WhiteHouse.gov petition

[tjshelton]

At the whitehouse.gov website you can start a petition for just about anything. What would you guys (and gals) think about a petition to have National Parks open to drones on a rotating schedule for one weekend per park. The drone and pilot would be checked in and out with the drones inspected and registration number verified. The park service could charge a reasonable fee ($40...?) To offset the cost for processing and any damage caused by crashed or lost drones. Specific takeoff and landing points would be established. And limits within the park could be established. For example, no flying under the rock formation in Arches National Park.

I'll be happy to draft the petition and post it. I'd really like your input.

 

[sky cooter]

Post it somehow, notify us, and I'll sign it!

 

[GMack]

Sounds good. Post when you do it.

 

[Sagebrush]

I like not having our little buzz-bombs in the parks.

But objectively, would there be 5,000 people sign this petition?

Here's the bar: "If you gather 100,000 signature in 30 days, we’ll review your petition, make sure it gets in front of the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response."

SB

 

[John Locke]

I don't recommend offering money to national parks, we already pay to enter them, not to mention our taxes. These are our parks, we should be entitled to fly one weekend a month if it can be proven safe.

I suggest you propose a 1 year trial period for part 107 pilots, with set flight areas, etc. If that goes well, then try year period to include the public (without Part 107) to fly the same one weekend a month. If that goes well, petition for two weekends a month.

 

[Ubibird]

This is a great idea, I'm unsure as to why it is banned in the first place. As long as individuals are held accountable for their actions with their bird, there should be no problem. Additionally, what do lawmakers think is going to happen by permitting drone use? That there will be an increase in visitation--isnt that what you want? Perhaps I'm only seeing if from a pilots' perspective.

 

[ShaunMac]

I'll sign

 

[BigAl07]

I like not having our little buzz-bombs in the parks.

But objectively, would there be 5,000 people sign this petition?

Here's the bar: "If you gather 100,000 signature in 30 days, we’ll review your petition, make sure it gets in front of the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response."

SB

I'm with SB as I like my time in the wild "Drone Free".

With all due respect, we feel like our numbers are GREAT but that's because we are concentrated in our forums etc. In reality the number of people who do NOT want drones in NPS is far greater, louder, and have money to speak for them.

 

[GMack]

I'm with SB as I like my time in the wild "Drone Free".

With all due respect, we feel like our numbers are GREAT but that's because we are concentrated in our forums etc. In reality the number of people who do NOT want drones in NPS is far greater, louder, and have money to speak for them.

I don't see any reason a drone could not fly over Death Valley National Park if no one was around or some set distance, say out of site from general public (~2,000 feet.). No harm if no one sees it. Ubehebe Crater in Death Valley N. P. at 9AM on a Thursday likely has no one around it for miles. If it is known in the N.P. newspaper that Sept. 3 is "Drone Day" and you don't like it, then don't go! I'm sure the scouts have some day where they will take over a campground, but I'm not going there that day if they do nor do I feel any knee-jerk reason to ban them either. There is a way to share resources.

Conversely, flying in ones town will raise ire fast and that's where I fear the anti-drone types will ban them and where we are heading. So National Parks are banned, and cities will follow. May as well give up if you cannot fly anywhere, even if one day a month in a National Park. If you have a few flying over your house dally, I'm sure it would bother you more than seeing one in a National Park, and some seem to think it is okay to shoot them down.
.
I'm in for the OP's message to allow them under notice within the National Parks.

 

[Mr. Salty]

I like not having our little buzz-bombs in the parks.

I agree. I went to Mount Rushmore a couple of years ago and all the people with selfie sticks were annoying enough. I can't imagine someplace like Rushmore, or Yellowstone, or the Grand Canyon, or Yosemite, with a few dozen drones buzzing around on any given day.

 

[Rocket]

I'd sign it too.

 

[microlinux]

with a few dozen drones buzzing around on any given day.

A great example of FUD. What data suggests "a few dozen drones" would be buzzing around on any given day, much less in specific areas where it would be a problem? It's not like suddenly huge swarms of people will descend upon the parks and clog the skies. 90% of drone owners probably have never even considered flying in a national park. I'll bet you a thousand bucks that littering is and will continue to be a bigger problem that drones - yet we still let people eat, drink and play in the parks.

Last time I went camping at a State Park, the people next to me were blasting music - why should we risk that? Shouldn't we ban all forms of music and audio apparatus because a few people are idiots? The State certainly doesn't think so, it permits such activity at a reasonable volume and has consequences for those who don't follow the regulations.

We can let FUD get the best of us and walk around in foam suits during daylight hours only, or stop and consider what is within the bounds of reason. Given the proper regulatory framework, I see little reason why drones should be banned across the board, period.

 

[42FrankZ]

I don't recommend offering money to national parks, we already pay to enter them, not to mention our taxes. These are our parks, we should be entitled to fly one weekend a month if it can be proven safe.

I suggest you propose a 1 year trial period for part 107 pilots, with set flight areas, etc. If that goes well, then try year period to include the public (without Part 107) to fly the same one weekend a month. If that goes well, petition for two weekends a month.

How about we get to fly in national parks, at any time and without a part 107?

Frankly no one can show there are issues with UAV in these park but we have to ban them anyway.