So I got ticketed by Federal Police Officers...(video included)

[AlecW]

Not all National Forest land - UAV operations are not permitted in designated wilderness.

I know, but those places are hard to get to and have always been no go zones for snowmobiles, jeeps, atvs, helicopters etc. Kinda cool we have them IMHO

 

[sar104]

I know, but those places are hard to get to and have always been no go zones for snowmobiles, jeeps, atvs, helicopters etc. Kinda cool we have them IMHO

Depends where you live - it's all around us out here. I support their existence too, in most cases.

 

[Rosey]

The answer to this actually is really simple. Once one sets aside their immature demand to always have what they want, realize we all live together in a cooperative society, and cooperate, this is a no-brainer. More on that in a moment.

The concern about a dictatorial state, rules that are simply for the sake of power, blind enforcement of rules, and on and on, are all very legitimate complaints. I'll be among the first to say our society has gone too far with drones, heck, too far in pretty much all domains of life. WAY too far. That said...

This is not one of those cases. The purpose here is clear: To preserve the beauty and peaceful enjoyment of a public monument for the enjoyment of all. It is also abundantly obvious to all but the near clinically insanely antisocial that drones buzzing around the Arch would clearly disturb this entirely reasonable public goal at a public venue.

As such, all this discussion/argument over airspace, the ground, who controls what, etc. is little more than arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's beside the point. And because it's beside the point, the law will adapt to more closely match "the point" going forward. The best way to hasten that change is to behave as if you don't get "the point" here, and play games like are being discussed -- launch outside the park, buzz the Arch to your heart's content, land outside the park.

Guess what? The Arch will become an NFZ (if it isn't already). Count on it. If you think instead a law will be passed protecting drone access to the arch and punishing tourists, you really are insane

And that, my friends, is THE POINT, in general, not just in this case. We share this space, and we all are equally important. We have to accommodate each other. When someone ignores your interests entirely, guess what? You're not going to pay much heed to theirs. This is what's happening with drones as we speak (and fly).

Be aware of the reasons behind restrictions, not just the restriction. Armed with that, seek permission to do what you want to do -- that's how we all "play together". Almost always you'll be able to get that permission, with some constraints, which is how we all accommodate each other.

And sometimes the answer simply is "no", in which case you move on. No one gets everything they want.

The answer to this actually is really simple. Once one sets aside their immature demand to always have what they want, realize we all live together in a cooperative society, and cooperate, this is a no-brainer. More on that in a moment.

The concern about a dictatorial state, rules that are simply for the sake of power, blind enforcement of rules, and on and on, are all very legitimate complaints. I'll be among the first to say our society has gone too far with drones, heck, too far in pretty much all domains of life. WAY too far. That said...

This is not one of those cases. The purpose here is clear: To preserve the beauty and peaceful enjoyment of a public monument for the enjoyment of all. It is also abundantly obvious to all but the near clinically insanely antisocial that drones buzzing around the Arch would clearly disturb this entirely reasonable public goal at a public venue.

As such, all this discussion/argument over airspace, the ground, who controls what, etc. is little more than arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's beside the point. And because it's beside the point, the law will adapt to more closely match "the point" going forward. The best way to hasten that change is to behave as if you don't get "the point" here, and play games like are being discussed -- launch outside the park, buzz the Arch to your heart's content, land outside the park.

Guess what? The Arch will become an NFZ (if it isn't already). Count on it. If you think instead a law will be passed protecting drone access to the arch and punishing tourists, you really are insane

And that, my friends, is THE POINT, in general, not just in this case. We share this space, and we all are equally important. We have to accommodate each other. When someone ignores your interests entirely, guess what? You're not going to pay much heed to theirs. This is what's happening with drones as we speak (and fly).

Be aware of the reasons behind restrictions, not just the restriction. Armed with that, seek permission to do what you want to do -- that's how we all "play together". Almost always you'll be able to get that permission, with some constraints, which is how we all accommodate each other.

And sometimes the answer simply is "no", in which case you move on. No one gets everything they want.

WTF are you talking about?! This has nothing to do with any immature "demand" to have what one wants...and everything to do with understanding the current laws as they exist and how these laws are put out to the public. You have a whole lot of words here and are trying to make an argument out of thin air while also trying to make "A POINT" as you call it.

I can take criticism all day where it is due and own my mistakes. I have already acknowledged that I wish I would have realized I was not supposed to be flying there and also mentioned extra steps I have taken since to assist in not making a mistake like this in the future. So stop trying to be a keyboard warrior and make issues out of thin air. No one has made the argument that we demand to always have what we want in any way on this thread..

In regards to buzzing around others at a National Park..again if you read the thread you would have noticed that I already mentioned there was no one around. In fact had a bunch of people been around, this would have already gone against FAA's regulation on flying over (or what can be interpreted as too close) people not directly involved.

As for the comment I mentioned previously in regards to taking off outside the park and flying over, it was an example used to clarify the point being discussed. In that same thread I also mentioned how I would not do that.

Nuff said.

 

[Rosey]

The Officer did not really know what he was talking about. The prohibition on flying from National Parks is not an FAA rule, so the FAA would not be putting up any kind fence, including a TFR (unless requested for a special event), or a non-existent GPS fence, whatever that is supposed to be. He was probably confusing it with a DJI NFZ, which, if it were in place, could prevent takeoff. And none of those options have any effect on the GPS signals received at that location - the only way to achieve that would be by local jamming, which would be illegal, impractical, disruptive to navigation systems and dangerous to other air traffic.

Interesting, thanks for the info...always trying to learn and understand more.

 

[Rosey]

After my diatribe above (that probably only I will ever know entirely, who would read such a tome?), I will say that National Forest and other wilderness areas are an example of where I feel the government (and by extension Society) have gone too far -- WAY too far, in restricting access to UAVs.

With this comment I agree with you. I also believe (as you mentioned earlier) that we as drone operators should not being flying all over/around people as they are trying to enjoy the area themselves (plus this would generally speaking go against FAA regulations). However, the National Parks in America are HUGE..not to mention absolutely beautiful. Other then being a National Park, this is almost the ideal type of area the FAA would recommend you fly no?!

So to straight out ban drones is, I believe, ridiculous.

 

[Rosey]

I am surprised DJI map didn't show the area yellow or green if not red. But they seem to only map out airports and facilities such as jails.

Sent from my HTC 10 using PhantomPilots mobile app

I have noticed it does not even seem to do it for airports. I live within 5 miles of a major international airport...If I power on my drone for whatever reason in my house (like to change a setting or get a log), I can get a GPS lock and show green even though I am clearly well within 5 miles of an international airport.

 

[Rosey]

Thank you for suggesting air map was using the FAA app before you fly, using air maps informed me of some places I was going to visit is restricted


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

I agree this is a great app. I wish I would have had it at the time...I will never fly without checking this app (to start with) now.

 

[Rosey]

Rosey,

My son is a law enforcement officer for the National Park Service north of LA. He spent his entire Christmas afternoon chasing down drone users and asking them politely to stop and leave. The policy includes National Parks, National Recreation Areas, National Scenic Rivers, and National Monuments (Gateway Arch is in this catagory).

When the Arch was completed in the early 60's, their were several midnight runs of small planes flying thru the arch. The FAA stepped in fast and closed the airspace, yanked pilot licenses, and locked up the pilots, confiscated the planes.

My son works in a 450,000 acre NRA and deals with this all the time. He uses one when he patrols back country on because a lot of people are using the Department of Interior lands for cocaine labs and marijuana fields. The drug dealers use them to watch for law enforcement trying to find them....or terrorists use them to plan an operation on iconic features of American heritage (arch, Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Statue of Liberty, etc)

It may be a pain, but I respect their intention as a no fly zone

It scares me everyday he has to go backcountry. He wears his vest, but as he says...the vest does not stop a rifle shot.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

As i'm sure you saw in my video and I believe I mentioned in my post, I did not talk trash about the Officers in any way. In fact that is part of the reason I only included audio and not anything about them, to respect their position. I get along great with LEO and this is not what this was about.

As for drug runners using it, I agree that sucks. However, guns are used by gang members too so should we get rid of the Second Amendment? (Sadly, I'm sure someone here is like "yea") Just because something can be used in a criminal event does not mean it should get banned for everyone. In that case get rid of cars too because drunk drivers kill people every day (and your alcohol!).

As for flying under the arch with a plane, thank you for sharing. That's actually pretty funny (now, i'm sure it was not at the time) and interesting. The two are completely different however. I think we can agree Flying a small drone 100+ feet away from the arch and flying a full size plane through it are pretty different!

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Rosey]

Many people are unaware that there are different classes of officials roaming around National Forests, Parks, etc.

Anyone that is a "Ranger" is an LEO, no less than the cop walking a beat in the city. There are all sorts of Forest and Park service personnel doing all kinds of other things, with official uniforms, but they are not Law Enforcement.

Exactly. Sometimes people see the uniform and think people are cops who are actually just work for the park services etc. However the opposite is also true. There are plenty of actual LEO, who I would argue actually hold more power then the local cop walking the beat as they are often allowed to do more with their powers...For example many states have DNR officers which can take your boat or ATV with a lot less cause then a local LEO (but then again, maybe that's just different departments doing things differently).

 

[DanMan32]

Yes, you will get green GPS lock if I think 2 miles out from an airport, but you will get a warning that you have to check two boxes an click 'confirm' to get it off the screen. The map should also show you different colored zones but may need internet to get that level of info.
If you are within a yellow circle, then you have to have a verified account with DJI and internet access on the app to accept responsibility. If no internet, you can go online elsewhere, get a code then enter the code in the app. DJI changed their approach from the past method that was strictly GPS since they realized location alone was insufficient.
Red zones, usually jails and possibly center of airports, are completely NFZ and cannot be unlocked.

Sent from my HTC 10 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[sar104]

I have noticed it does not even seem to do it for airports. I live within 5 miles of a major international airport...If I power on my drone for whatever reason in my house (like to change a setting or get a log), I can get a GPS lock and show green even though I am clearly well within 5 miles of an international airport.

I think that unless the DJI GEO (geofencing) option is turned on in preferences, then the aircraft will power up and fly just fine, even within 5 miles of an airport.

 

[Bigdz]

If this place is illegal to fly than how did Ken Heron manage to get permission to fly the Arch(he mentions he did without getting ticketed

 

[DanMan32]

Supposedly with that turned off, it will go by old style which is declining ceiling starting with 400 feet from 5 miles out towards airport with NFZ a certain distance from airport. No means to override

Sent from my HTC 10 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Vzr1]

Hey Guys,

So it happened...I got ticketed by Federal Police Officers two weeks ago. I was traveling to St. Louis, MO and wanted to get some good fly time in so I went to get some video of the Archway...which apparently is actually considered a National Park.

At the time, it was under construction and I did not even see signs designating it as a National Park. Also, being newer to the drone life (and trying to follow all proper laws and guidelines) I had never read anything about National Parks being No Fly Zones. I have since learned to use apps like AirMap to hopefully avoid any of this in the future.

The FAA does not appear to have a law against flying in National Parks, it seems to be something the National Park enacted themselves from what I have researched. I'm not sure how it seems legit that the FAA "owns the air" but other agencies can override the FAA.

Anyway, below is a video I ended up making. It was supposed to be entirely different but figured I might as well use it as an opportunity to make a video anyway..and possibly help someone not make the same mistake. You can go right to the audio of the police interaction if you click the link down in the description.

Sorry in advance if it has been asked but I didn't want to scroll through three pages of waffle on my phone .......how much was the fine?

 

[L3thalB3ard]

Sorry in advance if it has been asked but I didn't want to scroll through three pages of waffle on my phone .......how much was the fine?

$50


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vzr1]

$50


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sheeeet is that all

 

[L3thalB3ard]

I have noticed it does not even seem to do it for airports. I live within 5 miles of a major international airport...If I power on my drone for whatever reason in my house (like to change a setting or get a log), I can get a GPS lock and show green even though I am clearly well within 5 miles of an international airport.

I live just outside the AIR FORCE ACADEMY nfz. Just north from me, I can't arm my drone at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GMack]

If this place is illegal to fly than how did Ken Heron manage to get permission to fly the Arch(he mentions he did without getting ticketed

Maybe he got a special use permit?

I think it all boils down to the badge of the day who may or may not allow it. Some CA state parks leave it to the discretion of the superintendent as to whether or not he/she will allow drones in their area due to circumstances they come up with. Some are hard line and some aren't.

 

[L3thalB3ard]

Sheeeet is that all

Right!! There's some national park footage that would be well worth $50.. Let me pay ahead of time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GMack]

$50


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You got off cheap. The guy who posted here about his vacation flight in some deserted Yellowstone N.P. area that he posted on Youtube started out at $1,035 and got it lowered by $250 at the end by federal judge.