Drones in the Drakensberg Park

Most of the Drakensberg You Tube videos I watch these days have drone footage in them. Besides being highly annoying for other hikers who go into the mountains to experience tranquility, flying drones in any National Park is a criminal offence. Maybe these illegal drone pilots do not know the South Africa drone laws and are ignorant, but the fine for flying in the Drakensberg Park is R52 000.00 or 10 years in prison, or both. The fact that their drone footage is visible on the internet is clear evidence of this offence and for court purposes. Anyone with drone footage on video should edit it out as from 2022 the South African Civil Aviation Authority will start to police the drone industry together with SAP and all authorities. Somehow, hikers need to be educated, or their hike could become a costly affair.
The drone footage below was taken in Injasuthi and is in a National Park, flying over a public road, flying over buildings, flying over people and flying higher than the highest object within 300m of it,  which for a drone hobbyist totally illegal and a criminal offence.

 

Looks like Lotheni camp.

The problem is that all of these guys using drones are becoming the perceived authority on what is acceptable in the berg. They are influencers, well known video guys and photographers who share the beauty of the berg to the masses who then come and do the same. Using drones then becomes the accepted norm even though it is illegal. There is no conservation authority enforcing otherwise. The person in the permit office does not care and probably has not spent anytime hiking in the berg either. The guy with the drone has become the authority on what is acceptable, tread carefully if you dare call him out in front of his loyal followers. He either does not care about or know what the law says. It's a symptom of the world we live in. Where there is no enforcer, all lines are blurred and have only become guidelines.

Personally, I want to go to wilderness areas to enjoy the quiet and pristine environment and that extends to only wanting to see birds flying in the sky. I have other hiking friends who see it differently and are not opposed to drones. I have a system in place similar to the Israeli iron dome which utilizes rounded pieces of basalt and has a radius of an arms throw around me. Its the best I can do.

I don't think they are going to go away. The best thing at the moment is to call these guys out. Often the 'influencer' type is just passing through in the never ending search for fresh content. I would like to think that the regulars - based on their passion for the area would endeavor to do the right thing.

I'm pretty sure that there is a permit division for filming in KZN wildlife areas and this should certainly apply for those who are on monetized programs like youtube offers.

Re the link to the YouTube vid above, a few of us on here did call him out on the comments on his video.

His responses were definitely not apologetic, quite entitled, and fairly rude.
As things progressed, he deleted some of his comments, and I see comments have now been closed, and there 
are no comments to view, but the video is still up.

He has "13 likes" on the video, and "1 dislike" (mine). I don't think it would be petty or inappropriate for more of us
to "dislike" his video?

Good suggestion, Papa Dragon.

From 2022 if there is any illegal drone flying in the Drakensberg Park, please let me know and I will inform the South Africa Civil Aviation Authority and SAP. Drone footage on a video is clear evidence for this criminal offence. If I was caught flying my drone in the Drakensberg Park without an Ezemvelo permit and flight plan...they would immediately take my drone pilots license away. And without a pilots license and correct procedure the fine is R52 000.00 or 10 years in prison, or both. The public just need to be educated, especially as drones are becoming more and more popular. My email address is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Can you provide a link to the law that you refer to? Like I did in the Berg Alert thread? Or at least the name of the act so that I can read it. 

 

law101.org.za/what-is-the-law-on-drones-in-south-africa/

Just Google it...its very easy to find out that all National Parks are No Zones for drones or any other aircraft. That's why helicopters do not fly in the Drakensberg Park, and only for rescue.



You can fly a drone at Mnweni as its not in the National park, but drone rules still apply there and remember there are helicopters also using that airspace. Someone I know recently told me they were tenting above the Triplets, near Upper Injashuti cave and a group of hikers had a drone and illegally flew it there without any thought of the other hikers in that area. They were very pissed off with this thoughtless and disrespectful act. As a drone pilot, I have to fly my drone with a hand held aviation radio to notify all aircraft in that area of my intentions before flying and also notify all aircraft after landing the drone. At the end of the day its all about safety as a drone can seriously damage or bring down an aircraft.


 

Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 is to “provide for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa's biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes; for the establishment of a national register of all national, provincial and local protected areas; for the management of those areas in accordance with national norms and standards; for intergovernmental co-operation and public consultation in matters concerning protected areas; for the continued existence, governance and functions of South African National Parks; and for matters in connection therewith”.

Section 47 of the Act is as follows:

47. Use of aircraft in special nature reserve, national park or world heritage site
(1) A special nature reserve, national park or world heritage site includes the air space above the reserve, park or site to a level of 2 500 feet above the highest point of the reserve, park or site.
(2) No person or organ of state, may land or take off in an aircraft in a special nature reserve, national park or world heritage site, except— (a) on or from a landing field designated by the management authority of that nature reserve, national park or world heritage site; and (b) on authority of the prior written permission of the management authority, which authority may stipulate the terms and conditions upon which this must take place.
(3) No person or organ of state may fly over or cause an aircraft to fly over a special nature reserve, national park or world heritage site at a level of less than 2500 feet above its highest point, except as may be necessary for the purpose of subsections (2) or (3A). (3A) (a) The management authority may provide for flight corridors over a special nature reserve, national park or world heritage site, as well as through the protected airspace identified under subsection (1) where this is necessary for a public purpose or in the public interest. (b) No person or organ of state may fly or cause any person to fly an aircraft over a special nature reserve, national park or world heritage site and through the protected airspace identified under subsection (1) — (i) without the prior written permission of the management authority; (ii) without the prescribed fee having first been paid, if applicable; and (iii) unless and until the management authority has approved the flight plan for a flight and stipulated the terms and conditions upon which a flight is to take place.

'twas a trick question that I asked. 

Notwithstanding your legitimate concerns about drones downing planes and invading privacy, what you posted was a law written years before the first recreational drone was ever invented and put into the hands of people annoying millennials.

47(1) and (2) only prohibit the landing and take of people *in* an aircraft, despite the definition accidentally covering drones as aircraft. As in people being hauled through the skies inside the craft.

When they wrote this law, they knew not of drones and so that loophole exists.

You may be tempted at this point, to sneer at me and say something like "don't be technical", but I have seen legal opinions set out by lawyers that show that unless the law explicitly and specifically excludes/outlaws something, it isn't illegal. Such as the use and carry of a sports firearm for self defence. It is against the spirit of the law but not illegal since it is not explicitly stated as illegal. This opinion came from decades of litigation experience. That is why when Act amendments occur as with gun control, they often remove words like *in* and other minor adjustments. 

The same applies here. Drones seem to be against the spirit of the law, but I do not see them as illegal here. (but also remember that I am not a sitting judge)

Moral of the story, is that I think this Act needs revision if you need to bounce the drone pilots out of there and with a skilled lawyer ambulance chaser, your drone pilot will walk out of court.

At least that is my opinion. 

The Act needs revision...... 
 
Just saying...