Flying Over People

[FlyingGary]

How the agency interprets the rules is irrelevant. The FAA makes it clear.
In 2020, there may well be some changes regarding flight over people and how we, Remote Pilots, accomplish that.

My understanding so far is that while waivers won’t be necessary before flight, the same requirements will be in place as to equipment and documentation.

 

[Bob Stekeur]

It can appear that the drone is over people when if you could see straight down there wouldn't be anyone. Can you fly this and get the shots without being over people?

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

I tried to follow your logic but it is flawed. The roads are public, so try driving w/o regard to traffic laws and see how far you get. Try flying an airplane w/o regards to FAA regulations and let me know how long you can get away with that. Public does not mean lawless.

The "rights" of UAV pilots are addressed by Part 107 by the federal agency with authority to control the National Airspace. No one likes the rules but as professional commercial remote pilots, we obey them.

 

[RickMC]

Let’s say your drone is hovering over an area and you are taking pictures, someone comes out of nowhere but you can’t see him because he’s not in your view or the cameras view and he and runs under your drone to get where he’s going. How the hell are you supposed to avoid that? The flying over people rule is really unreasonable in my opinion, im sure many others think so which is why they are open to changing it. I’m sure no one on here will admit it, but I bet a lot of people on here have actually flown over people even if they didn’t know it.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Let’s say your drone is hovering over an area and you are taking pictures, someone comes out of nowhere but you can’t see him because he’s not in your view or the cameras view and he and runs under your drone to get where he’s going. How the hell are you supposed to avoid that? The flying over people rule is really unreasonable in my opinion, im sure many others think so which is why they are open to changing it. I’m sure no one on here will admit it, but I bet a lot of people on here have actually flown over people even if they didn’t know it.

The words reasonable and intent will come into play.

 

[RickMC]

The words reasonable and intent will come into play.

Ok that makes sense

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Ok that makes sense

We seem to be drowning in a cup of water. As responsible pilots we are expected to take appropriate steps to ensure safe operations. And if something bad happens, like dropping a drone on someone's head, the subsequent investigation will be taking a long hard look at our operation and mitigation strategies.

There's no FAA snooping around corners hoping to catch a drone over people. I agree the rules must change, until then it is what it is.

 

[BryanD]

Let’s say your drone is hovering over an area and you are taking pictures, someone comes out of nowhere but you can’t see him because he’s not in your view or the cameras view and he and runs under your drone to get where he’s going. How the hell are you supposed to avoid that? The flying over people rule is really unreasonable in my opinion, im sure many others think so which is why they are open to changing it. I’m sure no one on here will admit it, but I bet a lot of people on here have actually flown over people even if they didn’t know it.

Maybe the use of a VO is required in this scenario. Either way it is the responsibility of the RPIC to mitigate the risk of this happening.

 

[BryanD]

Flying over people is a joke and a unreasonable policy that needs to be addressed to allow for some flexibility, (not a waiver) Unless an area of flight is an enclosed perimeter, preventing a person from walking into a flight pattern is unforeseeable.
Oxymoron Alert: FAA has determined that airspace is public, therefore, how do you stop citizens from walking onto a UAV flight pattern, when they have a public right to be there ? Can't have it both ways, either you restrict specific airspace from all UAV flying or restrict the public from entry onto certain airspace. The rights of both a UAV pilot and the public must be addressed but will not until a lawsuit and the courts come down with a decision.
Until then FAA unreasonable policies will not be adhered to by ALL.

Responsible pilots should not wait until something bad happens before they start adhering to the rules. I have not seen anywhere that it says you don't need to follow the rules until we can adequately enforce them. Maybe if more people would choose to follow the rules the FAA might have more time to go after those that are breaking the rules. Don't add to the problem by breaking the rules because you are not likely to get caught!

 

[PatR]

The FAA wasn’t whom established airspace is public, the Constitution did that. The FAA just assumed control of all the rules governing use of public airspace.

 

[drone Pilot]

Hovering and flying over people are two different scenarios. We pilots must challenge unreasonable UAV policies by voicing our opinion and not saying, 'O well, that's the way it is". As mentioned earlier, if u fly everyday, its inevitable to fly but not hover over people and FAA does not have the time or staff to check out every fly over complaint.

 

[BenMcCormick]

If I'm in a "Public" construction zone, that doesn't mean I can safely cross a temporary barrier to get to the other side of the street. I'm not a lawyer, but common sense would tell me a jury wouldn't side with someone who endangers themselves irresponsibly. One the other hand, I know that its impossible to make anything idiot proof. Idiots are too ingenious.

 

[drone Pilot]

Since your comments are directly below mine, I assume your response is a personal attack. But Ben please define a Public construction zone ?(construction is typically a private not public venture). You make assumptions without facts to sustain them, such as a jury verdict and how do you determine irresponsibility ?
[Content removed by ADMIN]

 

[Mavic Mac]

@drone Pilot - just so you know I didn't take @BenMcCormick post as a personal attack on you. I think it's below your post just because it was a new post and is just next inline. And his comment about idiots are just general statements. IMHO I think most people can think of instances when they thought people we being idiots.

 

[Free2Fly]

If only flights over bad people were allowed....

 

[BenMcCormick]

Sorry, My intent is not to attack anyone. My job for the last 40+years has been in design, so I do have some experience in designing products that I've tried to make user friendly. The idiot phase, in my profession, has never meant as a personal attack on anyone in particular. I myself, can be classified as an idiot at times.
Getting back to the subject at hand:
My previous post was to suggest creating a barrier so that people would not cross into the protected space. This space would then allow one to fly over the parking lot.
After considering the response I received, I will make this my last post on this matter and leave this forum.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Sorry, My intent is not to attack anyone. My job for the last 40+years has been in design, so I do have some experience in designing products that I've tried to make user friendly. The idiot phase, in my profession, has never meant as a personal attack on anyone in particular. I myself, can be classified as an idiot at times.
Getting back to the subject at hand:
My previous post was to suggest creating a barrier so that people would not cross into the protected space. This space would then allow one to fly over the parking lot.
After considering the response I received, I will make this my last post on this matter and leave this forum.

Leave? Don't do that. One of the down sides of the written word is the inability to convey intent w/o the benefit of tone and facial expressions. I've pi--d off plenty of people here and have gotten upset at others but guess what? We all get over it. This forum is a great resource, hang around.

 

[aerialimagery]

Since your comments are directly below mine, I assume your response is a personal attack. But Ben please define a Public construction zone ?(construction is typically a private not public venture). You make assumptions without facts to sustain them, such as a jury verdict and how do you determine irresponsibility ?

There was no attack against you. Good grief. He was making a general statement.

Besides, you ought to post on a political forum some time and then you'll see what real name-calling and personal attacking is.

 

[R Martin]

Since your comments are directly below mine, I assume your response is a personal attack. But Ben please define a Public construction zone ?(construction is typically a private not public venture). You make assumptions without facts to sustain them, such as a jury verdict and how do you determine irresponsibility ?

When you assume you make an a@@ out of you and, well you. Don't assume anything. His post was just below your's because he was the next to post a comment. Pull your big boy pants up and move on.

 

[Mavic Mac]

@BenMcCormick - As I stated in my previous post I did not think your post was an "attack" on anybody. Everyone that posts on these forums has something to contribute - I fully understood the point you were making, so because of one incident don't shy away from the forums - if everybody did that then there wouldn't be any forums. Stay & Post !