Where You Cannot Fly a Drone in Cochise County

Most of Cochise County is genuinely easy to fly. Class G airspace, wide open ground, no LAANC. That is the headline and it is true.

But there is a short list of places where the answer is a flat no, and a slightly longer list where the answer is "yes, with a permit you probably do not have." Both are worth knowing before you drive out somewhere with a drone in the back.

This applies to recreational flyers and commercial operators alike. Where a rule differs between the two, it is noted.

Flat prohibitions: three National Park Service sites

Under the Superintendent's Compendium, launching, landing or operating an unmanned aircraft is prohibited at:

• Chiricahua National Monument
• Coronado National Memorial
• Fort Bowie National Historic Site

This is not a permit process. There is no commercial exception, no Part 107 exception, and no filming permit that unlocks it.

The Chiricahuas in particular draw a lot of would-be aerial photography, and it is easy to see why. The answer is still no.

Coronado National Forest: mostly yes, with one hard exception

Forest Service land generally permits launching and recovering a drone. The Coronado is not a park and does not carry the NPS prohibition.

Designated Wilderness is different. Drones count as motorized equipment and are not permitted in Wilderness. Inside the Coronado that includes the Chiricahua Wilderness and the Miller Peak Wilderness, among others.

The boundary between general Forest land and designated Wilderness is not always obvious on the ground, and it is not always signed where you happen to be standing. Check it on the map rather than by eye.

For commercial work, federal filming and photography permitting has changed recently under the EXPLORE Act — the test is now group size and resource impact rather than commercial intent, and a one-person operation with hand-carried gear in a publicly accessible area generally does not require a permit. But the Coronado's own published guidance still describes the older position. Where national policy and a local posting disagree, get the answer from the Coronado's special uses office in writing before you rely on it.

Arizona State Trust Land: the one that catches almost everyone

State Trust Land is extensive in Cochise County and frequently interleaved with deeded ranch ground, which means people cross onto it without realising.

Two things about it:

You need a permit simply to be on it. Not to fly — to walk or drive on. Entering State Trust Land without a valid permit can be charged as criminal trespass.

The recreational permit does not cover commercial work. The Arizona State Land Department's recreational permit is inexpensive and lists photography among the activities it covers — but it is expressly for non-commercial use. Commercial activity falls under a different, considerably more expensive permit with a real processing time.

If you are shooting a listing, a job site or anything you are being paid for, and you are standing on State Trust Land, the recreational permit in your wallet is not the right one. Get the position confirmed by ASLD in writing rather than inferring it.

Also worth knowing: many ranch listings out here are deeded base property plus a state grazing lease. "It is state land" does not mean it is open — the lessee holds possessory rights.

Private property: overflight versus standing on it

These are two different legal questions and conflating them is how people get into trouble.

Overflight. The FAA asserts authority over navigable airspace at any altitude, and no federal aviation regulation conditions a Part 107 flight on landowner consent. Arizona has no statute prohibiting drone overflight of private property. The common-law position on very low, targeted, repeated flight is genuinely unsettled and there is no Arizona appellate decision on it — so the sensible practice is altitude, brevity, and not hovering near somebody's house.

Standing on it. Entirely different. Launching or landing on private property without permission is Arizona criminal trespass, and A.R.S. § 13-1504 makes it a class 6 felony inside a fenced residential yard. Ranch land here is frequently fenced. Arizona does not require "No Trespassing" signage for the owner to enforce.

Launch from a public road shoulder, park clear of the travelled way, and leave if asked.

The border band

Cochise County has roughly eighty-three miles of international border.

Arizona HB 2733 (2025) gives peace officers qualified immunity for disabling an unmanned aircraft within fifteen miles of the border on reasonable suspicion that it supports organized crime, drug trafficking, fraud or terrorism. Reasonable suspicion, not proof.

That band takes in a substantial part of southern Cochise County. Flying there is lawful and people do it — but it is done with advance coordination and the ability to explain yourself, not by turning up quietly with a drone.

The restriction that airspace authorization does not clear

National Security UAS Flight Restrictions under 14 CFR § 99.7 prohibit UAS operation from the surface to 400 ft AGL over designated Department of Defense facilities. They apply to every operation regardless of purpose, and they are administered separately from airspace authorization.

A LAANC approval does not clear an NSUFR. Around an active Army installation that distinction matters. Check the FAA's UAS Data Delivery System separately.

What Arizona law does and does not add

A.R.S. § 13-3729 is the only Arizona drone statute. Two points are useful:

Subsection (A) makes operating in a way prohibited by federal aeronautics regulation a class 1 misdemeanor — so any Part 107 violation is also a state crime here.

Subsection (C) preempts local drone ordinances. Cities, towns and counties may not enact rules on UAS ownership or operation. So there is no separate Willcox, Benson or Bisbee drone ordinance waiting to catch you. The state occupied the field in 2016.

You will find websites describing a 500-foot horizontal buffer around critical facilities in Arizona, and a drone offence under the disorderly conduct statute. Both were in the introduced version of the 2016 bill and were removed before it was enacted. They are not law, and the sites repeating them have not checked.

The short version

If you are planning something and are not sure which of these applies, ask. We would rather answer a question than read about it later.