Mapping flight might pass over people

SteveBCH · Apr 1, 2025

I'm not clear on what is and is not allowed for a mapping flight that might pass over people. I've been asked to use my P4 RTK to photograph and topo a 10 acre site that includes a hiking trailhead and parking lot. There may or not be people using the trailhead at any give time. Can I fly over people if the drone is passing back and forth over them? There have been a lot of Operations Over People rule updates in recent years and, based on what I've been reading, it seems that the answer to my question is "No". Guidance would be appreciated. Thanks.

adm_geomatics · Apr 1, 2025

SteveBCH said:
I'm not clear on what is and is not allowed for a mapping flight that might pass over people. I've been asked to use my P4 RTK to photograph and topo a 10 acre site that includes a hiking trailhead and parking lot. There may or not be people using the trailhead at any give time. Can I fly over people if the drone is passing back and forth over them? There have been a lot of Operations Over People rule updates in recent years and, based on what I've been reading, it seems that the answer to my question is "No". Guidance would be appreciated. Thanks.

If it is just foot traffic "sparsely populated" then no worries if you are just following traditional flight lines, but if there is a large group of people and your transects are tightly spaced and will cross them several times then I would wait until they dissipate. In the same manner if you are doing something like a facade capture or need to orbit a structure several times I would make arrangements with the operators of the facility and/or wait until there isn't a lot of foot traffic. The key words are "sustained flight".

jaja6009 · Apr 2, 2025

If you want the pedantic answer, then you cannot fly directly over people unless you have a drone meeting Category 1 -4 or a waiver. The P4RTK will never meet the OOP Categories. To be fully compliant with the rules you would have use viewing a combination of the screen and your drone which you keep Line of Sight to pause any mission where you think you might fly directly over people until they pass your flight line.

In the real world it is almost impossible to say if a drone operating at 200 feet AGL and 300 feet away is directly over a person unless you had the camera in nadir and the grid overlay on and the person whas in the center point.

Use common sense as stated above and if there are only a few people you will be good.

CrashTestPilot · 2025-05-15T10:49:09-0400

Hey all, newbie here - still getting my propellers straight

Really appreciate the insights in this thread. I’ve been studying up on OOP rules, and it honestly feels like the more I read, the more “it depends” I find. I was just about to fly a small park project and got paranoid about someone walking their dog into frame mid-pass.

MapMaker53 · 2025-05-15T14:24:41-0400

If you think about it.. When passing over a person, it is is unlikely that your drone will fall out of the sky and impact them, unless you were HOVERING over them. IMO that regulation is more of a cautionary one that basically reflects the fact that if your drone hits someone you will be liable. Simply flying in the sky in the direction of someone, even if your intent is to curve away before passing over them, still sets up the possibility that the drone may fail and fall out of the sky before the turn - having an angular trajectory that will impact that person. So there are all sorts of scenarios to be cautious of when flying near people. I just wouldn't worry about a momentary fly-over, especially when you can't even determine if it was a direct fly-over or not. If you are flying along and your drone fails, it isn't going to hit the person it was over at that moment. It is most-likely going to hit someone you hadn't even considered.

adm_geomatics · 2025-05-15T15:03:12-0400

MapMaker53 said:
If you think about it.. When passing over a person, it is is unlikely that your drone will fall out of the sky and impact them, unless you were HOVERING over them. IMO that regulation is more of a cautionary one that basically reflects the fact that if your drone hits someone you will be liable. Simply flying in the sky in the direction of someone, even if your intent is to curve away before passing over them, still sets up the possibility that the drone may fail and fall out of the sky before the turn - having an angular trajectory that will impact that person. So there are all sorts of scenarios to be cautious of when flying near people. I just wouldn't worry about a momentary fly-over, especially when you can't even determine if it was a direct fly-over or not. If you are flying along and your drone fails, it isn't going to hit the person it was over at that moment. It is most-likely going to hit someone you hadn't even considered.

Let's look at the ambiguities in the regulation, because it is almost impossible to clearly say what is allowed. We should all be able to confidently say what is absolutely not allowed but in my case, transiting traffic and flying over sparse foot traffic is not unsafe. The amount of foot traffic that changes that is up to your comfort level but most of my flight are a person or two walking by every couple of minutes. Technically still "over" someone at some point. Stepping into "sustained flight" and "open-air assemblies".

1. “Routine operations... under certain circumstances”

“The final rule allows routine operations over people and routine operations at night under certain circumstances.”

Ambiguity:
The phrase “under certain circumstances” is vague. While later sections begin to define the categories and conditions, the summary language here gives no specifics—leaving the door open for subjective interpretation of what those "circumstances" are.

2. “...will pose no undue hazard...”

“...the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or property in the event of a loss of control...”

Ambiguity:
“No undue hazard” is not a clearly defined legal or technical threshold.

What qualifies as undue vs. acceptable hazard?
Does this differ by environment (urban vs. rural), altitude, or UAS weight?

This phrasing may leave remote pilots guessing about what standard they’re being held to.

3. “Safety risk-based approach”

“...the remote pilot must take steps using a safety risk-based approach...”

Ambiguity:
What exactly is meant by a “safety risk-based approach”?

Is this referencing a formal risk matrix?
Is there FAA guidance or a model to follow?
How should this be documented or proven during an audit or investigation?

Without specificity, this requirement risks becoming either meaningless or arbitrarily enforced.

4. “Sustained flight” vs. “brief, one-time transiting”

“‘Sustained flight’ over an open-air assembly... does not include a brief, one-time transiting...”

Ambiguity:
“Sustained” is still not defined by a specific duration or distance.

How long is “brief”?
How many seconds or passes count as "one-time"?

Operators may not agree on when a maneuver crosses from “transiting” to “sustained,” especially if the aircraft is loitering briefly for inspection, filming, or mapping.

5. “Reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft”

“...inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft.”

Ambiguity:

What is “reasonable protection”?
Is a soft-top Jeep “reasonable”? What about a bus with a skylight?
Is the operator responsible for evaluating structural integrity of every vehicle on site?

This could expose pilots to liability based on subjective assessments of safety features they can’t possibly verify.

6. “Open-air assembly”

Used repeatedly but only indirectly defined near the end.

Ambiguity:
The FAA does not provide a precise legal definition here of what constitutes an “open-air assembly of human beings.”

How many people is an “assembly”?
Does it include a park picnic? A farmer’s market? A construction site lunch break?

Ambiguity in this definition can drastically affect the legality of operations and waivers required.

7. “Persons on notice”

“...all people on site are on notice that a small UAS may fly over them...”

Ambiguity:
What qualifies as being “on notice”?

Verbal warning?
Posted signage?
Signed waivers?

There’s no guidance on documentation or method, creating compliance uncertainty and enforcement challenges.

8. “No exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations”

Category 1 requirement.

Ambiguity:
This introduces subjectivity in both design and enforcement.

Does a partially shrouded prop count as “exposed”?
What if laceration depends on speed or prop stiffness?

There’s no objective test or criteria mentioned here, so compliance may be difficult to assess without additional FAA materials.

9. “Additional requirements apply” (Category 4)

“...additional requirements apply.”

Ambiguity:

What are they?
Where are they listed?
Who enforces them?

The phrase “additional requirements apply” is too open-ended without pointing to a supplemental document or section.

10. Changes to “recurrent training framework” and certificate requests

“...changes the recurrent training framework, expands the list of persons who may request the presentation of a remote pilot certificate...”

Ambiguity:
There’s no clarification on who these new parties are, or what the new recurrent training involves. Without context, this line doesn’t inform operators or stakeholders of the impact.

Summary Table of Ambiguities

Ambiguous Term/Phrase	Potential Impact
“Under certain circumstances”	Vague operational scope
“No undue hazard”	No clear safety threshold
“Safety risk-based approach”	Lacks procedural definition
“Sustained flight” vs. “brief transit”	No temporal or spatial boundaries
“Reasonable protection”	No safety standard for vehicle shielding
“Open-air assembly”	Undefined size or context
“On notice”	No procedural or legal standard for notification
“Exposed rotating parts”	Lacks technical measurement criteria
“Additional requirements apply” (Cat 4)	Not specified
“Changes... training framework”	No clarification of scope

Dave Pitman · 2025-05-15T15:21:42-0400

adm_geomatics said:
Let's look at the ambiguities in the regulation, because it is almost impossible to clearly say what is allowed.

Love it!

I can tell you, from following general aviation since about 1996, that there is indeed a lot of personal interpretation in following the FARs. In most cases, the ambiguity whether a particular operation is within the scope of the reg is determined when something bad has happened and a judge is rendering a finding. Otherwise, not much attention is paid to it.

This has changed a little bit relatively recently with the advent of folks posting video documentation of their operation on social media. In those cases, an operation may be found to be illegal without anything bad happening. But that is more the exception, and the bad thing happening is usually the catalyst that starts the process to see what the judge thinks about a particular operation.

So, yes. It is often vague and relies much more on a person's decision making than we might think.