This drone pilot claimed not to know his hobby was illegal inside Golden Gate National Recreation Area/Kurt Repanshek
How can someone spend anywhere from $500 to $3,000 for a drone, drive to the Marin Headlands portion of Golden Gate National Recreation Area, walk several hundred yards from the parking lot along with dozens of other visitors, commence to flying his drone on the trail to the Point Bonita Lighthouse, and claim not to know he was in a national park?
Ignornace is bliss? Nah, that's too easy.
The guy I ran into the other weekend knew exactly where he was -- he was standing with a gorgeous view of the Golden Gate Bridge dominating the horizon -- and more than likely knew that flying a drone in the NRA is illegal. Drones have been a problem at Golden Gate NRA in recent years -- several years ago a drone nearly collided with several visitors at Alcatraz Island -- and more recently there have been issues with them at Yellowstone National Park, where one pilot crashed his into iconic Grand Prismatic Spring, and at Yosemite National Park. So great a problem have these remote control aircraft become that the National Park Service last June ordered that drones be prohibited in all units of the park system.
"Isn't flying drones in a national park illegal?" I asked him.
"Is it?" he answered.
"Yeah, I think so," said I.
"Is this a park?" he said with a smirk, before turning back to his controls.
He was drawing a crowd, and it's fortunate he didn't crash his drone into them, or onto the cliffside below him. Perhaps if there were rangers about they might have cited him or convinced him to keep his drone in his car, but there weren't, and the few volunteers working the crowds were more absorbed with opening the tunnel to the Point Bonita Lighthouse than directing air traffic.
Drones can be great tools, and can capture wonderful photographs. But they also can be dangerous in crowded settings, in places where they can startle or harass wildlife, or where they can crash into priceless objects or natural curiosities, such as Grand Prismatic Spring. Unfortunately, if parks can't afford to have rangers out patrolling the grounds, more and more drone jockeys will figure their odds of being caught are long.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
It's not just the NPS concerned with drones. The FAA is fighting a battle to find a way (against stiff pressure from the burgeoning drone industry) to regulate the things.
Not long ago, two passengers airliners on landing approach to New York airports reported near misses with drones. One pilot radioed ATC saying a drone had passed over the top of his aircraft at 4000 feet!
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/faa-and-fbi-investigating-uav-sightings-ne...
Flying cameras are by and large a safe and productive expression of the First Amendment. I take issue with your Alcatraz story. There was no collision. He was charged with a crime merely for flying around the island and potentially scaring birds. Let's compare it 'apples to apples' to other human outdoor activities before we say it's unsafe or disruptive. Should cars and bikes be banned too? The NPS ban is temporary and includes many wide open places like Ocean Beach next to SF, which is a great and safe place to fly compared the dense city. The NPS ban also includes Point Reyes with it's huge cow farm -- hardly a wildlife sanctuary. Recently in Point Reyes, there was a fatal landslide which orruced when visitors crept close to the edge of the cliff. If more people had a flying camera, these sorts of incidents would be less common. Let's think that way for once. Between the NPS, State Parks and East Bay Regional Parks, they have criminalized the next Ansel Adams videographer in every major nature area. Go California. This is a healthy hobby and we should not have to hide from authorities. The FAA should make the rules for all airspace.
How can someone be a "scofflaw" when he is doing something that is perfectly legal?
National Park Service is in charge of National Park lands. They do not have the authority to control airspace far above their parks. That's what FAA does - and FAA is perfectly fine with recreational 'drone' flying. (with a few restricted areas.)
In other words, you can't take off from park grounds, but you can fly over park grounds.
Following the rules does not make one a "scofflaw."
Some people are being irrational and fearmongering. There's many more people who get killed and severely injured by speeding bicyclists than by falling "drones." But somehow, we don't expect license, insurance, and registration for bicycles. Maybe we should... Maybe you can go on a fearmongering mission evey time you see a cyclist ride by a little fast. They're endangering the rest of us as well.
With time, we will figure out the social norms for playing with "drones" and what is socially acceptable and what is not. This issue reminds me of another one we had in years past, when some parks tried to ban motorcycles from entering.
Philly, the gentleman in the photo did indeed launch his drone in the park, even after I pointed out that he was in a national park and that drones were banned in national parks. There are other cases, as well -- are you familiar with the drone laying at the bottom of Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone National Park, or the buzzing of wildlife in Zion National Park?
What "social norms" would you propose for drones in national parks? How do you restrict their numbers, where they can fly, how close they can come to wildlife and visitors? Will we need "drone control towers" to manage the airspace?
There's no question drones can provide incredible perspectives of park landscapes. But opening the parks to all drone pilots likely would create a nightmare of regulatory problems. How would you address the issues?
There are rules and have been rules for years about radio controlled (RC) aircraft, which is what these drones fall under the control of. You can't fly them in populated areas and they are not as one commented free to fly anywhere. A true drone, one flown by remote camera, are currently illegal everywhere. These are RC aircrafts and must follow the rules for them.
If someone were flying a traditional RC plane engine buzzing away in this same location he would be roundly chased away. These aircraft are the same thing Radio Controlled aircraft. The park service absolutely can enforce their legality and they have no place in the park system.
There was a police log item in this past week's issue of Mount Desert Islander, about Acadia National Park issuing summons to Mass. man for operating drone. No other details or explanation, just this paragraph:
"David Massey, 50, of Southborough, Mass., was summonsed by rangers on Sept. 24 on a charge of violating a closure. According to reports, he was operating a drone from park property."
Go to www.mdislander.com and search "drone". It's under the headline "Island police log: Man hit by tour bus."
The Acadia "Superintendent's Compendium" has a section about why drones and other unmanned aircraft aren't allowed at this time. The technical term used in the compendium is "closure," for the currently prohibited use. Go to www.nps.gov/acad to look it up.
I've had my air space invaded by a drone in National Forest land, hovering overhead, and didn't much like it. I can see why there needs to be rules about it.
"A true drone, one flown by remote camera, are currently illegal everywhere."
Wrong.
Here's a link to an FAA website about RC and drone aircraft limitations:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/
And another interesting article:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/faa-proposes-1-9m-fine-after-...
You can shoot your guns in national parks but you cant fly a drone.. Murica. I live in WA state and there are thousands of acres of national park in remote areas with nobody for miles and miles and I cant fly my drone but I can go out there and shoot beer bottles with a gun till the cows come home. they should not be banned in remote wilderness areas where there are no people. How else am I supposed to get that nice video of a mountain>?
Actually, anonymous, you can't shoot your guns in the parks. You can carry them, but you can't shoot them.
It's not illegal as there is no law that bans drones over NPS adminstered lands. They aribrarily put in place a policy which they have no legal authority to enforce. A policy is not a law. If they want a ban they must follow the proper procedures and establish law. Furthermore they do not have authority to administer airspace. Only the federal governmen could do this and as a department of interior agency they do not have the authority to do so. Hopefully if they do fine someone they will fight for their rights and sue the agency as trying to fine people for this would be in itself truly illegal.
If there isn't, there should be.
ChrisF - the Department of the Interior IS a federal agency. I'm afraid I'm not going to take your personal declaration that they have no authority over their lands.
After air operations at a current fire in Utah were shut down more than five times by drones, the Utah legislature passed an emergency bill authorizing law enforcement officers, both state and Federal, to knock drones out of the sky by blocking their control frequencies or by using a device that will lead officers to the controller in the scofflaw's hands.
Consideration was given to the idea of simply shooting them down, but that was dropped because of concern for firefighter safety with bullets or buckshot flying.
The Federal Aviation Administration may also have a few disgreements with the idea that there are no laws regarding drones or other aircraft flying over national park areas. There are, in fact, a number of FARs (Federal Air Regulations) dealing with that issue.
The Rangers are busy trying to prevent gang members from breaking into the cars of tourists (like your car and my car) at the overlook in the Marin Headlands and other places that attract ripoffs. It's not like a drone next to the freeway is disturbing wildlife. I wish the Rangers had enough time to ticket and remove the arrogant dog owners who feel entitled to bring their pets to the National Park instead of creating dog parks in their own town as dogs disturb wildlife more than drones (yes, even though dogs are 'natural' and drones are not) which is why drones are used to monitor, count and study an assortment of wild animals.
However, if I'm not mistaken, I think the Park Service may be using drones to monitor us. I have seen them in 'wilderness' areas like Drakes Estero. We know the NPS uses video suveillence in many applications.
The Rangers in the Park are busy patrolling popular places where ripoffs occur, like where a carload of thugs will smash your window to get to your purse....while you are taking selfies at the overlook. If your car has NOT been broken into you can thank a Ranger for that....As for drones in the Park (and specifically wilderness areas) it seems the Park Service is OK with flying their own drones...I was followed by no less than 5 drones one evening while hiking in Drakes Estero. Apparently they use drones to monitor restoration projects.
jmk84 hit the nail on the head. Ilove the outdoors, I love the national parks. I understand they can disturb the wildlife. I have talked to state park rangers about this. They have given me live time information about places where I would disturb wildlife that needs protection and places that are less likely to impact scecies that need protecting.
The real problem I have here is the double standard. You will see everyday, multiple times a day, helicopters with tourists going underneather, yes, UNDERNEATH Golden Gate Bridge. It's a daily thing. Yet I do that with a drone, and it's a big crime. Those helicopters could crash into the bridge and kill thousands of people. But it's ok, nobodys going to stop that...
I can get a small plane or helicopter, and fly through the grand cayon, but a drone is illegal? Last time I checked, drones make less noise than planes or helicopters, thus they distrub wildlife less. So why are planes and helicopters ok, but not drones?
It's a double standard. I fly at ocean beach regularly. I've never had any issues, and if I did, I would ask them to point to a safer place for me to fly, becuase there really isn't a less populated, open area in San Francisco.
Just becuase this is a new industry and you don't personally enjoy it, dosen't mean you should tell people they can't do it. This is the land of the free, where your suppose to have the right to do what you want. You think walking on these trails in national parks don't disturb wildlife?
End the drone double standard. The national park should imposse reasonable regulations and move on. Cause as it is now, people will just ignore this blanket ban of drones in most places where they know park rangers are unlikely to be found.
Anon - you can carry in a National Park but you cannot shoot at will and certainly not at bottles.
Drones appear also at Grand Canyon National park. Hey, they can fly them if they launch outside the park just like the commercial air tours that are highly restrictive the routes they can fly. I mentioned the rules to one drone pilot (politely) and he got kind of snarky. I went on with my group I was guiding to a very special spot. When I returned the drone and it's pilot was gone. However, he left his laptop on the wall. I turned it in to NPS as they have a very good Lost and Found with the story behind it.
jmk84 has a chip on his/her shoulder. Why can't all these people just follow the law? I don't mtn bike in the Wilderness of Point Reyes because of the law, though it makes no sense to me, and they should follow the law as well.
Luke...
You say; "Just becuase this is a new industry and you don't personally enjoy it, dosen't mean you should tell people they can't do it. This is the land of the free, where your suppose to have the right to do what you want. You think walking on these trails in national parks don't disturb wildlife?"
What an entitled attitude. It is NOT 'just because" it is new, and you have no idea who else enjoys what. It is NOT the NPS' or FAA's or anyone else's responsibility to find places for you to use your expensive toy.
There have been many dangerous circumstances mentioned above but which you ignore. One thing about living in this land of the free that you cite is NOT putting others at risk just cuz you feel like playing.