Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'News' started by steele9999, Jun 20, 2014.
This was just posted.
Depressing, but based on the ample proof we all seem so eager to provide them, I can see why they took the step. We as a group are going to have to get out of this "any time, any where, any how" mind set we have. Limitations are going to be a thing of our future and the NPS has already started.
I don't blame the NPS at all. Too many of us do too many stupid things with drones.
It's very simple. Issue permits with very clear rules. Violate the rules and suffer the penalties. The real issue here has nothing at all to do with drones or the few idiots who flew irresponsibility. It has everything to do with the heavy hand of this admin to regulate virtually everything. Someday I'm sure we won't even be able to take a photo or exhale in the park. Be willing to bet the FAA is pushing this action with the NPS - don't play along and we'll see to it your funding gets cut even more. Guns used to be banned, but now those are allowed in some parks - what's changed? Nothing but time. This is a knee jerk reaction to what the FAA can't fully regulate legally.
Well, here we go!
I think it is time we all get Organized, start to send letters to Park Service Superintendents, and become vocal to our elected officials. I would much rather have a Permit process in place that would limit areas and times Ariel Cameras (not drones) can be used, and specific rules on the usage of our cameras.
Most National Parks have a camping permit process, that limit the amount of people who can Camp within park boundaries. Overuse and neglect from unregulated camping led to specific areas being designated for camping, and a permit is required for the ability to use it. This process took a great deal of time to implement, and is still being adjusted as time goes on. With time, education, and pressure, we can effect change to the Park Service rules, ones that will work to benefit All users. Remember, The National Parks Service is here to: "Protect and Preserve". Ignorance is our enemy, not the NPS administration.
Now, as a sarcastic way of thinking, I wonder if we would get support from the NRA and other Civil rights groups if we mounted GUNS to our Phantoms. Also, I wonder if they will challenge someone flying a kite? Does a UAV have to have motors? Lets all launch out Ariel Cameras "Outside" of NPS boundaries, and fly them outside edge of parks, but educate the public that are going into Parks about our hobby.
Good luck on getting the NPS to rewrite the rules to allow the usage of RC craft in the parks again. Geocaching/Terracaching/Letterboxing is a minimally invasive activity but a few jerks ruined it for others so the activity is banned from all NPS lands. Delaware State Parks allow it with approval by the land managers.
Sorry to be a negative nelly but it seems all too often the bad apples ruin it for others. I for one wouldn't mind a system like Amateur Radio Operators, you need to be licensed to even purchase the equipment. Or like non USA countries are doing.. a licensing system, or a Parent-Child type of system like a Realtor Broker-Agent agreement. You get a license (the child) but you have to be covered by a company or something (the parent). That seems to cut down on some of the jerks.
As I posted elsewhere, Delaware State Parks ban all RC craft currently, #15 specifically rule 15.2, & only in allowed areas. Well guess what, I contacted a couple of the parks I was going to visit this weekend & they have no allowed areas, at all.
And as for flying on the edges, sorry not me. I really find these attitudes funny as all get.. "Lets go do something we're not supposed too because its actually skirting the edge of the law. But we'll piss & moan when we get our butts handed to us & threaten lawsuits when we don't get our way
In Dewey Beach DE there is a butthurt jerk who was told he couldn't build a building over the towns height requirements so he got all baby whiney & sued the town, a lil beach town & he has deep pockets (hes a flipping lawyer from DC area no less) so the town couldn't afford it & he like a lil b baby got his way. Now we have a eyesore building that's part hotel part condos for more b babies to summer in from DC, B-More & such.
And the whining that the FAA doesn't have the authority to do what they are doing? Its the flipping govt people, if you haven't learned yet that the govt can pretty much do what they want then you either young or naïve. Look at what they have banned on "Behalf of the peoples safety" & what they want to ban "for our own good".
This is going to get good. :roll:
What are DJI's thoughts??
You would think that DJI has a direct interest in this.
The effect of this (which isn't a ban yet), is to ban aerial photography from some of the most beautiful places in the country. The frustrating part is that these people have never flown one, as demonstrated by the quote from the National Parks Service Director: "Imagine you're a big wall climber in Yosemite working on a four-day climb up El Capitan, and you're hanging off a bulb ready to make a (difficult) move, and an unmanned aircraft flies up beside you and is hovering a few feet from your head with its GoPro camera running. Think about what that does to your experience and your safety."
DJI needs to step up it's lobbying efforts!!!!!
And we all need to not be idiots when we fly, or we''re going to have no place we can.
Re: US National Park Service has banned all "drones"
Do they lobby at all?
Sent from my Galaxy Note 8
Re: US National Park Service has banned all
Not that I am aware of. In some ways I see DJI like a Dot.Com company. They are going to make all the money they can, while they can, and then they will fold up their tent or sharply focus their sales on the professional and not the consumer market.
They don’t need to lobby most end users that buy phantoms will not bother searching whether things are banned or not. And even if they are they will prob still fly it and risk it anyway.
The National Park Service permits all sorts of activities some may find objectionable. For example loud or excessive numbers of motorcycles not only are annoying to visitors, but creates safety issues and disturbs wildlife. Snowmobiles bring noise and emissions into sensitive wintering environments. Backcountry permits allow access to remote regions also disturbing wildlife. Commercial helicopter or tourist aircraft bring recurring noise and flight risks. Guns were not allowed, now allowed in some parks. Water consumption, sewage and access for millions of annual visitors strains the system to the breaking point. Mountain climbing risks the climber and rock structures with anchor points and lines and on and on.
Reasonable, controlled access for remotely piloted cameras should be allowed with some restrictions. Here's a recommended starter list:
1) Remotely piloted aerial cameras may only be flown with a site specific issued permit.
2) A limited number of permits will be issued daily, first come, first serve. One flier at a time allowed in park designated flight permissible areas with reasonable access. Park rangers will monitor operations for compliance and can revoke the permit at any time if operations are deemed unsafe.
3) Flight times not to exceed 30 minutes with one hour quiet periods in between.
4) No over flights of crowds, maintain a 100ft distance when in flight.
5) Operators may not approach wildlife within 100ft nor harass.
6) Flights must not approach sensitive monuments, personal, visitors or rock climbers in a manner that endangers property or people.
7) Upon completion of the permit, operators are to show park officials that the aircraft has been safely returned to demonstrate it has not been lost in the park.
8) In the event of a downed remotely piloted camera into restricted areas, operators are to reasonably locate the crash site and advise the park ranger but shall not attempt recovery.
9) Operators are responsible for all recovery costs to locate and remove the wreckage. Retrieved aircraft will be returned to the owner at their expense.
10) Flight operations are to be consistent with Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code.
11) Violations of these rules can result in forfeiture of the aircraft and/or other fines or criminal actions.
It is interesting how we will all go on for pages and pages talking about how they can't do this or they can't do that, when the bottom line is they HAVE done it and there is basically nothing we can do about it.
Anyone catch the 60 minutes feature on "drones" tonight?? Colin Guinn was our spokesman with Diane Feinstein acting the little old lady clutching here hanky to her cheek. Morely Safer was not much better. I'm 58, but Safer and Feinstein make me feel positively young.
If we would all stop calling the Phantom a "drone" maybe we would help ourselves... if you read the full article it says "Superintendents who have previously authorized the use of model aircraft for hobbyist or recreational use may allow such use to continue."
Why do we allow people to dictate what a Phantom really is. At this point in time, it is a model aircraft for hobbyists unless you are using it for commercial paid use.
It is time to start calling and writing to your Senators and House Representative.
If we don't, the big commercial drone users will squeeze us all out .... and that is their plan.
Until the NPRM is published there is nothing that can be commented on. If you are a hobbyist they will simply point to section 336 of the FMRA and ask what the issue is. Frankly, there is nothing a Congress Critter could do now except muck it up. The FAA process is nearing the end. At this point there is little that can be done except wait for the NPRM and THEN raise the roof with specific comments about what the FAA is proposing.
Please help me to understand their 'plan'.
What is a NPRM???
Notice of Proposed Rule Making. It is the legal process used by US Government agencies in formulating and finalizing new rules.
https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads ... rocess.pdf