Flying over people and/or moving vehicles

[HawkView]

(parked as a Red Light/Stop Sign/Traffic Jam do not qualify as stationary)

First time I have seen this interpretation. Is there a reference to where this is defined?

 

[BigAl07]

First time I have seen this interpretation. Is there a reference to where this is defined?

I don't have a link but I do know for sure it was discussed in an FAA Webinar by Kevin Morris (FAA). You might find a download of that webinar and be able to hear it.

 

[flockshot]

If your drone hits anybody, or their property the responsibility is on you. Beyond that, interpret things as you wish.

 

[MapMaker53]

I don't have a link but I do know for sure it was discussed in an FAA Webinar by Kevin Morris (FAA). You might find a download of that webinar and be able to hear it.

Here's that webinar if anyone is interested. Provides detailed explanation of all Part 107 regs.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BryanD]

Beware, this is a 2 1/2 hour video. I am sure it is worth listening to but I need to find some chunks of time to watch it.

 

[flockshot]

This is the second time I have seen it, and I really do recommend it. Especially if you have never been familiar with the FAA in previous aviation activity.
Much like manned aircraft pilots, we are out there making all our own decisions about weather, airspace and all the rest without the FAA being able to monitor us. I hope we develop a really good safety record and can expand our privileges as technology allows.

 

[BryanD]

Yeah, planning on watching and taking notes for future reference. Thanks.

 

[R.Perry]

I would hope the FAA will come up with some common sense guidelines regarding overflights of people. As with aircraft, they have a 1000 foot over populated areas. I would think that 100 to 200 feet transitioning over people would be a reasonable start, and no hovering over people.

The other thing is moving cars, personally I think that is ridiculous especially if you are working in a city with a lot of traffic. I know some of our people violate this frequently out of necessity to get a job done.

Many times my work is delayed for hours due to these restrictions. However I do believe low flights over people should remain restricted because of the potential danger if something goes wrong.

I know the FAA is slow to move on certain things and this is going to be one of them. In the mean time we have no choice but to obey the regulations because continued failure to do so will bring on more restrictions.

 

[flockshot]

I would hope the FAA will come up with some common sense guidelines regarding overflights of people. As with aircraft, they have a 1000 foot over populated areas. I would think that 100 to 200 feet transitioning over people would be a reasonable start, and no hovering over people.

The other thing is moving cars, personally I think that is ridiculous especially if you are working in a city with a lot of traffic. I know some of our people violate this frequently out of necessity to get a job done.

Many times my work is delayed for hours due to these restrictions. However I do believe low flights over people should remain restricted because of the potential danger if something goes wrong.

I know the FAA is slow to move on certain things and this is going to be one of them. In the mean time we have no choice but to obey the regulations because continued failure to do so will bring on more restrictions.

I order to get flight over people (at any altitude) we will need a way to protect the people on the ground. It may be some sort of controlled descent device, but more likely is a matter of redundancy, so that when a system fails (such as power failure, or broken prop) there is a separate electrical system, and enough good props, to control the descent and landing. They will never allow flight over people without a plan to protect the people when things go badly. I doubt we will ever see a 4 prop aircraft approved for over people. Probably at least 8 props with 2 separate electrical systems. my 2c

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Any 107 operator who intentionally and regularly flies in violation of 107.39 should have her/his 107 ticket revoked.

 

[R.Perry]

One safety feature that has been added or available for some small aircraft are parachutes that can be deployed and bring the aircraft down. Considering the way drones are configured I think that might be a good option as well as stopping all the motors lessening the potential of injuring someone with a spinning prop.

 

[xspwhite]

I think the FAA makes it pretty clear. Unless the people or cars are directly involved in the UAS, then steer clear.

 

[R.Perry]

Any 107 operator who intentionally and regularly flies in violation of 107.39 should have her/his 107 ticket revoked.

From my experience with the FAA a pilot needs to really screw up to get his license pulled. Normally on first offenses thay give warnings or modest fines, continued violations get real expensive especially for the same offense. As a crop duster I had a few meetings with the FAA people, and never got anything more than a butt chewin. I sprayed insecticide all over a few cars, and came over town at 500 feet once, and both of those could have got me a good fine. The cars were due to a stuck valve, the low altitude I had no real good excuse for.
I think the FAA guys are a lot different than the average police officer when it comes to violations. Don'e misunderstand me, I'm not implying that you won't get nailed for vilolations, but I think a lot of it has to do with the pilots attitude, history and the specific violation. The people you don't want to have an encounter with is the NTSB.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

From my experience with the FAA a pilot needs to really screw up to get his license pulled. Normally on first offenses thay give warnings or modest fines, continued violations get real expensive especially for the same offense. As a crop duster I had a few meetings with the FAA people, and never got anything more than a butt chewin. I sprayed insecticide all over a few cars, and came over town at 500 feet once, and both of those could have got me a good fine. The cars were due to a stuck valve, the low altitude I had no real good excuse for.
I think the FAA guys are a lot different than the average police officer when it comes to violations. Don'e misunderstand me, I'm not implying that you won't get nailed for vilolations, but I think a lot of it has to do with the pilots attitude, history and the specific violation. The people you don't want to have an encounter with is the NTSB.

I agree, that has been my experience also. Soloed in 1969.

 

[R Martin]

My job is at a large construction site, (UC Merced, CA) There are several hundred people working on this site. Main priority is to avoid flying over any of the construction people. I have had days where I needed to wait til a group went on break, lunch, or off work before I could get that photos my client wanted.

I don't get concerned about vehicles, but the last thing I would ever want is that Inspire 2 to come crashing down on someone, so many times it means being patient and waiting for the right time or opportunity to fly.

The other thing is, each time I change batteries I check it over. Before each days flights I make sure everything is secure, I launch in a remote area, and make sure she is performing as it should before starting my job.

It is my opinion that many failures of aircraft, helos, drones, are due to poor preflight inspections.

I fly under similar conditions and have found that coordinating with the GC goes a long way; especially if you are sharing the data with them. We usually strive to fly at or around the noon hour to minimize shadows and that usually coincides with lunch...so we get a clean site. We get great orthos that wya and everyone is happy.

 

[R Martin]

One safety feature that has been added or available for some small aircraft are parachutes that can be deployed and bring the aircraft down. Considering the way drones are configured I think that might be a good option as well as stopping all the motors lessening the potential of injuring someone with a spinning prop.

The chutes I have seen for this retard the descent rate. It (the UAS) is still going to hurt if it hits someone. The responsible thing is just don't fly within the proximity of people and have an excellent emergency plan to fall back on if things go south.

 

[mdurbanek]

As a professional working at an activity that is an extremely popular hobby (photography), my observation is that sUAS is a fairly dangerous hobby regarding legality and responsibility for one's actions.

Everyone knows that YouTube is full of examples of drone stupidity, willful illegality, and downright arrogance. Don't use YouTube as a justification to engage in unsafe behavior.

Plan your work. Work your plan. Be prepared to leave without completing the mission. Alter the mission and go back for another try. Oh yeah - insure yourself.

 

[R.Perry]

The chutes I have seen for this retard the descent rate. It (the UAS) is still going to hurt if it hits someone. The responsible thing is just don't fly within the proximity of people and have an excellent emergency plan to fall back on if things go south.

Well all construction workers wear hard hats, one of the dangers is the spinning props, if they are stopped then that would lessen the potential injury. The parachute could decrease the decent from potential of terminal velocity to probably 15 to 18 fpm tremendously reducing the impact to someone. If it were to hit a construction worker with a hard had I believe there would be no head injuries and other injuries wouldn't be that significant. If it hit someone at terminal velocity then there would be a real potential for death or critical injures. That is just my unprofessional opinion, and thoughts. A lot of testing would need to be done to verify or dispute.

As stated about, be well insured, and as safe as possible.

 

[mdurbanek]

R. Perry: with all due respect, the hardhats and theoretical terminal velocity are not the important things. Hell, you don't have to hurt anyone to get sued, you don't even want to scare anyone.

Insurance will only protect you if you can document your experience, your records, and your pre-existing contingency plan if any of a number of things go awry - motor or propeller fail, fly-away, controller disconnect, wind, etc.

And please don't risk posting here again (or anywhere else) that a risk is acceptable just because somebody has a hardhat. I know you aren't advocating being reckless - but that's what an attorney will allege.

This technology isn't even close to settling down legally. That means pros and hobbyists should follow the rules and err on the side of caution. Here's to safe flying, and have fun (when you can!)!

 

[R.Perry]

R. Perry: with all due respect, the hardhats and theoretical terminal velocity are not the important things. Hell, you don't have to hurt anyone to get sued, you don't even want to scare anyone.

Insurance will only protect you if you can document your experience, your records, and your pre-existing contingency plan if any of a number of things go awry - motor or propeller fail, fly-away, controller disconnect, wind, etc.

And please don't risk posting here again (or anywhere else) that a risk is acceptable just because somebody has a hardhat. I know you aren't advocating being reckless - but that's what an attorney will allege.

This technology isn't even close to settling down legally. That means pros and hobbyists should follow the rules and err on the side of caution. Here's to safe flying, and have fun (when you can!)!

Well you are correct that the lawyers are waiting in line to sue someone, and many times over the stupidest issues.
First of all, I'm not advocating breaking any laws or FAA regulations, I think some common sense needs to be applied to overflight of people. Planes fly over people every day, but as safe altitudes. What I believe needs to be put in place for certain applications is a minimum altitude a drone must fly to pass over people or moving cars.

As for hobbyists, sorry they need to be licensed, there putting something in the air that has the potential of injuring someone.

Well is you take your argument of risk to it's ultimate conclusion then all guns should be outlawed, cars should be outlawed, planes should be outlawed because if they crash they could injure or kill someone. We live in a world where there is risk in many things we do, the options is to live a boring life in fear of the potential risks.

I do realize lawyers make a very good living suing people and corporations, something needs to be done about frivolous lawsuits that these ambulance chasers capitalize on.