Planning !! or failing to.

[R.Perry]

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.

Sounds like you are dealing with the same problems I am. As for wiggle room, if you have control of the aircraft and it hits someone, you didn't have appropriate operating distance, at least that's what I believe big brother would say.
The other issue is your camera can only look in one direction and very seldom will you have it point 90 degrees down. So someone walking under the drone from the rear or sides would not be seen unless you are close enough to monitor all activity below and around your drone.

When I do panos they are shot from 200 feet, I place myself very close to where the drone is. Since the drone must remain hovering during the 35 photos I take, I must make sure no one enters the area. When shooting progressions and elevations I stay in very close proximity to the drone so I can observe anyone coming into the area. I can see no other way to do these safely and within FAA regs. and keep our safety people happy.

I must respectfully disagree with bending the rules even a little. A hard hat only gives a certain level of protection and depending on construction workers to pay attention to your drone operation I don't believe is a very likely. We have over three hundred people on this site, a lot of them I don't think speak English or at least act like it so I wouldn't depend on them staying clear of anything. Lets face it, these people are focused on their jobs, not ours, and I'm sure they don't see the drone as a potential threat or safety hazard.

If you were to have an accident, telling big brother that you warned them wouldn't do you much good. There safety is your responsibility and I'm sure you know that. I also know the temptation to push the envelope is always there, but do it long enough and you might get bit.

Best of luck in your job.

 

[MapMaker53]

I agree with everything you say, R.Perry. No argument here. Unlike you though, I have not had a situation where I have hundreds of people on the sites that I fly. Usually wide open areas with an occasional excavator and dump truck operating and a few people standing around them. We do environmental investigations and remediation before anything is constructed. All I can say is I do my best not to fly in a manner that could endanger anyone - but if my drone ever injured someone, I would have obviously not taken the proper precautions and I clearly would be at fault.

 

[R Martin]

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.

I think it is all a matter of perspective, not that I am disagreeing with you. We (UAS pilots) tend to look at things like this as a gray area that is open to interpretation on our parts in order to get the job done. The FAA tends to look at it as black and white; either it is allowed or it is not. Without beating the poor horse to death, the regs kinda state you cannot fly over people that are not part of the flight evolution, period. From previous conversations, yes, it does happen to me but it certainly is not planned and it is not because I did not take the effort to avoid it. People are people (or cattle in some instances) and are just that oblivious to their own well-being and all the planning in the world just can't get around that short of shock collars....IMHO

 

[BigAl07]

People are people (or cattle in some instances) and are just that oblivious to their own well-being and all the planning in the world just can't get around that short of shock collars....IMHO

You're absolutely correct. That's exactly why we call it "Risk Mitigation" or "Risk Management" as opposed to the desired term "Risk Avoidance."

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

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.

I wasn't questioning you, just quoting what you typed so you'd see my follow up question. As you can understand, if anyone here has a 107.39 waiver we are all anxious to learn how and repeat that remarkable achievement.

I'd never question your ability or knowledge and if it appeared I did, I apologize.

 

[R.Perry]

First of all I need to thank Luis for questioning. There are a little over 1900 waivers, and very few part 39 waivers. I looked up the Part 39 waivers and Multivista isn't listed. So I woke the owner up this morning and asked him for a copy of the wavier. He ended up sounding like a New York lawyer. He said the FAA told him 300 foot was adequate vertical separation. Does he have that in writing, of course not.
I assume the same thing is going on at UC Davis as well, and I hope he is reading this because I'm not doing any more mappings until I get something verified. Part of his argument makes sense and could possibly be true, someone from big brother may have told him that.
I am contacting the FAA and hopefully get something in writing, good or bad.
When you look at what the FAA wants for a part 39 waiver it is understandable why so few have been given.

Thanks Luis for questioning me, I didn't have all my facts straight because I was gullible and believed someone.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Hey, sorry. This was not the outcome I was looking for, but to steal your 107.39 application.

 

[Christophs Drone Services]

Now what if you take off from a safe location fly your drone safely over the roof of the completed buildings to get your shots? No one should be on the roof of the school and now have a footbal sized rectangle to fly your drone?

 

[BigAl07]

He said the FAA told him 300 foot was adequate vertical separation.

Odds are you won't get anything "Definitive" in writing. The way things are worded leave a lot of "hang thy self" room to say the least. I suspect you'll get something like "remain clear from all on ground and ensure that in the event of a failure that your aircraft can not come in contact with anyone on the ground."

If they give a hard & fast #, and you follow it, and then there is an incident with injury then you are not to blame. They don't want that LOL. So they give very vague answers that leave room for later "interpretation and punishment" should the need arise.

Hey, sorry. This was not the outcome I was looking for, but to steal your 107.39 application.

That's the best & funniest reply (and most honest) I've seen all day! Thanks for the chuckle @LUIS MARTINEZ

 

[R.Perry]

Here is the response from the FAA

"
[email protected]
5:41 AM (5 hours ago)

to me

Sir
Thank you for contacting the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Support Center.
Part 107.39 states "No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless that human being is (a) directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft; or (b) located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft."

That statement gives you leeway to operate near, but not directly over personnel on the ground. You and the construction company could also declare a vulnerability window and have all of the workers under cover for the period you are flying.

SF
Please follow up with any further inquiries at [email protected]. Additional information is also available at Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
We appreciate your feedback. Please select: UAS Safety and Integration Division AUS-400.

From: ****************************************
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 6:51:20 PM
To: 9-NATL-UAS-Help (FAA)
Subject: Message from www.faa.gov: [email protected]

This email was sent through the Federal Aviation Administration's public website. You have been contacted via an email link on the following page: www.faa.gov/uas/contact/


Message:
----------------------
I have a job mapping a 160 acre construction site. I'm flying a Inspire 2 drone, I'm a commercial pilot and 107 cert.

The mapping is done from 300 feet, employer stated that occasional flying over construction workers was permitted because the 300 foot vertical clearance was ample separation. Before I proceed with any mapping I would like to know if this is true. Part 39 gives no vertical separation but clearly states overflights of people are not permitted.

END EMAIL

Like I said, if Luis hadn''t called me out on this matter I would have believed we had a waiver in place. I find it amazing that a company would put me in that position.

 

[R.Perry]

Lets see, shall I go in and tell the senior superintendent that he needs to give all three hundred workers a 30 to 40 minute brake while I do the mapping.
That would go over like requesting screen doors in a submarine.

There is a positive side, Sundays is a double time day under my contract, get your checkbook out.

 

[BigAl07]

Lets see, shall I go in and tell the senior superintendent that he needs to give all three hundred workers a 30 to 40 minute brake while I do the mapping.
That would go over like requesting screen doors in a submarine.

There is a positive side, Sundays is a double time day under my contract, get your checkbook out.

I just had a conversation with a Super and he asked me to come back on Saturday. I told him, "You do realize that's OT right?" He said, "Not my money and that's what I want to happen. Heck you can come back on Sunday if you want!" He's new to the company but I'll take him at his word.

Guess we'll both be working SUNDAY LOL.

 

[MapMaker53]

I'm wondering if the FAA might be a little more inclined to grant a Part 107.39 waiver if the UAV was equipped with an autonomous parachute deployment system. I realize anything can fail, but that would require a double failure to occur at the same time for someone on the ground to possibly get injured. I have pre-ordered the new ParaZero unit because I'd prefer to utilize a chute system if flying anywhere in the vicinity of people on the ground. They say it doesn't affect satellite reception. We'll see.

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

 

[R.Perry]

I'm wondering if the FAA might be a little more inclined to grant a Part 107.39 waiver if the UAV was equipped with an autonomous parachute deployment system. I realize anything can fail, but that would require a double failure to occur at the same time for someone on the ground to possibly get injured.

Interesting, I'm working with some pretty smart guys right now on a new drone equipped with a chute and inflatable bladder, mainly to protect the overpriced camera. On the Inspire if you have a catastrophic failure the landing arms may not deploy and the camera could be the first thing to hit the ground.

Personally all I think it will accomplish with the FAA is make it easier to get a part 39 waiver, but that is just a guess.

 

[R.Perry]

I just had a conversation with a Super and he asked me to come back on Saturday. I told him, "You do realize that's OT right?" He said, "Not my money and that's what I want to happen. Heck you can come back on Sunday if you want!" He's new to the company but I'll take him at his word.

Guess we'll both be working SUNDAY LOL.

I only do mapping once a month, so you are right, Sundays it is, bring the wife along and go to dinner and add the dinner to company expenses legally, (she'll be my observer).
I love the way uncle Sam helps me pay for my pickup and meals.

 

[R.Perry]

Now what if you take off from a safe location fly your drone safely over the roof of the completed buildings to get your shots? No one should be on the roof of the school and now have a footbal sized rectangle to fly your drone?

Sorry I missed your response at first. Very good point, problem is UC has strict restrictions about overflying any part of the active campus. I do have a meeting with a person at the campus next Wednesday to discuss possible ways to deal with the problem. It sounds like paying campus police to cordon off the area I need to overfly for the ten minutes it takes me to do the shoots. If they will do that, problem solved.

 

[R Martin]

Lets see, shall I go in and tell the senior superintendent that he needs to give all three hundred workers a 30 to 40 minute brake while I do the mapping.
That would go over like requesting screen doors in a submarine.

There is a positive side, Sundays is a double time day under my contract, get your checkbook out.

Consider flying during the most obvious (and photo friendly) time of day. I have a job that management wanted flown and the site was packed with workers. I explained what I needed to the super and his solution was fly at lunch. He cleared the site 10 minutes early and walked the site with me. We flew during noon with the sun overhead and minimal shadows. Everyone won. Very little downtime and no violation of the regs.

 

[BigAl07]

I only do mapping once a month, so you are right, Sundays it is, bring the wife along and go to dinner and add the dinner to company expenses legally, (she'll be my observer).
I love the way uncle Sam helps me pay for my pickup and meals.

Well Sunday was a BUST for us. Storms rolled in and kept us grounded the whole day (well most of it... I flew at home for a few minutes testing some software LOL). Back to the drawing board LOL.

 

[R.Perry]

Martin, the workers take lunches and different times so that won't work for mapping. I'm going to do the mapping on Sunday when all I need to worry about is one security guard.

BigA, as we all know the best laid plans ....... and sh.... happens. Where I live we have our yearly fires going (Mariposa county) the smoke was so thick this morning it was almost a IFR day.
I was listening the the chatter from the CDF pilots this morning and they were having difficulty finding the drop zones. One thing we don't have this time of the year is weather problems, and I wish we did, what we get is lighting strikes in the foothills and that starts fires, and the fires call for evacuations, and people lose homes, and sh...... happens.

 

[BigAl07]

Martin, the workers take lunches and different times so that won't work for mapping. I'm going to do the mapping on Sunday when all I need to worry about is one security guard.

BigA, as we all know the best laid plans ....... and sh.... happens. Where I live we have our yearly fires going (Mariposa county) the smoke was so thick this morning it was almost a IFR day.
I was listening the the chatter from the CDF pilots this morning and they were having difficulty finding the drop zones. One thing we don't have this time of the year is weather problems, and I wish we did, what we get is lighting strikes in the foothills and that starts fires, and the fires call for evacuations, and people lose homes, and sh...... happens.

We went this evening right as the crews were wrapping up and got the 360's (2x), Litchi images, and all mapping completed. Whew lots of work but well worth it