Drones, model airplanes banned from Appalachian Trail - WDBJ7 [Archive]

View Full Version : Drones, model airplanes banned from Appalachian Trail - WDBJ7

WhiteBlaze

08-20-2014, 10:10

<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="7" style="vertical-align:top;"><tr><td width="80" align="center" valign="top"></td><td valign="top" class="j"> <div style="padding-top:0.8em;"><img alt="" height="1" width="1" /></div><div class="lh"><a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNE3FwYX_RDHCku3jHlm8ifj5FiHTA&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52778589197769&ei=Paz0U9ikBsnmwAHqnoDICQ&url=http://www.hcpress.com/?p%3D108228">NPS Implements Interim Policy Prohibiting Unmanned Aircraft on Appalachian ...</a> High Country Press The National Park Service has developed an interim policy prohibiting the use of unmanned aircraft on NPS managed lands of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. This is a new park use that could affect park resources, staff, and visitors in ways that ... <a class="p" href="http://news.google.com/news/more?ncl=dXPI-0WUSmvWdRM&authuser=0&ned=us">and more »</a></div></td></tr></table>

More... (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNE3FwYX_RDHCku3jHlm8ifj5FiHTA&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52778589197769&ei=Paz0U9ikBsnmwAHqnoDICQ&url=http://www.hcpress.com/?p%3D108228)

WhiteBlaze

08-20-2014, 10:40

<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="7" style="vertical-align:top;"><tr><td width="80" align="center" valign="top"></td><td valign="top" class="j"> <div style="padding-top:0.8em;"><img alt="" height="1" width="1" /></div><div class="lh"><a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNHGvjz8rhabgxle0COii6bHW8VAAg&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52778589210022&ei=ULP0U-CpO4mkwAGM_oGIDQ&url=http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/drones-model-airplanes-banned-from-appalachian-trail/27637564">Drones, model airplanes banned from Appalachian Trail</a> WDBJ7 The National Park Service now has an interim policy that forbids unmanned aircrafts on the Appalachian Trail. "Unmanned aircraft" also refers to model airplanes, quadcopters and similar devices that are used for any purpose. No one will be able to ... <a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNHZTXQzVxvUrQgPob-ddPechAo6-g&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52778589210022&ei=ULP0U-CpO4mkwAGM_oGIDQ&url=http://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/8/20/282662/Drones-Banned-From-Appalachian-Trail.aspx">Drones Banned From Appalachian Trail</a>The Chattanoogan <a class="p" href="http://news.google.com/news/more?ncl=dPJkeo6cWAKmFBMIjsPWGz5g33CZM&authuser=0&ned=us">all 1 news articles »</a></div></td></tr></table>

More... (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNHGvjz8rhabgxle0COii6bHW8VAAg&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52778589210022&ei=ULP0U-CpO4mkwAGM_oGIDQ&url=http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/drones-model-airplanes-banned-from-appalachian-trail/27637564)

Slo-go'en

08-20-2014, 13:40

So much for getting pizza and beer delivery directly to shelters via drone.

Gambit McCrae

08-20-2014, 14:02

Damn!! What an idea, purpose high elevation fly overs with parachute supplies, or subway tunneling!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZEr-xj8Cm8

So much for getting pizza and beer delivery directly to shelters via drone.

WingedMonkey

08-20-2014, 14:21

I'm not covered by this ban

I need a drone for emotional support while on the AT.

I sent off my PayPal funds today to get a certificate from the "DroneSupportSchoolTakeMyMoney.com"

Old Hillwalker

08-20-2014, 14:32

Hmmm, what about tethered aircraft? Kites as an example. Also including model non-R/C planes. Once had a hiking partner who was pretty flighty. She would be banned?

Rain Man

08-20-2014, 15:14

Old Hillwalker, have been writing you, but emails have been bouncing back with "permanent failure" error messages. Thought you'd want to know. Rain Man

.

Another Kevin

08-20-2014, 16:02

The term “unmanned aircraft” means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the device, and the associated operational elements and components that are required for the pilot or system operator in command to operate or control the device (such as cameras, sensors, communication links). This term includes all types of devices that meet this definition (e.g., model airplanes, quadcopters, drones) that are used for any purpose, including for recreation or commerce.”

Hmm. It appears that a baseball would meet the description. Not sure about the weight on a bearbag line. I think they left out something about the device being powered.

FatMan

08-20-2014, 16:07

I had no idea this was a problem on the AT. Thank goodness we now have a policy that forbids it.:rolleyes:

FatMan

08-20-2014, 16:14

I had no idea this was a problem on the AT. Thank goodness we now have a policy that forbids it.:rolleyes:Wow, just noticed that was post 1000 for me. Wish it had been more meaningful than a snide remark directed to the park service.:datz

Cosmo

08-20-2014, 21:58

For once, the Park Service is trying to get ahead of an issue, instead of playing catch up. You may have seen reports where hikers have been approached by unmanned aircraft (Yosemite, Moosilauke, to name two recent ones). This is not appropriate activity for the Trail, where it is desirable to experience the environment in as natural state as possible--given the number of visitors it supports.

Unfortunately, there are people who think anything is permitted if it's not specifically prohibited (motorized travel on the AT for example). UAV's are dropping in price, and becoming easier to operate with little experience. Did you know that some hobby drones can be programmed to go to a specific GPS location, and it will autonomously go there and hover until it's fuel runs out? It's just a matter of time before they are a common plaything.

There are definitely really great uses for UAVs--maybe someday the FAA will actually create some rules that will make operation safe, useful, and pass the inevitable legal challenges. In the meantime, let's be glad that on the AT at least we won't be surveilled by the local Sheriff (w/o NPS permission, at any rate), or annoyed by the noise of them buzzing down the Trail.

Cosmo

I had no idea this was a problem on the AT. Thank goodness we now have a policy that forbids it.:rolleyes:

WingedMonkey

08-20-2014, 22:22

The ban would affect the 700 to 800 miles of the trail's 2,184 miles that run through national park land.said Ron Tipton, executive director and CEO of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy.

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6648615-74/park-national-drones#axzz3AzMlKkKQ

The conservancy generally supported the temporary ban, but it could see allowing drones' use for wildlife studies or aerial photography, Tipton said.

If the ATC can find a way to sell one more product, or launch one more fund raising campaign I'm sure they will find a way to fit it in around the ban.

Roanmtnman

08-20-2014, 22:31

Saw one when i hiked the carvers gap to 19-e. Heard it first and thought it was bees on the rhodos lol. Was pretty neat looking and seemed a good way to film . Not really sure i would like to see one way out on a hike this was about a mile in.

Pedaling Fool

08-21-2014, 08:03

The key word in the article's title is, Interim.

And if you read the article it confirms this is NOT an all-out ban policy; they're just trying to figure out how to deal with them.

Saw one when i hiked the carvers gap to 19-e. Heard it first and thought it was bees on the rhodos lol. Was pretty neat looking and seemed a good way to film . Not really sure i would like to see one way out on a hike this was about a mile in.Those are not too far off :) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130502--drone-tiny-fly-robobee-harvard-science-robot/

Gambit McCrae

08-21-2014, 08:10

I think they are kinda neato, as long as one doesnt take a chunk out of the back of my head, I think Im cool with them. The trail is for everyone, not everything, but I dont see it having an impact on the trail as riding atv's on it do

Cosmo

08-21-2014, 15:06

Of course the local Sheriff could always check on those "dope smoking hippie hikers" by running a drone past the shelters in his jurisdiction--and send a photo back to your mom. On the other hand, it could be a great tool for maintaining clubs to check on trail conditions, boundary lines and hiker traffic. In either case, its a thing I'd rather not see or hear while I'm on the Trail. We need to hang onto what's left of the "primitive experience" available to AT hikers--slowly being whittled away bit by bit.

Cosmo

Another Kevin

08-21-2014, 15:26

For what it's worth, I don't want the Trail to turn into an hell of annoying buzzing quadcopters either. The horseflies are bad enough. I was just pointing out that the regulation was drafted very clumsily.

New York already has a ban on all motorized devices in wilderness areas (note that the A-T does not traverse any wilderness areas in NY) - which has already been interpreted to encompass launching, operating and retrieving of drones on state land. The states don't regulate airspace, so they can't actually ban the flight, but current recreational drones are unlikely to make serious incursions on wilderness without needing to be launched, operated or retrieved from the ground on state land.

The ban on powered devices can be inconvenient at times. The last time I worked trail crew, we had the unusual happy situation of working across a private easement. We could take blowdown out with a chainsaw! Ordinarily, removing a few hundred tree trunks with a cross-cut saw takes less time and effort than petitioning DEC for a waiver to let a trail crew bring in a chainsaw for a weekend, so the trail conference gets waivers only for the largest construction projects, involving shifting hundreds of tons of rock, delivering construction materials by helicopter, and the like. Everything else is hand tools only. It does cut down on the noise, but it also cuts down on the maintenance.

Lugnut

08-21-2014, 16:54

I think it's just a chickens*** rule. I don't see anything so disturbing about an almost silent drone being used on Max Patch, Jane bald or any other place outside a populated area for recreational purposes. The powers that be can't even enforce the no ATV or horses ban so this one will probably work out the same.

Dogtra

08-21-2014, 16:59

WingedMonkey

08-21-2014, 20:42

Apparently this incident was the straw the broke the camels back as they say, for the Park Service.

Wed Aug 6, 2014 (Reuters) - A tourist seeking to take pictures of Yellowstone National Park crashed a camera-equipped drone into its largest hot spring, possibly damaging the prized geothermal feature, a park official said on Wednesday.
The incident follows the crash earlier this summer of a drone into a marina at Yellowstone Lake and a string of radio-controlled aircraft violations at Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming.
The National Park Service in June announced a ban on so-called unmanned aerial vehicles, but officials say premier national parks in the U.S. West are reporting a sharp rise in the number of drones buzzing bison and boaters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-usa-drones-yellowstone-idUSKBN0G62I620140806

Wise Old Owl

08-21-2014, 21:09

I just don't see the big deal here. Radio Control has been around a long time. - I have already seen drones that cannot be heard, make no noise. etc.

What does it matter?

atmilkman

08-21-2014, 22:53

Think of the heights that could be reached for a bear bag line. You could hang a bag so high the bear would get tired climbing up after it, or it could be hung so high on very small branches that there is no way it could support it's weight.

Dogtra

08-22-2014, 15:17

I just don't see the big deal here. Radio Control has been around a long time. - I have already seen drones that cannot be heard, make no noise. etc.

What does it matter?

Two reasons I can think of:

* Possibility for damage. Like what was listed by another poster. We don't allow just anyone to fly aircraft for obvious reasons. While drones are unmanned they still fall under the scope of human error.
* Possibility for overuse. I personally would fear the day that our technological advances became so commonplace and accepted that I couldn't step out into the wilderness without seeing drones flying overhead all the time. While I love watching science fiction movies, I don't know if I'm ready to live in one just yet.

Traveler

08-22-2014, 17:58

Two reasons I can think of:

* Possibility for damage. Like what was listed by another poster. We don't allow just anyone to fly aircraft for obvious reasons. While drones are unmanned they still fall under the scope of human error.
* Possibility for overuse. I personally would fear the day that our technological advances became so commonplace and accepted that I couldn't step out into the wilderness without seeing drones flying overhead all the time. While I love watching science fiction movies, I don't know if I'm ready to live in one just yet.

No possibly about it, as of this month in perhaps the most remarkable lapse of sense, some fellows managed to put one of these flying machines into Grand Prismatic Spring, a pristine hot springs in Yellowstone Park, that is impossible to retrieve without causing substantial damage and costs. NPS was properly advised in banning these machines that have been buzzing wildlife, hikers, climbers. If people want to wonder why tolerance quickly wanes for this technology, they need look no further than those who pursue mystifyingly stupid mischief.

MuddyWaters

08-22-2014, 21:03

the people that do those things are too ignorant to know the laws, and too stupid to follow them if they did. Just like the idiots that start fires by not controlling campfires.

Lone Wolf

08-28-2014, 17:07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWc2m6ZOVw0&feature=youtu.be

10-K

08-28-2014, 17:56

I wonder if this includes ICBMs?

Chair-man

09-17-2014, 09:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWc2m6ZOVw0&feature=youtu.be

That's actually pretty cool. It's a great way to show parts of the trail.

The NPS had banned guns for the longest time until it was repealed (http://gunowners.org/national-park-service-gun-ban-repealed.htm). I'm not a big fan of owning drones or guns but I am a big fan of the Constitution and I think if people want to have them they should be able to.

rafe

09-17-2014, 10:14

I've been seriously into electric RC planes for several years now, and have seen many of these quadcopters and drones up close. They range from $30 toys to large, serious machines intended for law enforcement/surveillance use. I'm quite OK with having them banned from the AT and similar public/scenic places. For one thing, the technology is far from perfect, and the odds of failure and resulting injury to humans is considerable. Then there's the noise, and the issue of invasion of privacy.

vamelungeon

09-17-2014, 10:22

I guess there will have to be some rules. Say I go off the trail a reasonable distance to change clothes or take a dump, I should have some expectation of privacy. Our local sheriff's office has drones but there are VERY strict rules as to how they should be used, and I think there should be. I don't need or want one of these things looking in my windows, do you? I have a private back yard that isn't visible from outside my property, should anyone who wants be allowed to fly their drone 15 feed above it and record video? Although the trail is a public place, I do think there are times when you can expect some privacy. These drones bring up a lot of questions that will be difficult to answer in a way that is fair to everyone. Someone's ox will get gored no matter what.

swisscross

09-17-2014, 10:32

Playing the devil's advocate.

How can NPS ban a toy?
Next they will not allow playing cards.

vamelungeon

09-17-2014, 11:19

Playing the devil's advocate.

How can NPS ban a toy?
Next they will not allow playing cards.
A toy with a high definition video camera? If I go into a public restroom, I would be upset if someone were in there taking pictures with their Iphone. Same thing for out in the woods. Not to mention the possibility of damage like the incident at Yellowstone.

Traveler

09-17-2014, 11:27

That's actually pretty cool. It's a great way to show parts of the trail.

The NPS had banned guns for the longest time until it was repealed (http://gunowners.org/national-park-service-gun-ban-repealed.htm). I'm not a big fan of owning drones or guns but I am a big fan of the Constitution and I think if people want to have them they should be able to.

There is nothing constitutional about banning the use of RC or Drone aircraft in national parks. Your "rights" end when they interfere with the rights of others such as the old adage says; "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". These things are used by some folks responsibly, but many use them to buzz climbers, hikers, and wildlife, and now have been dropped into pristine features of Yellowstone that will cause great damage to remove. Since many of those who use these things have shown themselves to have little to no sense in how they use them, the better approach is a ban. That way we have a vehicle of enforcement when people do stupid things and can be arrested and held financially responsible for their actions.

RC aircraft (line of sight remote control operation) and Drone aircraft (capable of sustained flight a great distances from the controller) are not toys when they are used for law enforcement, SAR, and fire watch work, nor are they toys when they buzz people and wildlife, pollute natural sites, and have a great potential to cause accidents. Though I suppose an argument can be made by those who want to tote a shootin iron into the national parks they can hunt RC/Drone aircraft with them.

rocketsocks

09-17-2014, 17:53

the people that do those things are too ignorant to know the laws, and too stupid to follow them if they did. Just like the idiots that start fires by not controlling campfires.
As someone who flew RC sail planes in competition for years, I can attest to this, lots a knuckle heads out there that do really stupid things, namely don't always follow the rules. One guy flew over a spectator area (which was off limits)in order to short cut a landing that he'd have blown other wise, in doing so he lost to much altitude and right in front of me hit a women in the forehead and took her right off her feet, and left her with a huge welt, she was lucky, one inch lower she'd have lost and eye...No doubt about it. In addition, these craft are considered experimental, and with that comes a level of liability. At contest sites Insurance is required by law and usually the land owner. Just a bad idea...they don't belong on the trail.

rafe

09-17-2014, 19:02

rocketsocks

09-17-2014, 19:13

For what it's worth, those who fly RC aircraft in clubs generally are required to join an umbrella organization ("Academy of Model Aeronautics") whose annual dues confer a minimal amount of liability and property insurance. AMA stipulates lots of rules governing safe use and operation of RC planes & helis. Trouble is -- AMA rules only apply to flying clubs, but anyone with minimal $$ and skill can pick up an RC toy and fly it where he will. (For better or for worse, it's an almost exclusively male hobby.)

Just saying, there's already a modest amount of self-regulation among serious RC hobbyists. There are constant negotiations between the AMA and FAA, with AMA attempting to preserve the rights of RC hobbyists. But technology keeps presenting new issues to deal with. Drones are just the latest such issue.Yep, all true. This is kinda the problem I have with RC drones on the trail, it could likely enact legislation that would affect the law abiding enthusiasts that do follow the rules for safe flying. In addition I wouldn't want to be buzzed while on the trail, I'd certainly would swat at it like a bug. Might have to start carrying a sling shot...to heavy.

rocketsocks

09-17-2014, 19:15

oops, quoted the wrong qoute from you...this is the one I was referring to.AMA rules only apply to flying clubs, but anyone with minimal $$ and skill can pick up an RC toy and fly it where he will.

Another Kevin

09-19-2014, 11:14

Yep, all true. This is kinda the problem I have with RC drones on the trail, it could likely enact legislation that would affect the law abiding enthusiasts that do follow the rules for safe flying. In addition I wouldn't want to be buzzed while on the trail, I'd certainly would swat at it like a bug. Might have to start carrying a sling shot...to heavy.

http://res.cloudinary.com/urbandictionary/image/upload/a_exif,c_fit,h_200,w_200/v1396333819/y9ecissa2tvf0hlcsuyw.png

RED-DOG

09-19-2014, 11:39

Well their goes my idea of connecting a video camera to a remote control helicopter, and letting the helicopter take all my videos, all I was going to do is run the remote. I always thought this would be a really cool way to take videos and pictures.

rocketsocks

09-19-2014, 14:16

http://res.cloudinary.com/urbandictionary/image/upload/a_exif,c_fit,h_200,w_200/v1396333819/y9ecissa2tvf0hlcsuyw.png

28375.....................:sun

Cosmo

10-06-2014, 15:19

Of interest - from today's (Monday) NPS Morning Report (http://www.nps.gov/morningreport/):

Seems like Parks are playing hardball on this issue--'tho from the descriptions in the report, these are pretty egregious incidents. Maybe think twice about that pizza delivery to the shelter.

Cosmo

----------Quoted Material---------------------
Yellowstone National Park (ID,MT,WY)
Three Convicted Of Illegal Use Of Drones

Three cases regarding the illegal use of unmanned aircraft in Yellowstone National Park have resulted in three convictions.

Donald Criswell of Molalla, Oregon, was charged with violating the ban after he flew his unmanned aircraft over the crowded Midway Geyser Basin and close to bison on August 19th. He pled guilty to the charge of violating a closure and was fined $1,000 plus court costs.
In late September, Theodorus Van Vliet of the Netherlands entered a guilty plea in connection with an August 2nd incident in which his unmanned aircraft crashed into Grand Prismatic Spring. He was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay over $2,200 in restitution.
Earlier in September, Andreas Meissner of Germany pled guilty to charges arising from operating an unmanned aircraft which crashed into Yellowstone Lake near the West Thumb Marina back on July 18th. Meissner was sentenced to a one year ban from the park, was placed on one year of unsupervised probation, and was ordered to pay over $1,600 in fines and restitution.
All three successfully prosecuted cases arose from well documented violations of the prohibition on the operation of unmanned aircraft in park along with other violations of park regulations or impacts to park resources.

The regulation was enacted due to the conflict or impact with a variety of park uses, including disturbance of wildlife, impacts or damage to sensitive geothermal areas, and the creation of public safety hazards posed by their unregulated use. The ban is contained in the 2014 update to the Superintendent’s Compendium, which can be found online at http://go.usa.gov/mzRV.

In addition, Director Jarvis signed a policy memorandum in late June that directs superintendents nationwide to prohibit launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service.

As these three instances illustrate, park rangers are enforcing the ban on unmanned aircraft operation in Yellowstone National Park. Violators could be subject to a mandatory court appearance, confiscation of their unmanned aircraft, and if found guilty could be subject to fines and other penalties.

[Submitted by Al Nash, Public Affairs Officer]