Flying over people

The usual reaction to these things are punish everyone not the individual. I was at a festival in town recently and I observed a guy using a phantom. He would have at times been 5 to 10 metres above people. And at one stage was tracking a young girl on a bike who was very concerned about it. I walked over and asked the guy did he know the rules. He shrugged his shoulders. I then suggested he find out or he could end up in a whole lot of trouble. Not long after he disappeared, apparently a festivals orpaniser informed him the police had been contacted. Some people have got to realise that ignorance to no longer a defence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macoman
The usual reaction to these things are punish everyone not the individual. I was at a festival in town recently and I observed a guy using a phantom. He would have at times been 5 to 10 metres above people. And at one stage was tracking a young girl on a bike who was very concerned about it. I walked over and asked the guy did he know the rules. He shrugged his shoulders. I then suggested he find out or he could end up in a whole lot of trouble. Not long after he disappeared, apparently a festivals orpaniser informed him the police had been contacted. Some people have got to realise that ignorance to no longer a defence.
Some people can only learn the drone rules the hard way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
For most, the cost of the Drone is incentive to learn to fly. I understand some folks desire to have the FAA make laws, but the courts just knocked down the FAAs "Drone Registration Rule". They have no power to make laws for UAV's. Congress will have to amend the power the FAA has. Personally, I agree with registration, but little else. Everyone has seen the clip where the drone almost killed a skier. Well, that pilot was permitted, licensed, insured, and completely legal. Accidents happen. The video is down now, so I haven't seen it, but is everyone sure this pilot was not legal? He may have had all his waivers.

Registration should be mandatory and further UAV regulations are most likely a big part of our future.

With all due respect you need to do a little more "professional" research. The "skier incident" was actually a controlled crashed following safety/emergency procedures. The aircraft was experiencing intermittent loss of control and instead of allowing it to fly out of control their P&P mandated crashing the aircraft into the ground ASAP to avoid or at least minimize injury to people on the ground. Instead of allowing the aircraft to fly willy-nilly into the bystanders the professional did exactly what is expected and sacrificed the aircraft in order to avoid a larger loss. intentionally crashing in a controlled manner is exactly what happened and exactly what should have happened.

There are no waivers issued for flying inside a sports stadium and over people. Seriously?
 
Registration should be mandatory and further UAV regulations are most likely a big part of our future.

With all due respect you need to do a little more "professional" research. The "skier incident" was actually a controlled crashed following safety/emergency procedures. The aircraft was experiencing intermittent loss of control and instead of allowing it to fly out of control their P&P mandated crashing the aircraft into the ground ASAP to avoid or at least minimize injury to people on the ground. Instead of allowing the aircraft to fly willy-nilly into the bystanders the professional did exactly what is expected and sacrificed the aircraft in order to avoid a larger loss. intentionally crashing in a controlled manner is exactly what happened and exactly what should have happened.

There are no waivers issued for flying inside a sports stadium and over people. Seriously?
Have it your way. I love it when someone thinks they know something that they don't, and are adamant about it. Here, let me show you.
A Federal Aviation Administration panel on Wednesday unveiled highly anticipated safety recommendations for flying small commercial drones over crowds, setting the stage for final regulations on the issue.

The Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aviation Rulemaking Committee suggests that micro drones weighing less than a half pound can fly over crowds with very limited restrictions because they have a less than a 1 percent chance of causing serious injuries.

Drones over half a pound but under 55 pounds would need to fly at least 20 feet above people’s heads and keep at least 10 feet away from them laterally. Unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operators would also have to verify that their products pose a less than 1 percent chance of injury, based on the results of crash tests with dummies.
FAA panel unveils proposals for flying drones over crowds.
I myself have a waiver to fly over an occupied game field. I have to be at least 20 feet above the highest point on the field, which is the lights.
With all due respect, you are totally wrong, and haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.
I was just trying to show you guys a video. I have no need or inclination to argue this point with you.
 
Have it your way. I love it when someone thinks they know something that they don't, and are adamant about it. Here, let me show you.
A Federal Aviation Administration panel on Wednesday unveiled highly anticipated safety recommendations for flying small commercial drones over crowds, setting the stage for final regulations on the issue.

The Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aviation Rulemaking Committee suggests that micro drones weighing less than a half pound can fly over crowds with very limited restrictions because they have a less than a 1 percent chance of causing serious injuries.

Drones over half a pound but under 55 pounds would need to fly at least 20 feet above people’s heads and keep at least 10 feet away from them laterally. Unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operators would also have to verify that their products pose a less than 1 percent chance of injury, based on the results of crash tests with dummies.
FAA panel unveils proposals for flying drones over crowds.
I myself have a waiver to fly over an occupied game field. I have to be at least 20 feet above the highest point on the field, which is the lights.
With all due respect, you are totally wrong, and haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.
I was just trying to show you guys a video. I have no need or inclination to argue this point with you.
By the way, I'm looking at the very wavier that you say does not exist.
Sometimes it best to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Go ahead and kick me now, Mr. Moderator. With all due respect.

Interesting - that's the first report I've seen of a waiver for 107.39. Can you share how you addressed the performance-based standards in the situation of flying over a game field with, presumably, players and spectators?

§ 107.39 Operation over human beings

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.

Performance-Based Standards
  1. Applicant must provide a method such that any malfunction of the sUAS will not cause injuries to non-participating persons on the ground.
  2. Applicant must mitigate risk to non-participants through an operational risk assessment, testing, and data, addressing design features, operational limitations, or a combination thereof specific to the operation.
  3. Applicant must address the risk from exposure to rotating parts and sharp edges which could injure a non-participating person.
  4. Applicant must show the pilot in command, or person manipulating the controls, have adequate knowledge, experience, and ability to safely operate an unmanned aircraft over non-participating persons including recent flight experience within last 30 days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crack The Sky
There have been 3 107.39 waivers granted to two operators as of 5/3/17. One operator is in Virginia the other in Atlanta (CNN).
 
Interesting - that's the first report I've seen of a waiver for 107.39. Can you share how you addressed the performance-based standards in the situation of flying over a game field with, presumably, players and spectators?

§ 107.39 Operation over human beings

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.

Performance-Based Standards
  1. Applicant must provide a method such that any malfunction of the sUAS will not cause injuries to non-participating persons on the ground.
  2. Applicant must mitigate risk to non-participants through an operational risk assessment, testing, and data, addressing design features, operational limitations, or a combination thereof specific to the operation.
  3. Applicant must address the risk from exposure to rotating parts and sharp edges which could injure a non-participating person.
  4. Applicant must show the pilot in command, or person manipulating the controls, have adequate knowledge, experience, and ability to safely operate an unmanned aircraft over non-participating persons including recent flight experience within last 30 days.
This is from the FAA site. It list the restrictions that can be waivered. Please note that "Operation over people" is obviously listed. You have to attend a "Exemption Conference" where you will explain what you do, and why you need to do whatever it is you want to do. You must have insurance.
Part 107 Regulations Subject to Waiver
  • 107.25 Operations from a moving vehicle or aircraft
  • 107.29 Daylight operation
  • 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation
  • 107.33 Visual observer
  • 107.35 Operation of multiple sUAS
  • 107.37(a) Yielding the right of way
  • 107.39 Operation over people
  • 107.41 Operation in certain airspace
  • 107.51(a) Operating limitations: ground speed
  • 107.51(b) Operating limitations: altitude
  • 107.51(c) Operating limitations: minimum visibility
  • 107.51(d) Operating limitations: minimum distance from clouds
 
This is from the FAA site. It list the restrictions that can be waivered. Please note that "Operation over people" is obviously listed. You have to attend a "Exemption Conference" where you will explain what you do, and why you need to do whatever it is you want to do. You must have insurance.
Part 107 Regulations Subject to Waiver
  • 107.25 Operations from a moving vehicle or aircraft
  • 107.29 Daylight operation
  • 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation
  • 107.33 Visual observer
  • 107.35 Operation of multiple sUAS
  • 107.37(a) Yielding the right of way
  • 107.39 Operation over people
  • 107.41 Operation in certain airspace
  • 107.51(a) Operating limitations: ground speed
  • 107.51(b) Operating limitations: altitude
  • 107.51(c) Operating limitations: minimum visibility
  • 107.51(d) Operating limitations: minimum distance from clouds

I know that it is waivable - I quoted the performance-based standards for waiving it in my post. My question was whether you were willing to share how you satisified them, since they appear, to me, to be some of the more difficult ones to satisfy.
 
It was a matter of be a Professional not a hobbyist, having plenty of insurance, training, and professional equipnme

I'm confused, and now somewhat skeptical. To get a waiver you have to explicitly address the FAA performance-based standards, which I listed for the regulation in question (in this case 107.39), and explain how you will satisfy them. Stating that you are a professional, have lots of insurance, training and professional equipment is not what they require, and will not get you a waiver as far as I'm aware.
 
s-104,
I have been skeptical too and surprised to see you 'like' his post #44.
Maybe I'm mistaken but he links a year old article, is a bit loose with some of the facts and is disrespectful.

But if he's at least a man of his word it doesn't matter since he's not going to 'sign in' again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104
To all in this thread, I apologize. That one was brought out into public where it should not have been. I try to be tactful and diplomatic to the best of my ability but once in a while one slips through the filters.

For the record I sincerely doubt he even knew how to get a waiver let alone get one of the so largely coveted ~107.39 waivers. I think his actions and words spoke volumes.

Again I do apologize for allowing it to get so far along.

Allen
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirkclod and sar104
s-104,
I have been skeptical too and surprised to see you 'like' his post #44.
Maybe I'm mistaken but he links a year old article, is a bit loose with some of the facts and is disrespectful.

But if he's at least a man of his word it doesn't matter since he's not going to 'sign in' again.

That was entirely unintentional - I must have hit the like button by mistake. Fixed. I was pretty sure that we had a troll on our hands, but I wanted at least to give him a chance to explain how he got the waiver. Then it became apparent that he had no clue how the process worked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
sar, Ok. That's reassuring.


Thanks Al.
Can't you 'poof' away the necessary posts and wipe the stink off the thread?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
sar, Ok. That's reassuring.


Thanks Al.
Can't you 'poof' away the necessary posts and wipe the stink off the thread?

Yea I "could" but it would leave voids and orphaned posts and honestly... this could be a lesson to some people who really don't know much about waivers etc. I've cleaned it up slightly but the integrity of the thread is still mostly there.
 
As of 6/8/2017 there still have only been (3) 107.39 waivers granted. :)
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic