Planning !! or failing to.

[R.Perry]

I'm on a 160 acre job site for UC Merced, CA.

Two of the student housing and cafeteria are basically completed and will be occupied by students August. 1st, Problem is three of the other building are in various stages of construction next to the completed buildings. Client wants continued pano and progression coverage of the buildings under construction.

This morning the superintendent informed me that as of August 1 students will be using the two completed buildings, but he still wants his photos. The college does not want me flying over their active campus without a waiver from the FAA and at this stage of the game that isn't going to happen anytime soon if at all.

Supers comment was, "Oh I thought you had a waiver to fly over people." Yes, at 300 feet doing mapping and only over construction people, not students.

I told him I will need to shoot the progressions and elevations on those sides with a camera, not the drone. His comment, "Our contract calls for drone pictures so we get an elevated view."

I said all that to say don't make the same mistake I just did, I knew this was coming, I figured the powers to be had it all worked out, I was wrong.
I have the same situation here, the grey building on the right is the cafeteria as of Aug 1st and same situation with the building on lower right.

His last comment to me was "well sometimes we need to cheat a little to keep the client happy."
I told him I want to keep both my drone and pilots license so cheating or endangering students is not an option.

I hope that others may learn from my mistake, I should have been on top of this long before now.

 

[R Martin]

His last comment to me was "well sometimes we need to cheat a little to keep the client happy."
I told him I want to keep both my drone and pilots license so cheating or endangering students is not an option.

I hope that others may learn from my mistake, I should have been on top of this long before now.

I work in the same environment. Have the same problems both from outside as well as university staff too. My workaround is to have each job site surrounded by fencing to keep the unwary out. Six feet is the minimum. One gated entrance to control access to the site. My flight boundary is 60 feet inside the fence line at altitude (I fly a lot lower than you I suspect). Unfortunately, all my flying is in controlled airspace and the recent changes cap my flights at the grid altitude, which now is the max ceiling in that grid. My COA states I can not exceed that altitude period. I still manage to get most of the jobs completed and stay within the regs. The job supers win in that they don't have students with their faces buried in their iPhones wandering around dangerous equipment and open excavations.

 

[BigAl07]

We had to get "Creative" at a local campus last year. Through the use of a Scissor Lift and some experienced pole climbers we got the shots needed and no poor students were harmed. Fortunately this was a one-off project and we did include the fee for the scissor lift in our proposal. Thank goodness it wasn't a PANO where positioning was critical or this one might have been a failure (wha wha whaaaaaaa) .

 

[MapMaker53]

I hope that others may learn from my mistake, I should have been on top of this long before now.

Seems pretty straight forward that you have not breached any agreement. The university changed the environment mid-project and made it an unsafe situation to continue. You didn't need a waiver to fly over people associated with the project (the construction crew) so it's the Superintendent's mistake for thinking you had one in the first place. ("Oh I thought you had a waiver to fly over people.") So I see no breach of contract and you should get paid at least for the work you have already performed, unless I'm missing something. Kudos to you for sticking to the regs and not giving in to his expectations.

I would take the elevated views by either standing on the roof of the adjacent buildings, or by hovering the drone directly above those buildings for that matter. There won't be any students up on those roofs.

 

[R.Perry]

BigA, that is an interesting idea, there are all kinds of boom and scissor lifts on this site. The reality is I could safely do the shoots but that isn't the issue, it is operational rules, and politics. I could do as I do now by making sure I don't overfly anyone, many of the photos could be taken from above the occupied building posing no threat to any students, but that isn't how the game is played as you all know.

I've said it before, sometimes you just need to tell the client they can't have what they want. It isn't fun, but at least your doing the right thing.

 

[R.Perry]

Martin, they will be keeping students out of the job site with fencing, at least I believe they will because it wouldn't be too wise to allow them access. Anyone accessing the job site also must wear PPE gear so a student would stand out like a sore thumb.
When I was young I had a habit of pushing the envelope at times, but at this stage in life I just want to do things right, and not screw the pooch with a dumb mistake.

 

[R.Perry]

As for doing the Panos, that isn't a problem, I don't need to overfly any of the three building or active campus to complete the panos. Actually the two pictures I posted are from panos I took this morning, I just had to resize them for the forum, standard photo is over 9 mb.

 

[Maldades]

As for doing the Panos, that isn't a problem, I don't need to overfly any of the three building or active campus to complete the panos. Actually the two pictures I posted are from panos I took this morning, I just had to resize them for the forum, standard photo is over 9 mb.

Hi Perry.
I'm sorry for the problems you are face on in your project.
I live in Spain and trust me we have much more that there...

Currently I'm working in a multi-camera Time Lapse on a construction building and I want to offer drone Time Lapse service too.
Are you doing something similar or just taking panos every day or week?

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

I'm on a 160 acre job site for UC Merced, CA.

Two of the student housing and cafeteria are basically completed and will be occupied by students August. 1st, Problem is three of the other building are in various stages of construction next to the completed buildings. Client wants continued pano and progression coverage of the buildings under construction.View attachment 635

This morning the superintendent informed me that as of August 1 students will be using the two completed buildings, but he still wants his photos. The college does not want me flying over their active campus without a waiver from the FAA and at this stage of the game that isn't going to happen anytime soon if at all.

Supers comment was, "Oh I thought you had a waiver to fly over people." Yes, at 300 feet doing mapping and only over construction people, not students.

I told him I will need to shoot the progressions and elevations on those sides with a camera, not the drone. His comment, "Our contract calls for drone pictures so we get an elevated view."

I said all that to say don't make the same mistake I just did, I knew this was coming, I figured the powers to be had it all worked out, I was wrong. View attachment 636
I have the same situation here, the grey building on the right is the cafeteria as of Aug 1st and same situation with the building on lower right.

His last comment to me was "well sometimes we need to cheat a little to keep the client happy."
I told him I want to keep both my drone and pilots license so cheating or endangering students is not an option.

I hope that others may learn from my mistake, I should have been on top of this long before now.

"Oh I thought you had a waiver to fly over people." Yes, at 300 feet doing mapping and only over construction people, not students. " You secured an FAA waiver for 107.39?

Would you care to share your application?

 

[Avocet]

MapMaker53 has your answer: the client changed the scope of the work (hopefully as described in the contract) AFTER work had commenced and may have rendered the agreement null and void. (I'm not an attorney, and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn -bad inside joke). If anything, you could make a case for charging for the full project amount (if it was fixed pricing) because of that very mid-stream change in scope by the payee (without your prior knowledge and/or agreement). I wonder if his direct report knows that he spent some money on your service, got fast and loose with the details and the scope of work, and then asked you to break the law (perhaps to cover his on posterior). With my big mouth, I'd find a clever way to pose that question to him and watch carefully for his reaction.

At this point in UAV business history, it's not very difficult to understand and know more than those who wish to hire our services. My clients need to know this if we are to do business together. If not, well then, you should probably best be spending time and money on other things.

All that being said, FAA 107.39 does NOT differentiate about the roles of humans under your drone, only that they are knowing parties to the UAV implementation (or have sufficient physical protection from your UAV).

 

[BigAl07]

All that being said, FAA 107.39 does NOT differentiate about the roles of humans under your drone, only that they are knowing parties to the UAV implementation (or have sufficient physical protection from your UAV).

Knowing parties? Ummmm no.... they have to be a part of the Flight Crew. Knowledge of the operation or signing a "Release" does not satisfy the Flight Crew requirement. If they are not "Covered physically" they must be part of the UAS Operational Crew (pilot, observer, Safety Officer etc) and be responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft.

Specifically it's stated: ( I added bold and color for emphasis purposes only)

5.11 Prohibited Operation Over Persons. Part 107 prohibits a person from flying a small UA directly over a person who is not under a safe cover, such as a protective structure or a stationary vehicle. However, a small UA may be flown over a person who is directly participating in the operation of the sUAS, such as the remote PIC, other person manipulating the controls, a VO, or crewmembers necessary for the safety of the sUAS operation, as assigned and briefed by the remote PIC. There are several ways that the sUAS remote PIC can comply with these requirements, such as:

• • Selecting an operational area (site) that is clearly unpopulated/uninhabited. If selecting a site that is populated/inhabited, have a plan of action which ensures persons remain clear of the operating area, remain indoors, or remain under safe cover until such time that the small UA flight has ended. Safe cover is a structure or stationary vehicle that would protect a person from harm if the small UA were to crash into that structure or vehicle;
• • Establishing an operational area in which the remote PIC has taken reasonable precautions to keep free of persons not directly participating in the operation of the sUAS;
• • Choosing an operating area that is sparsely populated, or, ideally, clear of persons if operating a small UA from a moving vehicle;
• • Having a plan of action that ensures the small UA remains clear of persons who may enter the operating area.
• • Adopt an appropriate operating distance from persons not directly participating in the operation of the sUAS.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Source
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_107-2.pdf

 

[BigAl07]

Source
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_107-2.pdf

Team work LOL! That's exactly where I pulled it from but I slacked off and didn't link my source.

bad Allen... very bad Allen


It's on page 22 if that helps any

 

[MapMaker53]

You didn't need a waiver to fly over people associated with the project (the construction crew)...

Jeez.. Nobody called me out on that statement. I stand corrected, because I thought I recalled it saying those directly involved with the operations (as in project operations) were okay to fly above within reason -- but obviously I was wrong. (Hey, I got a 94 on the exam and am not perfect.) To be honest, I tend to bend that rule when it comes to flying our sites because anyone who steps onto one of our sites has to be wearing a hard hat, is aware of the drone whenever launched (we radio everyone), and there are usually only a handful of workers and equipment that I am filming in a large area. And it's fairly easy not to fly directly over them as I am always shooting from an angle as they are usually intentionally part of the shot.

But talk about vagueness and wiggle room... "Adopt an appropriate operating distance from persons not directly participating in the operation of the sUAS." I guess that would be based on my judgement call, and I'm glad it's vague.

 

[R Martin]

But talk about vagueness and wiggle room... "Adopt an appropriate operating distance from persons not directly participating in the operation of the sUAS." I guess that would be based on my judgement call, and I'm glad it's vague.

i.e.: if the UAS falls out of the sky while it is in forward motion you have enough lateral and vertical separation to ensure that no-one becomes the runway.

 

[MapMaker53]

Yep, understood.

 

[BigAl07]

I guess that would be based on my judgement call, and I'm glad it's vague.

What they've done, and have done in many instances with Aviation, is given us enough rope to hang ourselves. Should an "incident" happen we automatically violated the regs.

 

[Dave Pitman]

What they've done, and have done in many instances with Aviation, is given us enough rope to hang ourselves. Should an "incident" happen we automatically violated the regs.

Absolutely correct, IMHO. If you are flying a drone on a path that contains no people, and then a person comes from behind a building or whatever and walks under the path of the drone before you can adjust but the drone flies happily on and is no longer over people, you are probably just fine. However if it picks that exact time to fail and in any way causes an incident then you may not be so fine and should have taken "precautions" in order to ensure that it would be impossible for someone to end up under the flight path. That's a tall order in many cases.

As is the case with so many rules. They are designed to be able to be used against you IF something happens. In the case of a person getting in the path of, or under the drone, you need to maneuver to be clear of the person. And of course you don't plan to fly over anyone in the first place.

Admittedly, just my opinion.

 

[R.Perry]

Luis, we all know the law. Multivista got the authorization. To clarify the language it states only over the construction site. I took that to mean only people working on the construction site. I'm not allowed to fly over the active campus at any time. Apparently they have the same authorization at UC Davis but since I don't work on that site I don't know what restrictions have been modified.

Without that waiver there would be no way to do mapping at anytime during daylight hours. Not only that we have a set time they want the mapping done each time. The mapping is flown at 300 feet and as long as I have some way of controlling if a failure should occur I would be able to avoid anyone on the ground.

Anyone that has done mapping know very well by the time you seen someone on your tablet there would by no way of to disengage from antonymous flight and avoid overflying them.

All panos, elevations, and progressions must be done without flying over anyone and that is the biggest challenge of this job, the photography and flying is easy, the avoidance of people is a constant challenge that must be adhered to. One of the construction safety people monitor my entire flights every time.

I have read many aviation accident reports, I don't know of anytime a catastrophic failure occurred leaving the pilot no way of controlling the aircraft where the findings resulted in pilot error. That doesn't mean the pilot or pilots actions won't be scrutinized by the FAA and NTSB, because that is their job. I would think the FAA and the NTSB would apply the same standards to a drone pilot.

At some point an accident will happen where someone is injured and then we will all see how big brother handles the incident.

 

[R.Perry]

Hi Perry.
I'm sorry for the problems you are face on in your project.
I live in Spain and trust me we have much more that there...

Currently I'm working in a multi-camera Time Lapse on a construction building and I want to offer drone Time Lapse service too.
Are you doing something similar or just taking panos every day or week?

That is exactly what we do. The drone gives photographic advantages that are impossible with only a camera. We also do interior construction documentation obviously without a drone. We use Matterport cameras that create incredible videos, and Nikon or Cannon full sensor cameras for standard documentation. Check out Multivista they have demos of our work. They are out of Vancouver BC.