38 ms·

I agree this was a great call by the National Park Service, however I hope it does become a permanent ban- the only people using drones in the National Park sho

by orik 12y ago

I agree this was a great call by the National Park Service, however I hope it does become a permanent ban- the only people using drones in the National Park should be Park Rangers. Civilians have no place operating drones anywhere near a nature preserve.

ChuckMcM 12y ago
Allow me to disagree slightly. If I'm on El Capitan in Yosemite I might think it was a stellar idea to get a picture of me and my spouse from the perspective of just off the face. That would both put me in the picture and put this amazing rock formation in it as well. Currently you can only do that if you hire a helicopter. 'Getting the right shot' kills a lot of tourists (I wish I knew exactly how many), if they were using drones to position the camera into that potentially dangerous position they might not die.
- thinkmassive 12y ago
  It seems like this need would naturally lead to very small camera drones specifically for this purpose. Probably pocket-size and, eventually, inexpensive. I know that lifting a camera and battery requires a sufficient amount of thrust, but if flight was limited to one minute then it could probably be very small. Wind might be an issue, but flying insects have been around for a while. Engineers will figure it out. Hopefully the long term regulations would permit such small personal drones with a very limited flight time.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    And if the battery runs out? The drone falls onto some rock climber 1,000 feet below.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      Are there tourists lookouts that are above popular climbing routes? Seems a little contrived to me. What if a tourist drops a can of soda? I guess if people really can't stand not having such shots the thing to do would be to license some people to use the drones and make sure they avoid doing the most horribly dangerous things (maybe they could use tethers or something).
      - ajuhasz 12y ago
        I agree this is a bit of a stretch as an example, but yes people do drop stuff on climbers. Still an interesting story and maybe a good sign that even the smallest objects (drones or boulders) can lead to a runaway effect on a cliff. Thankfully though, it does have to be a "one in a million" coincidence to hurt someone. http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/rock-climbing/Dropped.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/rock...
      - snowwrestler 12y ago
        > Are there tourists lookouts that are above popular climbing routes? Definitely. In Yosemite both Half Dome and El Cap have hiking trails to the top and are very popular for climbing. There's an old joke in climbing when you top out among the hikers: "Wait, you mean there's another way up this thing??" Edit to add: even though a falling drone would probably not actually hit a climber, I don't think anyone wants the base of El Cap littered with smashed little drones.
        maxerickson 12y ago
        Yeah, I don't think people need to be commonly operating drones in these areas (I'd still probably be okay with allowing them on Tuesdays or something like that). On the other hand, I don't think there needs to be special rules for every potential type of litter.
    - radley 12y ago
      You mean like dropping a penny?
    - baddox 12y ago
      What if your brakes on your car fail while you're driving to or through the park?
- r00fus 12y ago
  Comparing this "need" with the potential disruption to wildlife makes me lean towards wildlife until we get more legal structure around drone policy ironed out in the non-preserve areas.
- wittjeff 12y ago
  Or it might just do the opposite: "Questionable use of wearable cams is causing a surge in accidents" http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cameras/The-Danger-Zone-Adventure-Cams-and-Accidents.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cameras/The-Danger...
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Consider that people may go to national parks to experience the quiet majesty of nature[1], an experience that would be disturbed by a quadcopter hovering a few feet away taking a glorified selfie. Also consider that there are wild animals nearby who are not used to drones. Areas of Yosemite are closed to climbing annually for raptor nesting, for instance. [1] Yes I recognize that Yosemite Valley might not be the best example of this...
  - baddox 12y ago
    Consider that people may go to national parks to capture photographs and video of the majesty of nature, an experience that would be disturbed by a ban on remote controlled aircraft.
    - torbit 12y ago
      Looks like that small percentage of drone owners don't have a voice. The majority use hand devices. A small sacrifice for the good of the majority.
      - baddox 12y ago
        Stick around, the percentage of people that own drones is only going up.
- danpat 12y ago
  The problem is that you're interrupting the view and the serenity for others while you take that photo. It doesn't take too many people doing that and all of a sudden, the airspace of the park would be full of drones, spoiling it for everyone, a classic case of a tragedy of the commons. How frustrating would it be if you couldn't get that nice photo without someone elses drone in it from your flying drone? I live near the Banff National Park in Canada, and it's a continuous game of tug-of-war for the wardens trying to decide what activities to allow in the park. With no restrictions, the place would quickly be overrun. When the point is to experience the wilderness, you have to be very aware that some activities can very quickly, and with very few people, destroy that experience for everyone.
  - jws 12y ago
    I can see making the tourist vistas be drone free. Some of these parks are huge. Operating a quiet drone a mile from the nearest other human diminishes no one else's experience. The park service allows automobiles, needlessly loud motorcycles, generators for RVs (within limits), and any number of greater nuisances. (Including the other 20,000 people who came the the Grand Canyon south rim on the day I did.)
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The park service allows automobiles, needlessly loud motorcycles, generators for RVs (within limits), and any number of greater nuisances. And they restrict where all those things can go, too. If they restricted drones the same way, they might as well ban them outright.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > The problem is that you're interrupting the view and the serenity for others while you take that photo. Plenty of other things interrupt views, like tripods or even other human standing nearby. A general ban on deliberate or extreme interruption is reasonable, but a total ban on remote controlled aircraft is not.
    - danpat 12y ago
- bradleyjg 12y ago
  This response makes me think we should bar helicopters rather than allow drones.
- chrischen 12y ago
  The solution is probably some sort of permit system so they can regulate the number of drones in use so it doesn't become a problem, just like they have for fishing and hunting.
- ryandvm 12y ago
  You are only selling me further on the ban. I think I would strangle some clown flying a drone right in front of a beautiful scenic overlook. Especially for a selfie.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Why is it okay to have a camera on a tripod on the ground, but not on a small aircraft in the air? Other than the aircraft being a newer accessible technology, I see no difference.
    - cmulnz 12y ago
      No difference? Are you kidding? This new technology is very useful and interesting. But is it different from a tripod? Yes, in many ways. At what decibel does your standard tripod operate? What are it's risks of falling out of the sky due to malfunction? How often does your tripod wander in front of other picture takers during use?
      - baddox 12y ago
        I don't know if you have much experience with multirotors, but they really are not that loud. They're louder than a tripod, obviously, but once they're 10 meters or so away they aren't going to cause a disruption. As for risks of mechanical or operator failure, that's obviously a valid concern, but there are ways to handle that risk without a total ban. > How often does your tripod wander in front of other picture takers during use? It's pretty common for humans to wander in front of other picture takers in parks. I wager that happens a lot more per day than drones flying in from of picture takers (even before the ban).
    - pseudometa 12y ago
      Because of visibility... say you are trying to take a picture in the air and there are 10 other aircraft in your picture. And none of the other 50 people with their tripods are going to want your silly drone in their pictures. Not to mention the loud buzzing making the whole place an annoying place to be instead of a wonderful moment for everyone. Get a clue.
- digikata 12y ago
  People could as easily get killed trying to retrieve a downed UAV after trying to get a shot with the camera from even more remote vantage points. After all, if you can't get a good shot, most people will give up and get different shot, if your $600 flying toy goes down somewhere remote, you're quite motivated to retrieve it.
- mikestew 12y ago
  > if they were using drones to position the camera into that potentially dangerous position they might not die. They might not die, but I'd offer that they stand a good chance of losing said buzzing, flying drone to a rock throw that went a little off course. No, seriously, I was aiming for that tree.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Property destruction isn't a very classy thing to advocate.
radley 12y ago
Get flying cameras down to < 2" diameter, silent blades, and impact aware/resistant and it'll be commonplace in both urban and nature settings.
- baddox 12y ago
  Do you have much experience with multirotors? It's fairly simple to get a decent rig that can carry a GoPro for 10 minutes (per battery) that weights under 3 pounds and isn't going to be very audible once it's 10 meters or so away. It certainly won't be <2" in diameter, and it won't literally be silent, but it's not going to be the massive disturbance people in this thread seem to expect.

by orik 12y ago

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Allow me to disagree slightly. If I'm on El Capitan in Yosemite I might think it was a stellar idea to get a picture of me and my spouse from the perspective of just off the face. That would both put me in the picture and put this amazing rock formation in it as well. Currently you can only do that if you hire a helicopter. 'Getting the right shot' kills a lot of tourists (I wish I knew exactly how many), if they were using drones to position the camera into that potentially dangerous position they might not die.

thinkmassive 12y ago
It seems like this need would naturally lead to very small camera drones specifically for this purpose. Probably pocket-size and, eventually, inexpensive. I know that lifting a camera and battery requires a sufficient amount of thrust, but if flight was limited to one minute then it could probably be very small. Wind might be an issue, but flying insects have been around for a while. Engineers will figure it out. Hopefully the long term regulations would permit such small personal drones with a very limited flight time.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  And if the battery runs out? The drone falls onto some rock climber 1,000 feet below.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Are there tourists lookouts that are above popular climbing routes? Seems a little contrived to me. What if a tourist drops a can of soda? I guess if people really can't stand not having such shots the thing to do would be to license some people to use the drones and make sure they avoid doing the most horribly dangerous things (maybe they could use tethers or something).
    - ajuhasz 12y ago
      I agree this is a bit of a stretch as an example, but yes people do drop stuff on climbers. Still an interesting story and maybe a good sign that even the smallest objects (drones or boulders) can lead to a runaway effect on a cliff. Thankfully though, it does have to be a "one in a million" coincidence to hurt someone. http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/rock-climbing/Dropped.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/rock...
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      > Are there tourists lookouts that are above popular climbing routes? Definitely. In Yosemite both Half Dome and El Cap have hiking trails to the top and are very popular for climbing. There's an old joke in climbing when you top out among the hikers: "Wait, you mean there's another way up this thing??" Edit to add: even though a falling drone would probably not actually hit a climber, I don't think anyone wants the base of El Cap littered with smashed little drones.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        Yeah, I don't think people need to be commonly operating drones in these areas (I'd still probably be okay with allowing them on Tuesdays or something like that). On the other hand, I don't think there needs to be special rules for every potential type of litter.
  - radley 12y ago
    You mean like dropping a penny?
  - baddox 12y ago
    What if your brakes on your car fail while you're driving to or through the park?
r00fus 12y ago
Comparing this "need" with the potential disruption to wildlife makes me lean towards wildlife until we get more legal structure around drone policy ironed out in the non-preserve areas.
wittjeff 12y ago
Or it might just do the opposite: "Questionable use of wearable cams is causing a surge in accidents" http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cameras/The-Danger-Zone-Adventure-Cams-and-Accidents.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cameras/The-Danger...
snowwrestler 12y ago
Consider that people may go to national parks to experience the quiet majesty of nature[1], an experience that would be disturbed by a quadcopter hovering a few feet away taking a glorified selfie. Also consider that there are wild animals nearby who are not used to drones. Areas of Yosemite are closed to climbing annually for raptor nesting, for instance. [1] Yes I recognize that Yosemite Valley might not be the best example of this...
- baddox 12y ago
  Consider that people may go to national parks to capture photographs and video of the majesty of nature, an experience that would be disturbed by a ban on remote controlled aircraft.
  - torbit 12y ago
    Looks like that small percentage of drone owners don't have a voice. The majority use hand devices. A small sacrifice for the good of the majority.
    - baddox 12y ago
      Stick around, the percentage of people that own drones is only going up.
danpat 12y ago
The problem is that you're interrupting the view and the serenity for others while you take that photo. It doesn't take too many people doing that and all of a sudden, the airspace of the park would be full of drones, spoiling it for everyone, a classic case of a tragedy of the commons. How frustrating would it be if you couldn't get that nice photo without someone elses drone in it from your flying drone? I live near the Banff National Park in Canada, and it's a continuous game of tug-of-war for the wardens trying to decide what activities to allow in the park. With no restrictions, the place would quickly be overrun. When the point is to experience the wilderness, you have to be very aware that some activities can very quickly, and with very few people, destroy that experience for everyone.
- jws 12y ago
  I can see making the tourist vistas be drone free. Some of these parks are huge. Operating a quiet drone a mile from the nearest other human diminishes no one else's experience. The park service allows automobiles, needlessly loud motorcycles, generators for RVs (within limits), and any number of greater nuisances. (Including the other 20,000 people who came the the Grand Canyon south rim on the day I did.)
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The park service allows automobiles, needlessly loud motorcycles, generators for RVs (within limits), and any number of greater nuisances. And they restrict where all those things can go, too. If they restricted drones the same way, they might as well ban them outright.
- baddox 12y ago
  > The problem is that you're interrupting the view and the serenity for others while you take that photo. Plenty of other things interrupt views, like tripods or even other human standing nearby. A general ban on deliberate or extreme interruption is reasonable, but a total ban on remote controlled aircraft is not.
  - danpat 12y ago
bradleyjg 12y ago
This response makes me think we should bar helicopters rather than allow drones.
chrischen 12y ago
The solution is probably some sort of permit system so they can regulate the number of drones in use so it doesn't become a problem, just like they have for fishing and hunting.
ryandvm 12y ago
You are only selling me further on the ban. I think I would strangle some clown flying a drone right in front of a beautiful scenic overlook. Especially for a selfie.
- baddox 12y ago
  Why is it okay to have a camera on a tripod on the ground, but not on a small aircraft in the air? Other than the aircraft being a newer accessible technology, I see no difference.
  - cmulnz 12y ago
    No difference? Are you kidding? This new technology is very useful and interesting. But is it different from a tripod? Yes, in many ways. At what decibel does your standard tripod operate? What are it's risks of falling out of the sky due to malfunction? How often does your tripod wander in front of other picture takers during use?
    - baddox 12y ago
      I don't know if you have much experience with multirotors, but they really are not that loud. They're louder than a tripod, obviously, but once they're 10 meters or so away they aren't going to cause a disruption. As for risks of mechanical or operator failure, that's obviously a valid concern, but there are ways to handle that risk without a total ban. > How often does your tripod wander in front of other picture takers during use? It's pretty common for humans to wander in front of other picture takers in parks. I wager that happens a lot more per day than drones flying in from of picture takers (even before the ban).
  - pseudometa 12y ago
    Because of visibility... say you are trying to take a picture in the air and there are 10 other aircraft in your picture. And none of the other 50 people with their tripods are going to want your silly drone in their pictures. Not to mention the loud buzzing making the whole place an annoying place to be instead of a wonderful moment for everyone. Get a clue.
digikata 12y ago
People could as easily get killed trying to retrieve a downed UAV after trying to get a shot with the camera from even more remote vantage points. After all, if you can't get a good shot, most people will give up and get different shot, if your $600 flying toy goes down somewhere remote, you're quite motivated to retrieve it.
mikestew 12y ago
> if they were using drones to position the camera into that potentially dangerous position they might not die. They might not die, but I'd offer that they stand a good chance of losing said buzzing, flying drone to a rock throw that went a little off course. No, seriously, I was aiming for that tree.
- baddox 12y ago
  Property destruction isn't a very classy thing to advocate.

radley 12y ago

Get flying cameras down to < 2" diameter, silent blades, and impact aware/resistant and it'll be commonplace in both urban and nature settings.

baddox 12y ago
Do you have much experience with multirotors? It's fairly simple to get a decent rig that can carry a GoPro for 10 minutes (per battery) that weights under 3 pounds and isn't going to be very audible once it's 10 meters or so away. It certainly won't be <2" in diameter, and it won't literally be silent, but it's not going to be the massive disturbance people in this thread seem to expect.