Airspace System, which already has regulations in place over the Nation's Parks.

“Technically we don’t have the jurisdiction if someone is standing just over the boundary and launches one across the park,” Skaggs said. “It’s in airspace we do not control.”

I am very interested in seeing this regulation from the FAA that speaks specifically to flying RC aircraft over our nation's parks. Can you provide what this regulation is and where we may find it? I'm not saying one doesn't exist... I've just not seen one or heard of it... and I've been researching this topic quite thoroughly.

 

[CarlJ]

I am very interested in seeing this regulation from the FAA that speaks specifically to flying RC aircraft over our nation's parks. Can you provide what this regulation is and where we may find it? I'm not saying one doesn't exist... I've just not seen one or heard of it... and I've been researching this topic quite thoroughly.

They regulate ALL flying of any kind and are specific to the parks themselves, and are not easy to find online. Your best bet is to contact the FAA with a request for a specific park.

 

[srandall25]

I am very interested in seeing this regulation from the FAA that speaks specifically to flying RC aircraft over our nation's parks. Can you provide what this regulation is and where we may find it? I'm not saying one doesn't exist... I've just not seen one or heard of it... and I've been researching this topic quite thoroughly.

They regulate ALL flying of any kind and are specific to the parks themselves, and are not easy to find online. Your best bet is to contact the FAA with a request for a specific park.

I'm fully aware of what they regulate. I work with an FAA rep on a daily basis. Don't take this the wrong way, but part of my frustration in hearing such comments has to do with assumptions being made. Before I would make a comment stating that the FAA actually has regulations for RC aircraft flying over parks, I would ensure I actually knew of a regulation that spoke to that. Until I see an actual regulation that backs up such a comment, then I'm left to believe that it's simply an assumption or something that you've heard.

 

[CarlJ]

I'm fully aware of what they regulate. I work with an FAA rep on a daily basis. Don't take this the wrong way, but part of my frustration in hearing such comments has to do with assumptions being made. Before I would make a comment stating that the FAA actually has regulations for RC aircraft flying over parks, I would ensure I actually knew of a regulation that spoke to that. Until I see an actual regulation that backs up such a comment, then I'm left to believe that it's simply an assumption or something that you've heard.

I said Park Service could not regulate air space that is already regulated, and then added a quote from the Director saying the same thing. We are done here...

 

[CarlJ]

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 50-2 — Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, AZ
Section 1. Applicability. This rule prescribes special operating rules for all persons operating aircraft in the following airspace, designated as the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area:

That airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not including 14,500 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 36°09'30" N., long. 114°03'00" W.; northeast to lat. 36°14'00" N., long. 113°09'50" W.; thence northeast along the boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park to lat. 36°24'47" N., long. 112°52'00" W.; to lat. 36°30'30" N., long. 112°36'15" W. to lat. 36°21'30" N., long. 112°00'00" W. to lat. 36°35'30" N., long. 111°53'10" W., to lat. 36°53'00" N., long. 111°36'45" W. to lat. 36°53'00" N., long. 111°33'00" W.; to lat. 36°19'00" N., long. 111°50'50" W.; to lat. 36°17'00" N., long. 111°42'00" W.; to lat. 35°59'30" N., long. 111°42'00" W.; to lat. 35°57'30" N., long. 112°03'55" W.; thence counterclockwise via the 5 statute mile radius of the Grand Canyon Airport airport reference point (lat. 35°57'09" N., long. 112°08'47" W.) to lat. 35°57'30" N., long. 112°14'00" W.; to lat. 35°57'30" N., long. 113°11'00" W.; to lat. 35°42'30" N., long. 113°11'00" W.; to 35°38'30" N.; long. 113°27'30" W.; thence counterclockwise via the 5 statute mile radius of the Peach Springs VORTAC to lat. 35°41'20" N., long. 113°36'00" W.; to lat. 35°55'25" N., long. 113°49'10" W.; to lat. 35°57'45" N., 113°45'20" W.; thence northwest along the park boundary to lat. 36°02'20" N., long. 113°50'15" W.; to 36°00'10" N., long. 113°53'45" W.; thence to the point of beginning.

 

[srandall25]

I'm fully aware of what they regulate. I work with an FAA rep on a daily basis. Don't take this the wrong way, but part of my frustration in hearing such comments has to do with assumptions being made. Before I would make a comment stating that the FAA actually has regulations for RC aircraft flying over parks, I would ensure I actually knew of a regulation that spoke to that. Until I see an actual regulation that backs up such a comment, then I'm left to believe that it's simply an assumption or something that you've heard.

I said Park Service could not regulate air space that is already regulated, and then added a quote from the Director saying the same thing. We are done here...

I'm referring to your statement "...the primary jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration over the National Airspace System, which already has regulations in place over the Nation's Parks." Were you not saying that the FAA has regulations in place over National Parks? I simply asking what regulations and where are they? Can you quote one of these regulations?

 

[petersachs]

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 50-2 — Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, AZ
Section 1. Applicability. This rule prescribes special operating rules for all persons operating aircraft in the following airspace, designated as the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight Rules Area:

That airspace extending upward from the surface up to but not including 14,500 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 36°09'30" N., long. 114°03'00" W.; northeast to lat. 36°14'00" N., long. 113°09'50" W.; thence northeast along the boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park to lat. 36°24'47" N., long. 112°52'00" W.; to lat. 36°30'30" N., long. 112°36'15" W. to lat. 36°21'30" N., long. 112°00'00" W. to lat. 36°35'30" N., long. 111°53'10" W., to lat. 36°53'00" N., long. 111°36'45" W. to lat. 36°53'00" N., long. 111°33'00" W.; to lat. 36°19'00" N., long. 111°50'50" W.; to lat. 36°17'00" N., long. 111°42'00" W.; to lat. 35°59'30" N., long. 111°42'00" W.; to lat. 35°57'30" N., long. 112°03'55" W.; thence counterclockwise via the 5 statute mile radius of the Grand Canyon Airport airport reference point (lat. 35°57'09" N., long. 112°08'47" W.) to lat. 35°57'30" N., long. 112°14'00" W.; to lat. 35°57'30" N., long. 113°11'00" W.; to lat. 35°42'30" N., long. 113°11'00" W.; to 35°38'30" N.; long. 113°27'30" W.; thence counterclockwise via the 5 statute mile radius of the Peach Springs VORTAC to lat. 35°41'20" N., long. 113°36'00" W.; to lat. 35°55'25" N., long. 113°49'10" W.; to lat. 35°57'45" N., 113°45'20" W.; thence northwest along the park boundary to lat. 36°02'20" N., long. 113°50'15" W.; to 36°00'10" N., long. 113°53'45" W.; thence to the point of beginning.

This doesn't apply to drones.

 

[petersachs]

I am very interested in seeing this regulation from the FAA that speaks specifically to flying RC aircraft over our nation's parks. Can you provide what this regulation is and where we may find it? I'm not saying one doesn't exist... I've just not seen one or heard of it... and I've been researching this topic quite thoroughly.

They regulate ALL flying of any kind and are specific to the parks themselves, and are not easy to find online. Your best bet is to contact the FAA with a request for a specific park.

^^ This is an incorrect statement. The FAA does not regulate drones.

 

[petersachs]

The other point made is that you can indeed fly over a National Park if operating it outside park bounderies. The NPS recognizes this in their own policy.

I have friends in Park Service that disagree, but I'm sure you know better.

Whether they disagree is entirely irrelevant. They are permitted to act only within the scope their authority, which is dictated by the Policy Statement, which, in turn makes abundantly clear what the NPS can and cannot do with respect to drone operations.

 

[srandall25]

Yes, it was my understanding that the FAA currently has no 'regulations' that speak directly to model aircraft. They only have 'guidelines'. Additionally, a federal judge recently ruled in favor of a defendant on the grounds that the FAA has no jurisdiction over model aircraft based on their own definition of aircraft. I fully understand that case is not the end of it, and that the FAA is planning to appeal this (so I've heard). Congress has mandated the FAA create regulations allowing for the commercial and business use of drones by Sep 2015. I believe I read a while back that they're already stating this deadline will not be met. The implication here is that the FAA may at some point govern regulations for the use of this technology but as of right now, they clearly do not... They only have guidelines.

 

[petersachs]

Yes, it was my understanding that the FAA currently has no 'regulations' that speak directly to model aircraft. They only have 'guidelines'. Additionally, a federal judge recently ruled in favor of a defendant on the grounds that the FAA has no jurisdiction over model aircraft based on their own definition of aircraft. I fully understand that case is not the end of it, and that the FAA is planning to appeal this (so I've heard). Congress has mandated the FAA create regulations allowing for the commercial and business use of drones by Sep 2015. I believe I read a while back that they're already stating this deadline will not be met. The implication here is that the FAA may at some point govern regulations for the use of this technology but as of right now, they clearly do not... They only have guidelines.

You are correct. The Pirker case has been appealed, of course, and the FAA is bound to lose that appeal. Knowing that, it published its June 25 Interpretation in an attempt to gain that authority through what is known as "interpretative rulemaking." In response to that Interpretation, I, and other Petitioners filed three separate legal challenges against the FAA on August 22. The attorney for all of the Petitioners is the renowned Brendan Schulman, who won the Pirker case.

 

[srandall25]

Yes, it was my understanding that the FAA currently has no 'regulations' that speak directly to model aircraft. They only have 'guidelines'. Additionally, a federal judge recently ruled in favor of a defendant on the grounds that the FAA has no jurisdiction over model aircraft based on their own definition of aircraft. I fully understand that case is not the end of it, and that the FAA is planning to appeal this (so I've heard). Congress has mandated the FAA create regulations allowing for the commercial and business use of drones by Sep 2015. I believe I read a while back that they're already stating this deadline will not be met. The implication here is that the FAA may at some point govern regulations for the use of this technology but as of right now, they clearly do not... They only have guidelines.

You are correct. The Pirker case has been appealed, of course, and the FAA is bound to lose that appeal. Knowing that, it published its June 25 Interpretation in an attempt to gain that authority through what is known as "interpretative rulemaking." In response to that Interpretation, I, and other Petitioners filed three separate legal challenges against the FAA on August 22. The attorney for all of the Petitioners is the renowned Brendan Schulman, who won the Pirker case.

Are these filed legal challenges available for viewing from your website?

 

[CarlJ]

Be that as it may it is unconscionable to encourage our members to commit an "overflight" over a National Park which is banned by the FAA in many of the parks already, and for good reason. They risk being fined and/or imprisoned if the flight is successful, god only knows what they'd face in the event of a crash.

 

[petersachs]

Here are all three. All three were filed simultaneously and I am a Petitioner in the first one only. These are the Petitions that just get the action started, so they don't contain the legal arguments, but rather just a brief statement of them.

• UAS AMERICA FUND, LLC, SKYPAN INTERNATIONAL INC., PETER SACHS (individually and d/b/a Drone Pilots Association), and FPV MANUALS, LLC (d/b/a GetFPV and Lumenier) vs. FAA
  
  THE COUNCIL ON GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS vs. FAA
  
  THE ACADEMY OF MODEL AERONAUTICS, INC vs. FAA

 

[petersachs]

Be that as it may it is unconscionable to encourage our members to commit an "overflight" over a National Park which is banned by the FAA in many of the parks already, and for good reason. They risk being fined and/or imprisoned if the flight is successful, god only knows what they'd face in the event of a crash.

I do not recall having encouraged anything. Would you kindly point out where I did? I merely stated the law. It is up to each drone pilot to act safely and responsibly at all times. And it is a 100% incorrect statement to say that such overflights are banned by the FAA. Please cite your legal source.

 

[srandall25]

Be that as it may it is unconscionable to encourage our members to commit an "overflight" over a National Park which is banned by the FAA in many of the parks already, and for good reason. They risk being fined and/or imprisoned if the flight is successful, god only knows what they'd face in the event of a crash.

I actually agree with your viewpoint on this part of it. I certainly wouldn't encourage someone to fly over a National Park. It's never wise to put yourself somewhere you're not wanted... and clearly there is a lot of ambiguity floating around with respect to interpretation of these laws. It is definitely best for each of us to assess every situation uniquely and with common sense!

 

[CarlJ]

I do not recall having encouraged anything. Would you kindly point out where I did? I merely stated the law. It is up to each drone pilot to act safely and responsibly at all times. And it is a 100% incorrect statement to say that such overflights are banned by the FAA. Please cite your legal source.

Overflights have been an issue for years, there are many laws and restrictions the govern flying over parks and monuments. Sen John McCain co-sponsored the 1987 law calling for Grand Canyon air-tour restrictions after a helicopter and a plane collided there in 1986, killing 25...just to name one.

It sure sounded like encouragement to me...

 

[srandall25]

I do not recall having encouraged anything. Would you kindly point out where I did? I merely stated the law. It is up to each drone pilot to act safely and responsibly at all times. And it is a 100% incorrect statement to say that such overflights are banned by the FAA. Please cite your legal source.

Overflights have been an issue for years, there are many laws and restrictions the govern flying over parks and monuments. Sen John McCain co-sponsored the 1987 law calling for Grand Canyon air-tour restrictions after a helicopter and a plane collided there in 1986, killing 25...just to name one.

It sure sounded like encouragement to me...

I believe Peter is referring to drone over flights when he says 'such overflights'...

 

[petersachs]

I do not recall having encouraged anything. Would you kindly point out where I did? I merely stated the law. It is up to each drone pilot to act safely and responsibly at all times. And it is a 100% incorrect statement to say that such overflights are banned by the FAA. Please cite your legal source.

Overflights have been an issue for years, there are many laws and restrictions the govern flying over parks and monuments. Sen John McCain co-sponsored the 1987 law calling for Grand Canyon air-tour restrictions after a helicopter and a plane collided there in 1986, killing 25...just to name one.

It sure sounded like encouragement to me...

There are no federal laws that apply to drones, period. You might want to review dronelawjournal.com since it is all explained there. You are referring to issues, laws and restrictions that apply to full-size, manned aircraft, not drones.

Each reply to you was a statement of fact― legal fact. Although I don't understand how statements of fact can ever be considered "encouragement," you are completely entitled to whatever opinion you wish. I stick with facts.