flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 15:56
It's pretty clear from the wording that the rule was not written with drones in mind but instead to  ...

I also think that you are forgetting about the drone manufacturing industry, it's projected $12+ billion in sales into 2021 and it's lobbyists who are pushing to keep their products pumping out, won't sell a whole lot of drones if there is nowhere to fly, am I right?

I totally get what you are saying. I do understand that there is a certain point in airspace where the state no longer has jurisdiction over the airspace but that doesn't mean it's a free for all, just like private property. I'm just stating that assuming that since you didn't take off and or land on the ground of the state park is a risky endeavor. And I would be very cautious of thinking that defense would fly with authorities.
As for the easiest course and cheapest course of action would be also to declare it a state park a NFZ. It isn't allowed already and to pass it as a NFZ would stop most of the consumer drones to fly into the area as it does in current NFZ. Your option would cost a lot more money in cases of drone policing. I highly doubt most people would be behind using tax money to allow UAV's to interrupt their state park at the risk of also causing wildlife issues.

JFlowers1300 Posted at 2016-10-13 13:05
Perhaps, thankfully you're not a politician or lawyer and it's not your place to decide that it "o ...

In no way did I state that it did not apply to drones. In fact, that was the point of my post. The wording was not written with drones in mind but is applicable by default. Read what I actually DID say please.

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 15:56
It's pretty clear from the wording that the rule was not written with drones in mind but instead to  ...

Oh and thanks for the impromptu definition of commerce, but if you had been a part of this discussion at all I clearly outline how charging for drone permits would be: THE EXACT SAME THING!

GHz-Drew Posted at 2016-10-13 16:14
I totally get what you are saying. I do understand that there is a certain point in airspace where t ...

I hear you and that is my major problem, it is a risky endeavor because you break no laws unless you crash. I wouldn't put myself in that situation nor advocate for anyone else to. The fact remains that it is completely legal so long as you don't take off or land from the park property. I am very unhappy that as of now that is all there is to work with. We all help pay for those lands, if I am willing to pay for an extra permit to fly, carry liability insurance and check my drone into the ranger station I will obviously fly responsibly as I care about myself, my craft and my subject matter. Those who don't are already filming/taking pictures in said areas and giving everyone else a bad rep in the process.

In terms of just saying "Well, gonna be easier to give up" on the ability to fly in hundreds and hundreds of acres that we pay for as taxpayers.... can't agree with that at all. The easiest path isn't always the right one especially when trying to exercise your rights. Give an inch and loose a mile...

JFlowers1300 Posted at 2016-10-13 13:14
Oh and thanks for the impromptu definition of commerce, but if you had been a part of this discuss ...

No. It is not the same. Commerce, as I've described, represents an influx of money in multiple ways. The flight tour industry hires local pilots, pays taxes and has to pay rent at the local airfield. Somehow I don't think that's the same as charging a few drone pilots a few bucks to fly in the park.

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 16:14
In no way did I state that it did not apply to drones. In fact, that was the point of my post. The ...

I've read everything you have said as you've been trolling this forum. I get that you don't agree with me and my beliefs, doesn't make either of us right or wrong for vocalizing opinions. You don't want drones in parks because you see no way of there being any safe compromise to fly on hundreds and hundreds of acres of land even though people are already doing it illegally and using loopholes in the law to capture from the sky. I understand that you would rather have the FAA just ban flying from anywhere that you don't feel people should fly. I get it man, trust me.

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 16:21
No. It is not the same. Commerce, as I've described, represents an influx of money in multiple way ...

I think that a government service that stands to make additional money from a budding new community is exactly the same thing....

JFlowers1300 Posted at 2016-10-13 14:21
I hear you and that is my major problem, it is a risky endeavor because you break no laws unless y ...

I would just argue that you aren't giving anything up by declaring it a NFZ and moving on. The current rules are put in place to stop it already. Declaring it a NFZ is just closing up that loop hole many try to fly under now. Thats all. What else would you be losing. You don't currently fly in state parks do you?
And you are definitely are correct that you should be able to enjoy where some of your tax payer money is going. So get out there and enjoy!

JFlowers1300 Posted at 2016-10-13 13:29
I've read everything you have said as you've been trolling this forum. I get that you don't agree  ...

I wonder if you get that your attacks on me as opposed to just sticking to the discussion of drones in state parks does not help your case and makes you appear small and weak.

GHz-Drew Posted at 2016-10-13 16:33
I would just argue that you aren't giving anything up by declaring it a NFZ and moving on. The cur ...

The freedom to capture thousands of acres of beautiful land that I help pay for and that will not last forever namely. I also feel that most of the more vast parks would serve as a much safer place to fly than in city or rural parks. I appreciate the dialog, I'm enjoying flying, so much so that I want to be vocal about not seeing the community continually receive negative feedback in the media/legislation that is being put out. I feel that coming together as a community and presenting the idea of working together with law enforcement, parks, etc... will ultimately yield a positive impact on the future of UAV/Drone flight.

JFlowers1300 Posted at 2016-10-13 14:43
The freedom to capture thousands of acres of beautiful land that I help pay for and that will not  ...

I totally get that. You seem passionate about it and I appreciate that even though we don't see eye to eye on the situation, we still both want the best for our community. I want nothing more than to help further the drone community safely and responsibly.

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 16:37
I wonder if you get that your attacks on me as opposed to just sticking to the discussion of drone ...

What has been off topic?

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 16:21
No. It is not the same. Commerce, as I've described, represents an influx of money in multiple way ...

ONLY freshwater fishing statistics of ONLY FL residents:

$21,816,578 annual 2014-2015

Projected UAV/Drone Sales through 2021:

$12,000,000,000 / $1000 per drone = 12,000,000 new UAV/Drones by 2021

I don't think we are talking chump change by any means.

JFlowers1300 Posted at 2016-10-13 17:02
ONLY freshwater fishing statistics of ONLY FL residents:

$21,816,578 annual 2014-2015

freshwater fishing license for FL resident costs 17 bucks by the way

JFlowers1300 Posted at 2016-10-13 14:02
ONLY freshwater fishing statistics of ONLY FL residents:

$21,816,578 annual 2014-2015

Exactly how does the sale of Japanese built drones help the bottom line of Florida or any other State? Totally unrelated numbers.

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 17:06
Exactly how does the sale of Japanese built drones help the bottom line of Florida or any other St ...

Well i don't think the community as it stands will be purchasing all of those 12 million additional drones do you? Obviously the community is expected to vastly expand by 2021 and by charging for permits similarly to charging for fishing licences, state parks will create a very large revenue should they choose to capitalize on it.

JFlowers1300 Posted at 2016-10-13 17:09
Well i don't think the community as it stands will be purchasing all of those 12 million additional ...

= Commerce

LOL... You are making my case for me. For your hypothesis to be of any financial gain to the state would require a ton of drones flying all over the park like a swarm of bees. Sorry. We are not going to ever agree on this issue. I personally find many of the restrictions currently in place on drones overreaching but I fully understand they are in place in order to avoid catastrophe, at worst, and a nuisance at best. The FAA has put in place rules, including waivers, that allow folks like myself to be able to utilize these wonders of tech in our business. As far as hobbyist, you should look at RC airplanes as a model of how safe flying can be achieved. RC airplanes hobbyists have found sites to congregate and fly for many years. The only reason drones have not integrated into that system is their ability to take off and land virtually anywhere. You have mentioned numerous times that the state parks will not be around forever. Well, nothing lasts forever, last I checked, but the whole concept of designating those areas as state and national park is to preserve them for future generations without the encroachment of any factors that would alter the current state. You've also mentioned the hundreds of acres available within the parks. I might remind you that there are millions of acres available for you to photograph willy nilly, outside of the parks. Maybe when you can show that you've covered a good percentage of those acres we can return to this conversation. Till then, I'm going to agree to disagree.

A swarm of bees? Really? Because all 12,000,000 drones will all congregate to the same exact place at the same exact time in the same exact park right? Get real, you are so closed minded it's amazing. Are all of our lakes fished dry because we offer citizens the right to fish at the parks? What part of the fact that people are already flying in these parks do you not understand?

"The FAA has put in place rules, including waivers, that allow folks like myself to be able to utilize these wonders of tech in our business. As far as hobbyist, you should look at RC airplanes as a model of how safe flying can be achieved" exactly, Mr. "Expensive Toy" man, there should also be waivers or, more accurately, permits which allow those with proper liability coverage to fly in state parks. You do know what liability coverage is right? Just checking.

"You have mentioned numerous times that the state parks will not be around forever. Well, nothing lasts forever, last I checked, but the whole concept of designating those areas as state and national park is to preserve them for future generations without the encroachment of any factors that would alter the current state." - Do you really not understand that human catastrophe is not the only way these parks change? I mean really? We just went through hurricane Matthew here in FL, btw, have you seen our coast line? Probably not.

"I might remind you that there are millions of acres available for you to photograph willy nilly, outside of the parks. Maybe when you can show that you've covered a good percentage of those acres we can return to this conversation" - So I have to "work" my way in? It will be okay with you then? Oh man, glad to know it will be okay with you then....

I said before that I understand and appreciate your point of view, but the more you post here the more I take that back. Do you think you are the only professional on this forum? I have been a VERY successful professional photographer for well over 12 years and I can tell you that I take my gear, my subject matter, and my rights as a citizen of this country very seriously. I don't care if you are too closed minded to have a discussion of how this could and would benefit the parks and the UAV/Drone community, you are obviously too ignorant to hear anything but your own voice!

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 17:33
LOL... You are making my case for me. For your hypothesis to be of any financial gain to the state w ...

And btw, you must have really worked hard last night to get through all that other, "more important stuff" to put your energy into, maybe you should go try and find some more rather than trolling here just to argue in a forum you have blatantly stated to "be done with" and that you have to "agree to disagree with".  

Rinzler Posted at 2016-10-13 09:09
Something you are overlooking is disturbing the wildlife.  From doing a shoot of some horses I can ...

Also, if you are too close @ 200ft then why not buy a longer lens and fly higher? You can legally fly to 400ft which makes the drone almost silent wouldn't it? This boils down to YOUR decision as a UAV pilot versus a serious problem for every UAV pilot.

http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/drone-statistics/

http://dronelife.com/2016/07/19/ ... one-industry-stats/

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 10:00
I think you will find more support when drones become less of a noise nuisance. I personally don't f ...

This logic is a little weird. You think there needs to be drone enforcers everywhere checking everyone?

What about people who fish? You realize that in most parks people are required to get fishing licenses, and then they are limited to a certain number of catches per day.

What about people who hike? Do you realize that many trails require payment/donation in order to be on it? Not all trails, but many do, especially wilderness trails. I'm sure a LOT of people don't pay, because they were unaware that they were suppose to.

What about people who hunt? People must be licensed and there are limits placed on kills. Permits galore.

Do you think that they are enforcing everyone? Not at all, it's mostly a trust system for all of these things. Adding drones would not add to the enforcement at all.

At the end of the day, it's just another revenue source for parks and if there are problematic people they have ability to enforce.

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 11:15
You managed to ignore the fact that enforcement would be a major problem. You can't search every c ...

Again, I'm not sure this logic makes sense.

Did you know that cars bring in all sorts of things that the parks do not enforce on, but that are not allowed or are otherwise prohibited or require licenses for?

Hunting, fishing, hiking in wilderness, food (in many national parks there are bears, and you are required to lock up your food in bear lockers or bear-proof containers that you bring in, punishable by law!), etc. All of these things either require permits, or require some restrictions, and all of which are essentially not enforced.

Guns aren't allowed in many areas, but people aren't searched and enforced on everywhere, to comb through their things to look for them.

This is just another item for the list. No need to enforce it.

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 12:01
I guess we just disagree on the enforcement concept. Thinking a few hours training would be the only ...

I really don't get this enforcement thing you keep bringing up. No new enforcement strategies are necessary here.

Park rangers already enforce the following:

* drunk people harassing campers
* criminals stealing or otherwise committing crimes
* littering
* damage to park property and wildlife
* many police matters (violent crime, etc)
* parking citations
* wilderness permit evaluation

This is just another thing that they can enforce, but enforcement is not necessary. As with many cases in law, enforcement is often "when observed" -- in other words, if a ranger sees prohibitive drone activity, they can look further into it -- such as perhaps flying in restricted zones, or flying too close to people, or damaging park property.

Do you think that rangers check every person to make sure they didn't drink too much at their campsites?
Do you think that rangers check for illegal weapons in every car that comes into the park?
Do you think that rangers check every person to make sure that they have paid their camping dues?

There are so many things that are not enforced. Because it's a trust-based system, in most cases. And the way it works is that if rangers notice activity that is suspicious, they can look into it further and then enforce if necessary.

Do rangers know if people went off the trails and off the roads and touched wildlife they are not suppose to? No, of course not. Not unless it is reported or they witness it. They don't go monitoring every nook and cranny of the park. They also don't harass every single person they see about it.

So the enforcement you are so concerned about in this thread is very strange to me. Because nothing else really eats up time or is a huge headache.

Also -- a lot of people think there is only one type of ranger in the parks. But actually, there are a lot of different types of rangers. Some are more enforcement related, some are knowledge related, some are service related, etc. There are official names and ranks for these types of rangers in the NPS for example. Thus, there are rangers that are much more suited to the enforcement of drones, and adding this knowledge to their base is not asking a lot.

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 12:28
LOL... Right. Got it.

You're on a pro-drone website forum right now -- one that manufacturers these drones. How are you this pessimistic? Do you not like to fly drones? Are you here just to troll, or do you have serious concerns about this?

If you are serious -- and I respect that -- then where do you think it should be legal to fly them? Just over the homes and neighborhoods that are very quickly becoming the last legal places to fly? Because to me it makes a lot more sense that distant and low populated parks are a much better/safer place to fly -- it's prettier (makes for better footage), it can support organizations that are needing the revenue, and it's safer (less people and valuable property per square foot).

Around here (California) pretty much every National and State park is banned. Many Regional park systems have banned it too. And then, a lot of local trails in Open Space preserves have also banned it. That pretty much leaves territory the size of most states in the USA forbidden -- yes, our parks combined together in California are larger than at least half the other states individually. That's a lot of area. And most of that area is barren and without people most of the time. This leaves very populated areas legal to fly over (i.e. the city).

Seems totally counterintuitive to me.

Rinzler Posted at 2016-10-13 21:09
Something you are overlooking is disturbing the wildlife.  From doing a shoot of some horses I can ...

A lot of parks have essentially no wildlife (at least here in California I have been to so many that had almost no wildlife, except a few birds here and there). Sure, there are little critters, or wild animals way deeper out, but in general near the trails there aren't a lot of animals.

And obviously there should be laws to protect the animals. The law should be written to specific prevent certain proximities so that you aren't flying up near a bear, or deer, or whatever. They do this now with people -- rangers set park regulations that prevent you from walking too close to animals. Once in a while a ranger will go around and warn people who are too close (I saw this happening in Yellowstone National Park a few months ago -- people were getting too close to antelope and bison, and he came around on a golf cart yelling at people that they are too close).

And yes, even if there are laws and regulations, people will break those laws. They already do -- littering, noise levels, animal violations, etc. Enforcement only happens as possible. This wouldn't change anything.

But, put the law in there. And if people are stupid and fly their drones too close to wildlife and break the rules, then they get massive citations. A $10,000 "disturbing the wildlife" citation would most definitely deter most pilots.

Recently all of San Francisco became a No Fly Zone with a $10,000 fine if you flew during "Fleet Week" -- because there are jets in the air doing acrobatic tricks all week. Do you think people flew their drones, but at low altitude? Absolutely -- I saw someone. I even reminded him that it was temporarily banned with a huge fine.

But the point is, it deters most people. And those that violate it, can get fined.

Blanket bans are stupid.

Rinzler Posted at 2016-10-13 21:11
FYI in winter sound travels farther in cold air. So at 100 acres I bet it could be heard and for M ...

I have been in some seriously huge state and regional parks. I find it hard to believe that it would be heard in even the tiniest portions of the park. I can barely hear my Inspire after it's 100 feet away. It's incredibly doubtful that someone would hear it 800 acres away.

Drew Vallejo Posted at 2016-10-14 01:18
I live in Colorado Springs and the big draw here is Garden of the Gods. It is a beautiful state park ...

Then doesn't it make sense to prohibit drones in places people are prohibited to go as well? But to blanket ban seems wrong to me. Places where people are allowed to go should be places where drones are allowed too.... but with stipulations that protect people and wildlife, and require permits so that the park can limit the number of "buzzing annoyances" flying in the park.

TCPSBxVG66Gy Posted at 2016-10-14 01:50
So 100% of every state park is inhabited by wildlife? As I have already mentioned buzzing wildlife ...

I agree here. Most parks around here don't have tons of wild animals running around that would be affected by a small drone flying around hundreds of feet away from it. Most of the parks here are foliage, small critters, and bugs. Yet we have a huge amount of park acreage, and it's all banned.

Also, not only should it be obvious, but I'm completely fine with the law being written to allow drones in parks but to have some restrictions. I would even be happy to take an online or in-person written test annually to get a permit to be allowed to do so.

I have a ham radio license. It's good for 10 years. In it there are legalities that I must follow. There are things I can do with my ham radio equipment that could harm people, animals, etc. But I obviously don't do those things. My license requires me to be educated in order to pass. And violations of these things are enforced by FCC and local law enforcement. They don't police me, but if I blatantly break a law or regulation, they *could*.

So why would drones be any different? Set the rules, make us play by the rules via honor system, and if someone is blatantly breaking the rules then press charges. To blanket ban makes no sense to me.

TCPSBxVG66Gy Posted at 2016-10-14 01:54
Perhaps, but the noise impact from a quad-copter at that range would be less disturbing than, lets  ...

I agree with this completely.

Heniek W Posted at 2016-10-14 02:19
just imagine the noise from the copter not to mention the emissions and the led and mercury droppi ...

Yes, I like that. Show your permit and insurance upon entry at the gate, just like you have to do for watercraft at a lot of parks. They require you to get it inspected at their inspection points, and sometimes pay licenses and fees on the spot. Why make this any different?

Also, some of it is honor system. This is how fishing and hunting works -- you are required to get a permit and then operate within the bounds of your permit -- but this is honor system. No one knows if you got your permit but you, or a ranger needs to come ask you if you did. Drones permits would be the same.

kevinelliott Posted at 2016-10-14 03:35
Then doesn't it make sense to prohibit drones in places people are prohibited to go as well? But t ...

In our case, people are able to walk up fairly close to all of the rock formations. The wildlife that I'm mainly talking about is the birds that have built their nests into these rocks. It just makes sense to do a blanket ban in order to protect their spots.

GHz-Drew Posted at 2016-10-14 09:13
In our case, people are able to walk up fairly close to all of the rock formations. The wildlife t ...

You should definitely stop flying immediately and instead capture your videos on foot with the OSMO gadget... man you are a perfect definition of a SHEEP, they told me to go straight thus I will only go forward , ahh a cliff in my way ? what am I gonna do they told me to go in a straight line.... ahhhhhhhh I'm falling now , they never said I would fall ...

How sad that we now have a group of people whose only option is throwing invectives around when you don't agree with their opinion.

flighttime1 Posted at 2016-10-13 15:33
LOL... You are making my case for me. For your hypothesis to be of any financial gain to the state w ...

Sorry but model airplane and a drone outfitted with a 4K camera for the purpose of not just flying but filming and photo taking is a totally different hobby.
I fly to record video footage , if I wanted to just fly I would buy an rc heli or an airplane...
Sorry I do not have a desire to fly a camera equipped drone over an empty parking lot filming pavement.
You are wrong it is not the same hobby, it has a completely different purpose.
Sorry but I must agree to disagree with you on this one...

I have an idea, and it could make everyone happy. Drone Pilots, Fed. & State Gov. My thought is to charge a fee to fly in the National or State Parks, say $25 for the day, sign in name and FAA number. They know who's there flying, they make money. We get beautiful pictures, all is good.

Heniek W Posted at 2016-10-15 00:18
You should definitely stop flying immediately and instead capture your videos on foot with the OSMO ...

That's the kind of thinking that will hinder the acceptance of our hobby and work. You have to respect the rules whether you like them or not. And you are absolutely right, in places like the state parks, I am more than happy to just shoot with an OSMO rather than deciding that I know better and should fly wherever I want.