Drones and the Law

[Mr.Gale]

Today I was flying and I flew across a county park that does not allow drones, did I break the law? I respect government decisions to not allow drones in certain areas but I don't want to get in trouble if I inadvertently fly over or into one.
Thanks,
Mr.G

 

[KevMo Photog]

Today I was flying and I flew across a county park that does not allow drones, did I break the law? I respect government decisions to not allow drones in certain areas but I don't want to get in trouble if I inadvertently fly over or into one.
Thanks,
Mr.G

You did not break the law at all if you were under 400ft. The regulation they have in place would only be able to stop you from taking off on their property. But I would not continue over that area very long just to avoid any issues tbo. It's National Parks, Red Zones around airports that you want to be aware of for sure.

 

[MapMaker53]

Also keep I mind that, even if you do not take off from or land on their property, you are not allowed to interfere with their operations or be a public safety hazard. For example, a part of many county parks incorporate a golf course. Interfering with play or being a nuisance would probably result in the authorities having a talk with you. Likewise, flying across a park at a dangerously low altitude would be a public safety concern.

 

[y2khardtop]

how does this apply to Private Property? If some posts no drones, does that mean I can't land/take off but can fly OVER their property? I would think this would be a privacy issue? Thanks

 

[tcope]

how does this apply to Private Property? If some posts no drones, does that mean I can't land/take off but can fly OVER their property? I would think this would be a privacy issue? Thanks

You can fly over their property. It's only a privacy issue if there is an expectation of privacy, which is usually not the case outside.

 

[tcope]

You did not break the law at all if you were under 400ft.

Almost hate to say this.... in the US is does not matter if you were above or below 400'. There is no 400' law, only recommendation. Been beat to death.

 

[BigAl07]

Everything above is "generally" correct but there are some parks where you can't fly over due to sensitive wildlife etc. So to fully be able to say 100% you'll have to say specifically where you flew.

 

[Mr.Gale]

It is a small county park at the south tip of the San Francisco bay. Here is a picture of where I was flying. Yes, there are birds in this area so maybe that is why the rule is no drones.
Mr.G

 

[MapMaker53]

Might be designated as a local wildlife habitat and fall under local law.

 

[MapMaker53]

how does this apply to Private Property? If some posts no drones, does that mean I can't land/take off but can fly OVER their property? I would think this would be a privacy issue? Thanks

Unfortunately, much of the public thinks it is within their right to not have a drone fly over their property. In general, it is not illegal to fly OVER (as in cross over) private property as long as there are no FAA restrictions and the flight doesn't interfere with the property owner's activity/use of the land. Other aircraft do it every day. They key is you don't want to be flying within the confines of a specific property or hovering over the property at an altitude that causes a privacy concern. Basically common courtesy and common sense. I think as more and more good drone stories appear in the news -- like the recent calls for drone operators to help out with search and rescue efforts in communities devastated by the recent hurricanes and insurance companies using drones to document homes damaged by the storms -- the public will eventually calm down and become more tolerant at the sight of a drone. At least that's what I am hoping happens.

 

[tcope]

Everything above is "generally" correct but there are some parks where you can't fly over due to sensitive wildlife etc. So to fully be able to say 100% you'll have to say specifically where you flew.

The only way that would work is if they were able to get is listed as NFZ (by the FAA). A local law that controls public airspace would not be lawful (Per US Code).

 

[BigAl07]

The only way that would work is if they were able to get is listed as NFZ (by the FAA). A local law that controls public airspace would not be lawful (Per US Code).

I don't have anything on this laptop at the moment to link to but, IIRC (and that's an If) there are already designated "Sensitive Wildlife Areas" across the nation. Most are coastal/water areas but could be anywhere. These areas are No Fly for any aircraft below a certain altitude due to the potential to disrupt sensitive nesting etc. This falls under the umbrella of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and is congressionaly mandated as Sensitive Wildlife Areas.

 

[Danoldo]

how does this apply to Private Property? If some posts no drones, does that mean I can't land/take off but can fly OVER their property? I would think this would be a privacy issue? Thanks

Dude, just think like this... Can an airplane fly over their property?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't have anything on this laptop at the moment to link to but, IIRC (and that's an If) there are already designated "Sensitive Wildlife Areas" across the nation. Most are coastal/water areas but could be anywhere. These areas are No Fly for any aircraft below a certain altitude due to the potential to disrupt sensitive nesting etc. This falls under the umbrella of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and is congressionaly mandated as Sensitive Wildlife Areas.

Taken from a Phoenix Sectional

 

[Just Mark]

Most county parks here in Northern California ban operating an sUAS inside the park area.

If you were on private property and flying over the park, then by most interpretations of the law, you would not be violating any law - as long as you are obeying all FAA regulations (not flying over people not flying over moving vehicles, not operating in an unsafe manner, etc.,).

Do note that MUCH of the SF Bay is in SFO class B airspace from the surface. If you are down by Palo Alto / Newark then you would be outside of surface Class B airspace.

Looking at the sectional chart, I don't see any NATIONALLY regulated parks / preserves in that IMMEDIATE area that you can't fly over. Most of the NOAA-designated no-fly areas are on the coast.

NOTE: I could be wrong on this. I see some blue dots that follow the shoreline on the souternmost parts of the bay, and I am not familiar with these... They are on the shoreline just due east of the Class D airspace for San Carlos SQL. around 122 10 and 37 52. I am clueless as to what those blue dots represent (probably something completely benign).

 

[RW-1]

The only way that would work is if they were able to get is listed as NFZ (by the FAA). A local law that controls public airspace would not be lawful (Per US Code).

Dead Wrong.

Linkfor you: Wildlife and Recreational Area

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Most county parks here in Northern California ban operating an sUAS inside the park area.

If you were on private property and flying over the park, then by most interpretations of the law, you would not be violating any law - as long as you are obeying all FAA regulations (not flying over people not flying over moving vehicles, not operating in an unsafe manner, etc.,).

Do note that MUCH of the SF Bay is in SFO class B airspace from the surface. If you are down by Palo Alto / Newark then you would be outside of surface Class B airspace.

Looking at the sectional chart, I don't see any NATIONALLY regulated parks / preserves in that IMMEDIATE area that you can't fly over. Most of the NOAA-designated no-fly areas are on the coast.

NOTE: I could be wrong on this. I see some blue dots that follow the shoreline on the souternmost parts of the bay, and I am not familiar with these... They are on the shoreline just due east of the Class D airspace for San Carlos SQL. around 122 10 and 37 52. I am clueless as to what those blue dots represent (probably something completely benign).

See my post above yours, blue dots explained

 

[Just Mark]

See my post above yours, blue dots explained

Thanks! Had gone to the eye doctor this morning and pupils were dilated .

What exactly does it mean when it says that aircraft are "requested" to maintain an altitude of 2,000 feet? Does that mean that instead of being under a specific FAA restricted airspace regulation, we would be violating a more general "disturbing wildlife" regulation by flying under 2,000 feet?

 

[THECaptainKirk]

It’s not so black and white, actually. Again, here’s where interpretation can be why these questions keep coming up so often and usually end up being overinterpreted and over-opined by people who don’t really know for certain. I’m not saying that I do know, but I speak on an experience with it in my reply.

Manned vehicle flights being banned due to noise restrictions would, to me make sense to NOT necessarily apply to UAV’s that emit a 65-75 dB rating at a much smaller radius than that of jet powered engines at a relatively low 2,000 foot minimum. I would say common sense applies in this puzzle to solve it. What makes more noise? A UAV at 200 feet or 150 feet or lower or a manned aircraft at 2,000 feet? There’s no comparison. Flying so low and recklessly to harass the wildlife is a no brainer - I say anywhere much less preserves, but just because there are charts that prohibit landing aircraft in or around these areas the same laws and rules don’t always apply to UAS pilots. Especially pilots not flying said flights using their 107.

Here in Colorado we have a large section of two separate areas on the northeastern plains known as The Pawnee National Grasslands. It’s not a national park, but it is governed by the US forest Service and administered as a part of the Arapaho National Forest, which is many miles west of the Grasslands themselves. Regardless, they man a ranger station in a town close to it. I couldn’t find anything on their website stating anything about UAV flights. I called ahead and spoke to a Ranger in that office. She told me that they don’t have a problem with it as long as you’re flying recreationally and not for profit or commercial reasons. She gave me her name and I was good to go! So, two weeks ago I drove up there and flew. Saw only two other people all day long and a Forest Ranger came by who saw a friend of mine and I standing there with our remotes and he was much more interested in what we were flying and if we were getting good footage than anything else. He was friendly. Was he seeing how we were flying and where? Probably - perhaps masked by the perceived interest in what we were doing. But he couldn’t have been more nice. We were just hoping he wouldn’t ask for a parks pass because we didn’t know if we needed one at all unless we had camped there overnight. He told us to enjoy the day and he let us be.

I agree - if the area is mapped as a NFZ - then it’s obvious. In many, but not all other cases it’s worth your time to call ahead and find out the real scoop from someone who actually has and can enforce rules, regs and laws governed by that area. That’s the only way you’ll really know when any part of a land isn’t designated an NFZ that’s governed by the Dept. of Interior it’s best to call the local office and ask. Each area has a local office and 9 times out if 10 you’ll get a human being to answer on the 1st call.

It’s somewhat similar to my flying from the parking lot of a more or less abandoned high school here in the burbs of the Denver area. I only use it during the summer months when school is out of session - hence my saying it’s “abandoned”. Technically, they (school district regulations) don’t allow drone flights around the school for “privacy concerns” and supposedly “safety” (possibility of filming minors without parental consent is privacy part of it). The second time I flew from that location a local police officer drives up and I thought “oh no I’m about to be in trouble”. Nope. He was thinking about buying one for his son and wanted to know if I liked it and how it flew. I was more than happy to tell him and let him try it out. I quizzed him about my uncertainty of flying from the area and laid out my logic to why I figured it was ok to fly from there during the summer months. He said he saw it the same way and that most other officers would also. But he couldn’t guarantee all of them would. His advice was to just leave if someone complained. To date no complaints. The handful of times I’ve flown from there since then he has driven by and waved a number of those times. No one else has bothered me at all. Fly respectfully and use common sense, do your best to CYA and there’s no need to complicate things much further.

I love the safety concern always being noted with rules or regs against drones - as if they’re the only dangerous things that one ever may encounter - anywhere. Life itself is dangerous and unsafe and one is never truly protected from its dangers. All things labeled dangerous aren’t necessarily and vice versa. Life is dangerous. Enjoy it by living it and use common sense and when in doubt ask the source of the penalties if you want to know if it’s ok. Otherwise, fretting over confusing maps and debating what they mean is only that - a debate.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

National Parks NO, National Forests YES!

Unmanned Aircraft Systems | US Forest Service

"What is the U.S. Forest Service stance or regulations regarding hobbyist drones? Where is it OK to fly them? Where not? Why?

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over ALL airspace, including recreational use of airspace by model aircraft, which is covered by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57. The U.S. Forest Service does not have the authority to establish any additional regulations regarding where a UAS can or can’t be flown. However, recreational UAS must abide by Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) in place by the FAA over disasters such as wildfires. The FAA also has an advisory (AIM Section 4, 7-4-6) with suggested limitations for flight over Wilderness areas. Unmanned Aircraft must abide with specifications identified through the FAA's Certificate of Authorization process which includes no flight over populated areas."