Pennsylvania law

[jadebox]

... And I'd like to point out that one of those parks listed, the only one near me, happens to be in close proximity to a small airport.

Notice his use of the word drones. I made sure not to use that dirty word and he used it over and over.

And, he didn't cite any specific regulations.

Here's what PA law says:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/d_001192.pdf

There's nothing specific about model aircraft, but they can basically prohibit anything:

(i) Prohibited activities. Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, the
Department may prohibit certain uses or activities in a State park, portion of a
State park or State park facility.

The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources of the Commonwealth probably has it's own process for rulemaking, so they may have a specific prohibition on "drones" (or not).

-- Roger

 

[REBELimgs]

And, he didn't cite any specific regulations.

Here's what PA law says:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/d_001192.pdf

There's nothing specific about model aircraft, but they can basically prohibit anything:

(i) Prohibited activities. Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, the
Department may prohibit certain uses or activities in a State park, portion of a
State park or State park facility.

The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources of the Commonwealth probably has it's own process for rulemaking, so they may have a specific prohibition on "drones" (or not).

-- Roger

I just wrote an email to the FAA and knowbeforeyoufly.org. Hopefully someone can have the knowledge I'm looking for or admit to not knowing what they're talking about.

 

[REBELimgs]

And, he didn't cite any specific regulations.

Here's what PA law says:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/d_001192.pdf

There's nothing specific about model aircraft, but they can basically prohibit anything:

(i) Prohibited activities. Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, the
Department may prohibit certain uses or activities in a State park, portion of a
State park or State park facility.

The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources of the Commonwealth probably has it's own process for rulemaking, so they may have a specific prohibition on "drones" (or not).

-- Roger

I also wrote him back saying I've found nothing but these guidelines http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-recreational-users/ and asked for him to actually point me to the rules he claims ban UAS flight in state parks. We'll see what he comes up with.

I just want to fly my Phantom without people saying rules, which they can't show me, exist, say I can't.

 

[750r]

No doubt the first one was written to protect the pidgeon shooters.
A couple of years ago there was an incident where these privileged, and illegal, shooters were caught on camera by a drone.
One of the shooters took aim at the drone and shot it down.

So now it is going to be illegal to capture the illegal acts with a camera.
George Orwell was right. Just a few years early.

Yep you are spot on some of the suits that run the state don't want their true colors exposed so they made a bill . Part of the reason we are one of the most corrupt states in the U.S. I am a food hunter not a sport hunter some of the things them guys do is just disgusting makes them fill like a big man .

 

[SteveMann]

UAS are defined as an aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). All use of UAS in State Parks must be in compliance with current FAA regulations. Nothing outlined in the park rules and regulations and park directives provides the allowance to supersede FAA regulations.

This would say it's OK to fly your hobby aircraft because the FAA rules permit it.

 

[REBELimgs]

This would say it's OK to fly your hobby aircraft because the FAA rules permit it.

Yeah, that's exactly how it sounds to me. He must not understand the words he quoted because he obviously asked me to fly somewhere else.

 

[Deleted member 29014]

Here's the response I got back from one Park...


"Thank you for your email concerning Tyler State Park.



Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), remotely piloted vehicles (RPV) or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), all commonly referred to as DRONES, their commercial and general recreational use is not permitted in PA State Parks. Drones create a variety of safety, wildlife impacts and privacy issues. Therefore, they are prohibited in Tyler State Park and all other PA State Parks. UAS are defined as an aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). All use of UAS in State Parks must be in compliance with current FAA regulations. Nothing outlined in the park rules and regulations and park directives provides the allowance to supersede FAA regulations.



http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/findapark/tyler/index.htm



General recreational and commercial use of UAS are prohibited in parks with the exception of recreational use at those parks that currently have established flying fields – most commonly referred to as model airplane fields. Those parks are listed below. The existing approved long term flying sites in PA State Parks are as follows:



1. Beltzville

2. Benjamin Rush

3. Hillman

4. Lackawanna

5. Prompton

6. Tuscarora



If you have any further questions concerning park rules and regulations concerning drones, please feel free to contact me at any time.



Brian Flores │ Park Manager

Tyler State Park

101 Swamp Road │ Newtown, PA 18940

Phone: 215-968-2021 │ Fax: 215-968-1610"

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), remotely piloted vehicles (RPV) or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), all commonly referred to as DRONES, their commercial and general recreational use is not permitted in PA State Parks. Drones create a variety of safety, wildlife impacts and privacy issues. Therefore, they are prohibited in Tyler State Park and all other PA State Parks. UAS are defined as an aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). All use of UAS in State Parks must be in compliance with current FAA regulations. Nothing outlined in the park rules and regulations and park directives provides the allowance to supersede FAA regulations.

Seems confusing; first he says they are not allowed but later he says they must be in compliance with FAA regulations???

 

[Pigeon Gun]

Not trying to hi-jack this interesting thread, but just a quick comment on Suwaneeguys post. Just because animal rights activists are opposed to an activity doesn't make it against the law. I can only think of two incidents over the last several years where Idiot Activists using drones were shot out of the sky (over private property) trying to film a private pigeon shoot. In both instances the local District Attorneys confirmed that there was nothing illegal about the pigeon shoot, and no charges were filed against anyone shooting at the drone.
Don't take my word for it, Google search " Pigeon Shooters Shoot Down Drone" Read or watch the entire article or news cast, and you'll see where there was nothing illegal about the subject Pigeon Shoots.
The same animal rights activists are pissed off about Chicken Mcnuggets, horse racing, fishing, and circuses, but none of those activities are ILLEGAL either. (but would be if the activists had their way) And that's unfortunately why some laws like the one the OP referenced that appear to protect hunters from drone make it to the books.
I'll be quiet now, sorry!
John

 

[Buckaye]

I read a really interesting paper on this subject (sorry I don't have the link) but in essence it says that the usage of drones over people's properties is going to come down to this very clauseL "section 5501 states that individuals "own" the airspace above their property only to the point that their "enjoyment and use" of the property is "interfered" with."

Basically the FAA owns anything over 500 ft above any property - but it's that 1-500 ft that will become an eventual court case. Can someone say that a drone (yes I use that word) flying at 200 or 300 ft high interferes with the enjoyment and use of a person's property. If so... how is interference defined or measured.

Just like everything else, I think it's going to take someone with enough money and free time to litigate a case and set a precedent

 

[750r]

Not trying to hi-jack this interesting thread, but just a quick comment on Suwaneeguys post. Just because animal rights activists are opposed to an activity doesn't make it against the law. I can only think of two incidents over the last several years where Idiot Activists using drones were shot out of the sky (over private property) trying to film a private pigeon shoot. In both instances the local District Attorneys confirmed that there was nothing illegal about the pigeon shoot, and no charges were filed against anyone shooting at the drone.
Don't take my word for it, Google search " Pigeon Shooters Shoot Down Drone" Read or watch the entire article or news cast, and you'll see where there was nothing illegal about the subject Pigeon Shoots.
The same animal rights activists are pissed off about Chicken Mcnuggets, horse racing, fishing, and circuses, but none of those activities are ILLEGAL either. (but would be if the activists had their way) And that's unfortunately why some laws like the one the OP referenced that appear to protect hunters from drone make it to the books.
I'll be quiet now, sorry!
John

Out of respect for this forum I'll be nice . I am far from a tree hugger but if you condone what hey where doing to bad . You do know DA and cops all belong to that club . I seen enuff torture across the pond .

 

[Pigeon Gun]

Out of respect for this forum I'll be nice . I am far from a tree hugger but if you condone what hey where doing to bad . You do know DA and cops all belong to that club . I seen enuff torture across the pond .

Don't condone it, and in spite of my handle here, I've never done it. My point was that SuwaneeyGuy was misleading in his statement that what those folks were doing was not legal. I know plenty of folks that do/have done it, and none of them broke any laws. But it does add to the story if someone declares it illegal!
I'm done, and sorry that I've steered this away from the legitimate questions from the OP.
Back to UAV issues for me,
Thanks,
John

 

[REBELimgs]

His latest response was simply this:

"This is a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, PA State Park's statewide policy. It has been determined that drones create a variety of safety, wildlife impacts and privacy issues within PA State Parks.

You are more than welcome to enjoy those parks with established flying fields – most commonly referred to as model airplane fields. Those parks are listed below. The existing approved long term flying sites in PA State Parks are as follows:
1. Beltzville
2. Benjamin Rush
3. Hillman
4. Lackawanna
5. Prompton
6. Tuscarora"

So after I asked him twice to point to me to the rules, he has been unable to do so. First it was the FAA's rule now it's a PA rule.

This is the same attitude I've seen police use when approaching people in parks about flying. When asked where they can see the rules, the police just say "It's the rule and we have no idea where it can be found. It's just the rule"

 

[Deleted member 29014]

His latest response was simply this:

"This is a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, PA State Park's statewide policy. It has been determined that drones create a variety of safety, wildlife impacts and privacy issues within PA State Parks.

You are more than welcome to enjoy those parks with established flying fields – most commonly referred to as model airplane fields. Those parks are listed below. The existing approved long term flying sites in PA State Parks are as follows:
1. Beltzville
2. Benjamin Rush
3. Hillman
4. Lackawanna
5. Prompton
6. Tuscarora"

So after I asked him twice to point to me to the rules, he has been unable to do so. First it was the FAA's rule now it's a PA rule.

He's stonewalling. If it's park policy it has to be in writing somewhere.

 

[REBELimgs]

He's stonewalling. If it's park policy it has to be in writing somewhere.

I'll never understand people who act like that. If it's the rule, it should be easy to show me. If you're going to tell someone they can't do something, show them the rule. He just keeps changing who's rule it actually is.

 

[blauer]

I live near Pittsburgh and did a bit of research before flying in state parks. There are rules on DCNR website and state parks website but no rules about UAS. I did fly in a state park near me in plain view of the DCNR Ranger and he watch, didn't say a word to me just went about his business.

In my opinion you should continue to fly there. When he asks you not to fly there ask him for the rules. If it were me I would push the issue the the point where they call the police. Obviously no one wants to be arrested but it may take a martyr to get them to realize there are not rules against it.

 

[blauer]

http://dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/d_001192.pdf

PA state park rules and regulations. I did real this fairly thoroughly a few months ago. Also just now searched the document for the words "UAS" "Drone" and "UAV". ... Nothing....

 

[REBELimgs]

Due to the contrast in race and socioeconomic status of myself and the average visitor of that park, I'm trying to be as civil as possible. I don't feel like getting into it with the local authorities when I know I'd be walking into a losing battle. I'm going to keep hitting him with facts and requesting to see the rules for a while and see where that gets me.

 

[blauer]

Send him a copy of that PDF and ask him to point to the specific rule. I'm interested to see his response.

 

[REBELimgs]

Send him a copy of that PDF and ask him to point to the specific rule. I'm interested to see his response.

I'd guess he would just state my name and say it's prohibited as he did previously. I'll try it out, though.

 

[REBELimgs]

Send him a copy of that PDF and ask him to point to the specific rule. I'm interested to see his response.

First he said it was against FAA regulations and I told him that wasn't true. Then he said it was against PA parks regulations.. I'll gladly forward him that PDF. I highly doubt he's reasonable enough to concede to being misinformed.