Flying over people and/or moving vehicles

[Moosewax]

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!)!

I have yet to run into anyone who is scared for their safety with the drone in the air. Usually people are more concerned with privacy in my experience. Now I'm usually out there in a hardhat vest, marked vehicle etc so I think people put me in a different category of operator automatically. Say compared to some dude in shorts and flip flops flying a drone around. I have even had people approach me and say as much.

Wearing a high visibility vest is your friend in many cases.

Now granted too I'm usually 200ft AGL to 400ft AGL. If my drone was really low and close I am sure that would change the equation dramatically.

 

[R Martin]

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.

A parachute attached to a UAS does not negate the fact that it is against the regs to fly over people or moving vehicles. the ONLY exception would be a waiver allowing you to ignore that particular reg, and so far, to date there have only been two instances of a waiver being granted since Part 107 went live.Consider the regs as black and white vs differing shades of gray and you will find the decisions you face are a lot simpler.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

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!)!

"a risk is acceptable just because somebody has a hardhat." I don't think that's what he was saying.

 

[R.Perry]

A parachute attached to a UAS does not negate the fact that it is against the regs to fly over people or moving vehicles. the ONLY exception would be a waiver allowing you to ignore that particular reg, and so far, to date there have only been two instances of a waiver being granted since Part 107 went live.Consider the regs as black and white vs differing shades of gray and you will find the decisions you face are a lot simpler.

I'm not implying that anyone ignore the 107 regulations, my point was I think the FAA needs to take a more realistic approach, and establish minimum altitudes AGL that must be maintained to pass over people.
On my job site I have no less than four safety people that monitor my actions. There are days when I wait hours to shoot a pano the company wants because there are people working in the area. I not only must maintain no overflight, but they want a minimum of 100 feet horizontally.
Here is the other problem, I do monthly mapping, as we all know that is done autonomously, and at 300 feet. The camera is pointed straight down, by the time I seen someone in the path it is too late. So my mapping must be done after normal working hours, but that doesn't mean that everyone is gone. All contractors have been notified when the mapping is to be taken place, and to keep the area clear of people out in the open. Do they abide by that, well I won't comment on that.
I do everything I possibly can to avoid overflights.

Now you want to think about something, any of you that live in agricultural areas have seen crop dusters, and many times they are fly low over roads, that have cars traveling on them. Some times these wonderful people will stop to watch the crop duster, not a good idea. There are no regulations that apply in that case. Altitude restrictions are for populated areas, so what is the difference. If that crop duster crashes and hits a car, there will be a lot more damage than any drone could ever inflict.
One difference is the crop duster is a professional pilot, many drone operators aren't even close, and that is why all the restrictions.

 

[R Martin]

I'm not implying that anyone ignore the 107 regulations, my point was I think the FAA needs to take a more realistic approach, and establish minimum altitudes AGL that must be maintained to pass over people.

You are assuming that the FAA hasn't taken a realistic approach. I think they have stated the regs very plainly. Do not fly over people. Do not fly over moving vehicles. Those two simple sentences make it clear they do not want you flying over people at 20 ft or 400 feet. It is a bad idea. It does not stop you from doing so. You and only you can choose to obey or not to obey the spirit of the regs. That is your decision and your own liability. If something goes wrong and someone gets hurt, you and you alone are going to answer for it to the FAA certainly and the NTSB probably. Again, this is a personal decision and its on you. Professionally, which is a word you used earlier, I obey the regs whether I happen to agree with them or not.Whether I think that the risk is minimal or not. Whether the pressure to get the job done is there or not. That is what makes you a professional.

On my job site I have no less than four safety people that monitor my actions. There are days when I wait hours to shoot a pano the company wants because there are people working in the area. I not only must maintain no overflight, but they want a minimum of 100 feet horizontally.
Here is the other problem, I do monthly mapping, as we all know that is done autonomously, and at 300 feet. The camera is pointed straight down, by the time I seen someone in the path it is too late. So my mapping must be done after normal working hours, but that doesn't mean that everyone is gone. All contractors have been notified when the mapping is to be taken place, and to keep the area clear of people out in the open. Do they abide by that, well I won't comment on that.
I do everything I possibly can to avoid overflights.

Notifying a contractor that you are going to be flying does not relive you of responsibility to follow the regs. There is not any way that you can rationalise the regs away. You either follow them or you don't. You're either a professional or you aren't. You avoid flying over people or you don't. Keep in mind that a contractor has a deadline they have to meet and your flight is insignificant to that deadline. We have a completion date built into every contract we award with penalties built into the contract if the contractor fails to meet that date and it is attributable to them. They aren't risking a fine if you fly over them or possible imprisonment. So even if they don't hold up their agreement with you, you have some incentive to hold up your agreement with the FAA when you agreed to follow their rules in exchange for a certificate to fly in the NAS.

Now you want to think about something, any of you that live in agricultural areas have seen crop dusters, and many times they are fly low over roads, that have cars traveling on them. Some times these wonderful people will stop to watch the crop duster, not a good idea. There are no regulations that apply in that case. Altitude restrictions are for populated areas, so what is the difference. If that crop duster crashes and hits a car, there will be a lot more damage than any drone could ever inflict.
One difference is the crop duster is a professional pilot, many drone operators aren't even close, and that is why all the restrictions.

Another difference: GA is maintained by licensed mechanics who perform inspections at regular intervals. A UAS (at least those under 55 lbs.) are not. GA flights are manned, so the pilot and crew have an incentive not to make mistakes. UAS flights are not.

 

[mdurbanek]

"a risk is acceptable just because somebody has a hardhat." I don't think that's what he was saying.

Correct, Luis, that's why I immediately stated that I knew he wasn't advocating being reckless. I was just pointing out what an attorney would undeniably allege.

In fact, I'd like to see more construction documentation myself. It sounds like many of you guys have some pretty sweet gigs.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Correct, Luis, that's why I immediately stated that I knew he wasn't advocating being reckless. I was just pointing out what an attorney would undeniably allege.

In fact, I'd like to see more construction documentation myself. It sounds like many of you guys have some pretty sweet gigs.

Construction is my bread and butter. I gave up on flaky, cheapskate real estate agents a long time ago. As all business, repeat customers makes it all worthwhile.

I try very hard to avoid flying over construction workers. If I can do it on a weekend when the site is shutdown that's great (but that is not always possible, customers do have deadlines) but as we all know (including the FAA) it is impossible to not fly over someone at a site unintentionally. That is why I feel more comfortable with construction sites (everyone has a hard hat on).

 

[mdurbanek]

Construction is my bread and butter. I gave up on flaky, cheapskate real estate agents a long time ago. As all business, repeat customers makes it all worthwhile.

I try very hard to avoid flying over construction workers. If I can do it on a weekend when the site is shutdown that's great (but that is not always possible, customers do have deadlines) but as we all know (including the FAA) it is impossible to not fly over someone at a site unintentionally. That is why I feel more comfortable with construction sites (everyone has a hard hat on).

This discussion got me thinking that perhaps (since the sUAS pilot is acting with the direction of the General Contractor) the construction workers would effectively be "participants" in the photographic project. But no, it is specified that the participants must be active in the operation of the drone itself - PIC and observers.

 

[R Martin]

Construction is my bread and butter. I gave up on flaky, cheapskate real estate agents a long time ago. As all business, repeat customers makes it all worthwhile.

I try very hard to avoid flying over construction workers. If I can do it on a weekend when the site is shutdown that's great (but that is not always possible, customers do have deadlines) but as we all know (including the FAA) it is impossible to not fly over someone at a site unintentionally. That is why I feel more comfortable with construction sites (everyone has a hard hat on).

They are also fenced in (at least our's are) to keep the majority of people out. I'm not going to say it doesn't happen. But my VOs will clear the offender from the area when I'm flying. I have yet to have issue with a general or subs. It falls back to your relationship with the construction company and subs. We work with them daily and provide a service that is going to be provided at their cost or ours. It's not optional. Sometimes you just need to point that out. Our way is far less expensive ($0.00 to them).

 

[R Martin]

This discussion got me thinking that perhaps (since the sUAS pilot is acting with the direction of the General Contractor) the construction workers would effectively be "participants" in the photographic project. But no, it is specified that the participants must be active in the operation of the drone itself - PIC and observers.

Been there, thought that and you are correct. In order to be a participant you have to be directly involved in the flight evolution to count.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Yes, I explored that route a while back until the feds decided to define "participants". So business goes on and I'm not going to worry about it, just ensure I make a good faith effort to avoid people and keep my liability policy paid.

 

[R.Perry]

Mr. Martin, please answer me this. If you do mapping of any site. As your mapping your camera is pointed straight down. Someone that wasn't visible before all of a sudden walks out of a building and directly in the path of your drone. By the time you disengage from mapping and take control you have already overflown the person, tell me how you deal with that?

I have dealt with the FAA for many years, and I have always found them reasonable people as long as you are making an honest effort to operate in a safe manner. One of the professors called the FAA in on me, when they came out they found no issues with what I was doing. You have implied that I feel the regs aren't realistic, and they aren't, but I will abide by them because that is the way the game is played.

I've been chewed out for flying over a city too low, for spraying cars, and for making an instrument approach below minimums that I did not do. I was a CFI for a while so I dealt with FAA examiners. I'm only saying this because I'm not new to the world of aviation, and the people that run it.

Your comment about professional mechanics AP maintaining aircraft is true, every hear of an aircraft crashing because of poor maintenance. Check out the flight that went down off the coast of LA mainy years ago. AP wrote up the bootjack ( makes the elevator go up and down) IA agreed, need to be replaced, maintenance supervisor said they would replace it on next inspection. The plane crashed right after the inspection killing over 90 people. I could tell you some horror stories about so called professional maintenance.

We need not only licensing for commercial drone pilots, but also performance evaluations. Today all one needs to do is pass a simple 107 test and he is now a professional drone pilot, might not know how to control it very well, but he is now a professional. That is why the regs are so strict, and I do understand the reason for them. Hopefully in the future the FAA will deal with some of these issues and the commercial drone operations will become truly professional.

The company I work for put me through and extensive performance test before hiring me, and I"m glad they did.

You are right about one thing, if something should happen, and someone is injured, the buck stops with the pilot, right or wrong, they will try to hang it on pilot error. Sully, the guy that landed in the Hudson River, they wanted to hang him until they finally figured out he did the right thing, but they began with the assumptions the he screwed the pooch.

 

[R Martin]

Mr. Martin, please answer me this. If you do mapping of any site. As your mapping your camera is pointed straight down. Someone that wasn't visible before all of a sudden walks out of a building and directly in the path of your drone. By the time you disengage from mapping and take control you have already overflown the person, tell me how you deal with that?

Planning and coordination. I time flights to coincide with downtime on the site with the GC and subs. I use multiple observers and station them strategically to prevent a non-participant from wandering into the flight area. I conduct a site briefing for everyone at 7:00AM that last roughly 5-7 minutes that explains what we are doing, when we are going to do it and the reason they need to be under cover or off-site. So far, it has worked for me quite well.

Your comment about professional mechanics AP maintaining aircraft is true, every hear of an aircraft crashing because of poor maintenance. Check out the flight that went down off the coast of LA mainy years ago. AP wrote up the bootjack ( makes the elevator go up and down) IA agreed, need to be replaced, maintenance supervisor said they would replace it on next inspection. The plane crashed right after the inspection killing over 90 people. I could tell you some horror stories about so called professional maintenance.

And despite the examples you gave, aviation remains the safest way to travel. 90 people is an appalling number but only so because it was all at once. Comparing the deaths of airline tragedies against the national highway deaths over a period of time against miles travelled would reveal similarly shocking numbers...that more people die on the nation's roadways per mile travelled than in the national airspace. Their deaths aren't any less insignificant simply because they die in pairs or single digits.

We need not only licensing for commercial drone pilots, but also performance evaluations. Today all one needs to do is pass a simple 107 test and he is now a professional drone pilot, might not know how to control it very well, but he is now a professional. That is why the regs are so strict, and I do understand the reason for them. Hopefully in the future the FAA will deal with some of these issues and the commercial drone operations will become truly professional.

If that lifts the restrictions that the FAA has placed on commercial UAS operators then I am all for it. The test they currently give is rather simplistic and I agree does not go far enough to ascertain whether someone is actually capable of operating in the national airspace safely and competently. If regular performance evaluations is what it takes to be afforded the ability to operate with autonomy over a job site or fly beyond visual range or operate at night then lets do it.

You are right about one thing, if something should happen, and someone is injured, the buck stops with the pilot, right or wrong, they will try to hang it on pilot error.

The way I understand it if you should be unlucky enough to have to face an FAA or NTSB hearing is that you are presumed to be at fault and must prove otherwise. So it is all that more important to follow the spirit of the regs to avoid a mishap. Just my thoughts...


Just to clarify: Don't take the above post about flying over people to mean that it never happens. It does. But it is infrequent because I do go out of my way to ensure it does not happen.

 

[R.Perry]

Your final comment is the more realistic, overflights do happen, doing all we can to avoid them is our responsibility. The last thing any normal prudent person wants is to do something that endangers others. However Murphy is always hanging around, and sh.... happens.

 

[R Martin]

Your final comment is the more realistic, overflights do happen, doing all we can to avoid them is our responsibility. The last thing any normal prudent person wants is to do something that endangers others. However Murphy is always hanging around, and sh.... happens.

What did brown do to you today? I work at a university. The trend today is to commute on foot with your face glued to a cell phone screen oblivious of the world around you. Fencing helps but does not prevent the determined. I personally would feel bad if I injured someone. I leave it to Darwin to cull the herd naturally without my input.

 

[R.Perry]

Oh now your getting political, Brown raised the gas tax for "road repairs", reality is help support the people that aren't suppose to be here anyway, and the ones too lazy to get an education and work for a living. We really don't want to go there.
Speaking of our Universities, one of the sub contractors made a very honest comment. "Oh, we never finish on time, that way we can get them for cost overruns."
I still love California, my family has been here for six generations, just hate the politics.
Have a wonderful day Martin.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

 

[R.Perry]

Your right Luis, sorry.

 

[R Martin]

Oh now your getting political, Brown raised the gas tax for "road repairs", reality is help support the people that aren't suppose to be here anyway, and the ones too lazy to get an education and work for a living. We really don't want to go there.

If you will go back to the original you will find that the 'b' is not capitalized. Has nothing to do with your governor. As far as politics go, I don't have any use for any of them unless you slice them really thinly and use them to save toilet paper...

Speaking of our Universities, one of the sub contractors made a very honest comment. "Oh, we never finish on time, that way we can get them for cost overruns."

I am sure that is true across the board. Certainly true here. Of course those cost get passed on in the form of additional fees and tuition and taxes (we are a state institution) so it hurts us all. I know it is common practice, but a lot of it is held in check by the contract. Just because people work for the government doesn't mean they are stupid. I came here with 32 years in the industry behind my back. You are confusing the people that make the country work with politicians....

 

[BigAl07]

Ok gang... let's get this thread back on topic and not let it spiral into the ditches.