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

[rthawk1]

Never happened. Show me the documentation.
Anyone flying a manned aircraft under the arch, or under most tall bridges, would be in violation of §91.119 - Minimum Safe Altitudes, and likely §91.13 Careless or reckless operation. No new rules required. Also, the FAA does not "lock up the pilots" as their authority is limited to certificate action and civil fines. The FAA does not have forfeiture (confiscation) authority. If anyone can provide a citation otherwise, I would like to see it. Local authorities may have jurisdiction via reckless endangerment laws already on the books, and those laws vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Steve,

I would love to give you the documentation...it happened between 1964 and 1968. I certainly do not have the documentation nearly 50 years later after I moved out of the area. I was at Parks College of Aeronautical Engineering in Cahokia, Ill. at the time. The college has moved to the main STL University campus since that time as well

Last week I was playing golf with a Golden Knight Parachute team member with over 6000 jumps. He said that a person tried to parachute on the top on the arch. His chute collapsed and he slide down the outside edge to his death

 

[AlecW]

I'll ask my father in law if he remembers anything. He actually got to take some pictures from inside the arch before the windows were installed.

 

[jofus]

I was considering flying over the Mississippi River and getting some shots of the Arch last time I was in St Louis. I saw that the NP has grounds on both sides, but I saw the Class D airspace around Cahokia on Airmap and got spooked.

 

[jofus]

This is the current sectional for that area. As you can see, there is no restricted area around Gateway Arch, and no TFR. There is no general FAA restriction at all on flying over NPS land (except for a few TFRs in some places). The only general restriction is an NPS rule that does not allow UAS operations (takeoff or landing) on NPS land.


View attachment 77655

Am I crazy or is the arch within 5 miles of KCPS? Nobody has seemed to mention that in this thread.

 

[sar104]

Am I crazy or is the arch within 5 miles of KCPS? Nobody has seemed to mention that in this thread.

It appears to be just inside the KCPS surface Class D which is active 1230 - 0400Z. Class G outside those hours. Inside those hours Part 107 operations would require an authorization or waiver, while recreational flights would always require notification to the operator and tower since the 5-mile requirement is not airspace-dependent. But still no operations of either kind within the NPS boundaries except with their prior authorization, of course.

 

[jofus]

It appears to be just inside the KCPS surface Class D which is active 1230 - 0400Z. Class G outside those hours. Inside those hours Part 107 operations would require an authorization or waiver, while recreational flights would require notification to the operator and tower. But still no operations of either kind within the NPS boundaries except with their prior authorization, of course.

Right, so 0630 to 2200 Central time? Might be able to get out over the river in the Class G at sunrise in the summer It would look pretty nice with the sunrise hitting the side of the arch. I use my good shots for my own promotion so it's a commercial operation under Part 107.

 

[Rosey]

I can't help but wonder whether or not you have an FAA Hobby Certificate to fly and if you bothered to register with the FAA. If you did then by complying you would have had to read the rules and regulations set forth. It is plainly listed in this material that National Parks are off limits to all drone flights. You assertion that you were unaware of this leads me to think that you are not a registered pilot ?

Yes my drone is registered, and at no point during the registration did it mention any rules, especially any above those discussed in the video so I am not sure what you are even refering too. As I have stated several times, I have been trying to follow all laws. I visited both the FAA website and knowbeforeyoufly.org prior to ever even launching my drone, as well as watching multiple videos online. As mentioned in this threat now multiple times, the National Park rule is not listed under the FAA as it is now their law.

 

[Rosey]

Hate to sound negative but frankly looking at the traffic and congested area in your video, common sense would have dictated that I not fly here. There are cars and people all around you that you are endangering by here. What if your drone and drifted over to interstate and went through a windshield and caused a fatal crash. It is far more
important to use your brain than to use Airmaps. I am a newbie too but I spent time reading the laws and browsing this forum even before I purchased my P4. When you are around other people, these drones are NOT just a toy.

Not sure who or what this was in reference too...as you quoted something that did not fit what you were trying to say. If it was in regards to my video...you clearly did not watch it as there was zero drone footage in the video. If you are referring to where I parked, that is a ways away from where I flew as I walked on foot for quite a while. Also, your argument is based on circumstances you can not tell (such as how high was I, were there people around, etc). As previously mentioned, the park was very quite. Additionally, I was not flying that high so it could not have drifted over a highway (which was far away from where I was anyway) and crashed into a car. The only real opportunity my drone had when it was up was somehow having a major issue and drifting over and crashing into the river

So again...no idea what you are even referring too but you clearly do not have an accurate picture.

 

[Rosey]

Rosey... Thanks for helping everyone with such a good reminder. You should be thrilled that your were only fined $50. You should also appreciate that the Federal Park Ranger was such a polite and very reasonable Ranger as are most of them and much of that was also likely due to your modest and contrite attitude in response to him. They are just concerned w/ the safety of other park visitors. Thanks also for trying to be a good pilot and a good representative of the Drone Pilot community.
I also do aerials from Helicopters and airplanes (terryketron.com) and that might be the best way to shoot Nat'l Parks although they prefer that occupied aircraft stay at least 2,000' AGL but that's what telephoto lenses are for.
Thanks again for the post and happy landings in the future.
Terry

Thanks Terry.

 

[sar104]

Not sure who or what this was in reference too...as you quoted something that did not fit what you were trying to say. If it was in regards to my video...you clearly did not watch it as there was zero drone footage in the video. If you are referring to where I parked, that is a ways away from where I flew as I walked on foot for quite a while. Also, your argument is based on circumstances you can not tell (such as how high was I, were there people around, etc). As previously mentioned, the park was very quite. Additionally, I was not flying that high so it could not have drifted over a highway (which was far away from where I was anyway) and crashed into a car. The only real opportunity my drone had when it was up was somehow having a major issue and drifting over and crashing into the river

So again...no idea what you are even referring too but you clearly do not have an accurate picture.

More specifically, the rules and guidelines are about flying over traffic and people, not about flying anywhere where a flyaway could potentially take the UAV over traffic or people. If that were the case then there would be virtually nowhere regarded as safe.

 

[Suspended Moments]

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.

This video shows that it's perfectly fine to fly at the arch, just do a YouTube Search and there are lots of examples. I personally wouldn't fly the Arch, but here you go

 

[Mr. Salty]

This video shows that it's perfectly fine to fly at the arch, just do a YouTube Search and there are lots of examples. I personally wouldn't fly the Arch, but here you go

Depending on where you take off and land. But the Arch grounds themselves are a national park, so it's not "perfectly fine" if you're not careful.

 

[Suspended Moments]

Depending on where you take off and land. But the Arch grounds themselves are a national park, so it's not "perfectly fine" if you're not careful.

That's what I thought, but this guy said all he had to do was ask park rangers and local police?

 

[Suspended Moments]

Depending on where you take off and land. But the Arch grounds themselves are a national park, so it's not "perfectly fine" if you're not careful.

Ok, that was weird, he changed his video to PRIVATE? (';')( ';')..

 

[Krampus]

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.

My

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.

My friend I don't think anyone is completely clear on what is legal or illegal. The police don't even know. Everyone's seems angry.

 

[Racklefratz]

According to the FAA, an aircraft "operation" is a take-off or landing. "Launching, landing or operating" all refer to take-off and landing.

OK, I'll play. Who wants to be the first to define which parts of a drone flight are "landing" and "operating"? When does "operating" end and "landing" begin? Cite regs applicable to drones.

Also, please report back when you've had a confrontation with an NPS Ranger and prevailed, asserting that NPS has no jurisdiction about who does what inside their park boundaries.

The point is, whether you have your trusty pocket copy of the FARS handy or not, NPS has drawn a line in the sand, and anyone who wants to put the "launch outside the park and just fly it in" theory to the test, it's probably not going to end well. That's just the reality of what's going on here.

Good luck getting a park ranger to appreciate the obfuscation.

See the above.

 

[sar104]

OK, I'll play. Who wants to be the first to define which parts of a drone flight are "landing" and "operating"? When does "operating" end and "landing" begin? Cite regs applicable to drones.

Also, please report back when you've had a confrontation with an NPS Ranger and prevailed, asserting that NPS has no jurisdiction about who does what inside their park boundaries.

The point is, whether you have your trusty pocket copy of the FARS handy or not, NPS has drawn a line in the sand, and anyone who wants to put the "launch outside the park and just fly it in" theory to the test, it's probably not going to end well. That's just the reality of what's going on here.


See the above.

It probably doesn't really need a new definition since, as noted, the FAA already defines aircraft operations as takeoff and landing.

I agree that it is unlikely that all NPS LE are familiar with that, but I've talked to NPS LE around here and some, at least, do understand the distinction. But, more specifically, they don't have jurisdiction outside the NPS boundaries and they can't intercept in the air, so enforcement of a policy of no overflight, in addition to no aircraft operations, might be problematic for them as that interaction would have to happen outside their boundaries, if that is where the flight originated.

 

[Racklefratz]

so enforcement of a policy of no overflight, in addition to no aircraft operations, might be problematic for them as that interaction would have to happen outside their boundaries, if that is where the flight originated.

I don't see where NPS has any authority over drone operations outside their boundaries. They DO, however, have control over what goes on inside those boundaries. And I think it's silly to posit that if it's on the ground, NPS can regulate it, but if it's 6' off the ground, they have no say. Silly.

If someone wants to make the argument that it's FAA that controls airspace, fine, but I don't think it would be unreasonable for NPS to ask FAA to intervene if drone incursions were to become an issue. We already have FAA regulating drones; do people want to precipitate FAA's involvement in this?

Memo to the uninitiated: As a former aircraft owner and licensed pilot, I'm acutely aware that FAA has the capability to implement rules which, if I choose not to comply with them, can make it illegal to even operate my airplane. Is that how you want this drone drama to end? Keep it up with the challenging federal rules crap. Keep trying to find what you think are "loopholes" in the regs, and it won't end well.

The point is, they've made THEIR position clear, and even if it's not realistic to expect NPS to interdict a drone flyover, their intent is unmistakable.

It would be a demonstration of malicious intent for a drone owner to intentionally ignore their "no operation inside park boundaries" policy. Who thinks it's a good idea to challenge it? What kind of people want to do that? And which of all the other NPS regs does this segment of society want to challenge? Is this full-on anarchy, or does it end somewhere?

 

[dwallersv]

The point is, whether you have your trusty pocket copy of the FARS handy or not, NPS has drawn a line in the sand, and anyone who wants to put the "launch outside the park and just fly it in" theory to the test, it's probably not going to end well. That's just the reality of what's going on here.

Yes, and once again, understand the reasoning behind these restrictions. This will demonstrate that you can only lose fighting this, and make the restrictions more and more onerous.

Our fellow citizens don't want drones buzzing around the Arch while they're there enjoying it. It's really that simple.

 

[dwallersv]

It probably doesn't really need a new definition since, as noted, the FAA already defines aircraft operations as takeoff and landing.

I agree that it is unlikely that all NPS LE are familiar with that, but I've talked to NPS LE around here and some, at least, do understand the distinction. But, more specifically, they don't have jurisdiction outside the NPS boundaries and they can't intercept in the air, so enforcement of a policy of no overflight, in addition to no aircraft operations, might be problematic for them as that interaction would have to happen outside their boundaries, if that is where the flight originated.

True, but I suspect if enough people irritate the public this way the rules will simply change to give NPS that jurisdiction.

All it takes is legislation, and maybe not even that (i.e. regulatory change).