Unmanned aircraft to be banned in U.S. National Parks

The U.S. National Park Service is banning unmanned aircraft from being used in National Parks. Director Jonathan B. Jarvis today signed a policy memorandum that directs superintendents nationwide to prohibit launching, landing, or operating the aircraft sometimes called drones, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or Unmanned Aerial Systems.

This is considered a temporary solution, asking each park to develop there own prohibition order, until a Servicewide regulation regarding unmanned aircraft can be implemented. That process can take considerable time, depending on the complexity of the rule, and includes public notice of the proposed regulation and opportunity for public comment.

The agency cited some examples of how the aircraft have caused problems in parks. Last September, an unmanned aircraft flew above evening visitors seated in the Mount Rushmore National Memorial Amphitheater. Park rangers concerned for visitors’ safety confiscated the unmanned aircraft.

In April, visitors at Grand Canyon National Park gathered for a quiet sunset, which was interrupted by a loud unmanned aircraft flying back and forth and eventually crashing in the canyon. Later in the month, volunteers at Zion National Park witnessed an unmanned aircraft disturb a herd of bighorn sheep, reportedly separating adults from young animals.

An article in today’s Washington Post had a lengthy article written after receiving the results of more than two dozen Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed with the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps.

More than 400 large U.S. military drones have crashed in major accidents around the world since 2001, a record of calamity that exposes the potential dangers of throwing open American skies to drone traffic, according to a year-long Washington Post investigation.

Since the outbreak of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, military drones have malfunctioned in myriad ways, plummeting from the sky because of mechanical breakdowns, human error, bad weather and other reasons, according to more than 50,000 pages of accident investigation reports and other records obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information Act.

In other UAV news, Stillwater County, southwest of Billings, Montana, just spent $19,890 on drone which they intend to use in search and rescue scenarios, wildland fires and floods, and to scout rural residences before serving warrants.

(UPDATE June 23, 2014) The Oregon Department of Forestry is also buying a drone, but it will cost about $15,000 less than the one for Stillwater County, MT.

Typos, let us know, and please keep in mind the commenting ground rules before you post a comment.

6 thoughts on “Unmanned aircraft to be banned in U.S. National Parks”

  1. In a post up-thread I used the slogan, “It’s a brave new world” in it’s normal, negative connotation.

    Unrestricted activity carried out in public space will always result in problems. In the case of unrestricted UAVs potentially loss of third party aircraft and aircrew is a very legitimate concern.

  2. I read this same report before and it’s still OK to fly drones over schools, churches or highly populated areas, but now not over a National Park. Sorry, but do you think the Government is going to tell you that their flying over anything unless it crashes. If you don’t think the Government cares, they use crises management to deal with it, always have, always will, it’ll never change. Was it any different with the Air Tanker contracts? NO! It took action by other effected companies to straighten it out, not the Government Representatives who created it to start.

    The Government will do what they want when they want and deal with it later. Better to ask forgiveness then justify mission requirements. Think about it, over 400 accidents and just now a report is out only by I’m sure continued persistence from a few people trying to get the information. I flew in 3 wars for this country and have seen this first hand to many times.

  3. There is plenty of documented data to include ranges of damages and ranges of sizes of UAV’s and the damage done to aircraft and aircraft engine to warrant the big desires of UAV flight.

    While a good tool, evasive action by pilots needed to avoid collision and the myriad of airframe and engine damage, warrants aSERIOUS look at pilot requirements and not just “new tech, cheaper ways of doing things.”

    There are many downsides to this brave new world and the FAA has every right to put limits on some things as the have done to us pilots and mechanics.

    The new little drones are seen by many as hobby operations that do not require regulation….maybe.

    But when one sees UAV damage to bigger, larger aicraft….ask yourselves ….what are the true costs of UAV’s in the airspace and what new evasive actions do civilian and military pilots have to endure at the cost of new tech and operating at more than 400′ AGL?

  4. Speaking of UAVs the recent Two Bulls Fire was filmed by a privately owned/operated drone:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgZEIKUBBo

    Those that choose to watch will see that the thing was only sent up vertically (to perhaps 800ft AGL?) and pivoted for panoramic images of the smoke from the fire. No horizontal travel of the vehicle is evident, near as I can tell.

    It’s a brave new world…

  5. good move

    until there is true direction in pilot standards by the FAA…this may become the norm…

Comments are closed.