Drone Drops on the trails

[Grampsb]

Picked this up from the PCT list


http://sectionhiker.com/air-drop-air...ce-on-appalach

[Donde]

That's pretty cute. Might be republished in a few years not as a joke.

[Traveler]

It will be interesting to see how this presumably for fee service will wiggle around the NPS ban on remote controlled and drone aircraft. Once these things start showing up, every kid wearing a backwards ball cap will be using them regardless of the rule. Given the misuse of these devices by knuckleheads I can see there being a problem with this business exception to the no drone rule.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Funny. But on the serious side, NPS has already preemptively banned drones along the AT corridor.

[MuddyWaters]

Funny. But on the serious side, NPS has already preemptively banned drones along the AT corridor.

Always were banned in all national parks under 36 CFR. They just have to come out and explicitly state things for idiots

[Donde]

It will be interesting to see how this presumably for fee service will wiggle around the NPS ban on remote controlled and drone aircraft. Once these things start showing up, every kid wearing a backwards ball cap will be using them regardless of the rule. Given the misuse of these devices by knuckleheads I can see there being a problem with this business exception to the no drone rule.

Didn't read the article did ya?

[Tundracamper]

It is amusing how many folks comment on threads that they don't even read.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Traveler]

Didn't read the article did ya?

BAH! fooled..... yeah, I read the article, but the April Fools was in italics and I thought it was part of the references that were below it. lol, sheesh.

[kayak karl]

It is amusing how many folks comment on threads that they don't even read.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

it amuses me that somebody with 14 posts is criticizing others

[Tundracamper]

it amuses me that somebody with 14 posts is criticizing others

It amuses me that some people have enough free time on their hands to look up such things.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Pedaling Fool]

Actually the so-called ban that NPS put out on drones is not actually a ban that was meant to mean that drones will never be authorized. It was a reaction to people abusing drone use (they used CFR 36 as authorization to impose this temporary ban, yes temporary). Until they can determine a policy to control the use of drones. I think there's a real possiblity of these things being used for delivery in the future, but I'm sure they will be licensed and controlled access by the NPS.



P.S. As of today there are exceptions to the rule and some drones are still used, but controlled by the NPS.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...ational-parks/

Excerpt:


"Drones were prohibited in other national parks earlier this year after complaints regarding noise and an episode involving young sheep getting separated from adults. In May, the agency said that drones were banned in Yosemite National Park because an increased number of visitors had been using drones to film climbers and capture other aerial footage. Drones would not be allowed because they could disturb visitors, adversely impact wildlife in the area and potentially interfere with emergency rescues, the Park Service said.


Jarvis said that the new rules are only temporary and will prohibit drone use until the agency can figure out a policy to serve the parks as well as the visitors. Of course, the Park Service notes that the process of figuring out drone-related regulations could “take considerable time.” Any permits already issued for unmanned aircraft have been suspended and need to be reviewed and approved again.


While the rules are in effect, drones cannot be launched from, landed in or flown over the land or water overseen by the agency, which manages 84 million acres of land and 4.5 million acres of oceans, lakes and reservoirs."

[Tipi Walter]

The real April fool's joke is the howling monkey motards who would even consider adding their whining drone noise pollution to our Parks, wilderness areas and national forests. It's bad enough with the roaring screaming motorcyclists racing along so-called Scenic Highways like 441 and the Dragon's Anus on Hiway 129. And then there's the almost nonstop 87,000 jets flying overhead. Now let's add a couple million buzzing drones overhead to make our time in the great outdoors a hell zone.

I think Rand Paul recommends carrying a shotgun for the drones.

[No Directions]

The FAA has issued voluntary guidelines for the operation of UAS. You can bet that as the airways become more crowded with these aircraft that they will step in and implement regulations. Two that I can think of will prohibit the use of them over congested areas (that is already a regulation for manned aircraft) and the second being that the operator will have to keep the aircraft in sight at all times.

[HooKooDooKu]

The only April fool I came across this year was a Friends of the Smokies Facebook post claiming GSMNP was going to introduce Polar Bears in the park in 2016.

[brian039]

The real April fool's joke is the howling monkey motards who would even consider adding their whining drone noise pollution to our Parks, wilderness areas and national forests. It's bad enough with the roaring screaming motorcyclists racing along so-called Scenic Highways like 441 and the Dragon's Anus on Hiway 129. And then there's the almost nonstop 87,000 jets flying overhead. Now let's add a couple million buzzing drones overhead to make our time in the great outdoors a hell zone.

I think Rand Paul recommends carrying a shotgun for the drones.

Would love to see one of the F-16's that use the Sierra Nevada as their training grounds shoot down a resupply drone on the PCT.

[Traveler]

Actually the so-called ban that NPS put out on drones is not actually a ban that was meant to mean that drones will never be authorized. It was a reaction to people abusing drone use (they used CFR 36 as authorization to impose this temporary ban, yes temporary). Until they can determine a policy to control the use of drones. I think there's a real possiblity of these things being used for delivery in the future, but I'm sure they will be licensed and controlled access by the NPS.

I believe NPS is right to firmly regulate this stuff. Given the incredibly juvenile behavior of many who operate these machines and have managed to do incredibly stupid things with them in national parks, including dropping one into pristine hot springs at Yellowstone, buzzing and stampeding wildlife, interfering with climbers and hikers, this is the proper avenue. There are a lot of legitimate uses of these machines in national parklands for photography, monitoring wildlife and habitats, monitoring blights and insect infestation, fire suppression, and LE issues. These would be appropriate uses and likely not be a distraction for those trying to enjoy being in the back country. Given the level of abuse we have seen in a very short time, its pretty clear permitting and enforcement now will save a lot of grief later on.

[Pedaling Fool]

I believe NPS is right to firmly regulate this stuff. Given the incredibly juvenile behavior of many who operate these machines and have managed to do incredibly stupid things with them in national parks, including dropping one into pristine hot springs at Yellowstone, buzzing and stampeding wildlife, interfering with climbers and hikers, this is the proper avenue. There are a lot of legitimate uses of these machines in national parklands for photography, monitoring wildlife and habitats, monitoring blights and insect infestation, fire suppression, and LE issues. These would be appropriate uses and likely not be a distraction for those trying to enjoy being in the back country. Given the level of abuse we have seen in a very short time, its pretty clear permitting and enforcement now will save a lot of grief later on.

I don't have a problem with them banning them and I agree some have abused them; all I was saying is that this ban is NOT permanent. And some claim (but I won't debate it, since I don't care that much) that they don't have the authoity to ban them under title 36 CFR 2.17(d). Here's an article that makes that case.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorym...on-their-side/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorym...ail-5000-fine/

[WingedMonkey]

Finally...I've got a reason to carry......for when some damn drone buzzes my unleashed dog.