Space Needle drone strike.

[Helihover]

As a 107 pilot you are not to call the ATC at an airport you are to use the online portal.
I don't know where you live but I am in L.A. and this (from part 107):
"5.8.1.1 Remote PICs are prohibited from operating their small UA in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at airports, heliports, and seaplane bases."
is the FAA's nice way to let you know that if you don't call the heliports and seaplane bases within 5 miles:
KENMORE AIR HARBOR (seaplane base)
SEATTLE SEAPLANES (seaplane base)
NOT ATC
They will be fining you when you hit the space needle, as since you did not notify them you are in the area, you have violated: right-of-way provision of § 107.37(a)



Whenever I fly commercially,I always fill out a UAS Operating Area (UOA) at
https://www.1800wxbrief.com/

As then I can prove my due diligence if anything goes wrong (like hitting the space needle)
Almost everywhere I fly around Los Angeles I will need to call 3 or 4 possibly more heliports to notify, you can do as you please but if I were you I would call, if you are a commercial operator.



The waiver would be for, as I said above 107.39 Operation over people
The airspace has nothing to do with the fact that he was flying over a densely populated area, and G airspace or not if you don't have a waiver you better not fly over anybody's head whether or not you are commercial or hobby.

Your mixing hobby and commercial.

If your flying commercial, you never have to contact any airport, seaport, heliport, anything. It's just not required. I know all about airspace waivers, ect. but that discussion is irrelevant. I fly commercially every day weather permitting, all around Portland Oregon.

And for me contacting the seaport next to me, that's impossible because there is no phone number for the Willamette River. The one person who uses it once every two years doesn't have his number listed on the beforeUfly app lol. In all seriousness though, my point is they (FAA) have to draw a line somewhere. The control tower is the line.

As a hobbiest, the only thing you guys have on this pilot that is "illegal " ,as you say, is the flying over people. That guideline clearly states group of people (on the back of your hobby registration card). Are there or was he flying over a group? Or where there a few people present on the ground walking to and from their cars? Or was he flying over the park section where nobody happened to be? We can go on and on with assumptions, but that does nothing. Hell we still don't know if he's hobby or commercial or what the details are. All we know is someone hit the needle.

 

[VARocketry]

The guy on the roof platform under the wires, at 1:42, looks like he has a controller in his hands.

 

[Steven Graham]

As a hobbiest, the only thing you guys have on this pilot that is "illegal " ,as you say, is the flying over people. That guideline clearly states group of people (on the back of your hobby registration card). Are there or was he flying over a group? Or where there a few people present on the ground walking to and from their cars? Or was he flying over the park section where nobody happened to be? We can go on and on with assumptions, but that does nothing. Hell we still don't know if he's hobby or commercial or what the details are. All we know is someone hit the needle.

As a long time member of the AMA and contest director the guidelines on the back of your registration card are just that for the most part. An example of that is the admonition to not fly above 400 feet. The AMA spent a lot of time with the FAA getting them to finally admit "in writing" that no such rule exists. Other guidelines put forth during registration that are also masquerading as rules are the language about flying over groups of people. The FAA began requiring registration for hobby fliers a little over a year ago. Part 101 went into effect in August. With the publishing of that rule compliance with a CBO's guidelines became mandatory rules. Violating those guidelines while arguing you are flying in compliance with part 101 is now a crime subject to federal enforcement action. Note paragraph B.1. No mention of "groups". The AMA doesn't allow you to fly over any "people, vessels, vehicles or structures"

Here they are: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

Things I suspect this flight violated if flown under part 101:

All of A.1: Flying carelessly or recklessly and where the activity is not allowed. He was at the foot of the Needle according to reports. Did he have permission to launch there?

2.c. "Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator." This rule must be considered in concert with part 101 41.e which states "When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation." These two documents, the CBO's safety code and part 101 are in some conflict the resolution of which is beyond the scope of our current conversations. A conservative operator might follow the most restrictive guidance of both but in this case my suspicion is he complied with neither? This is also not the case of a published (pvt) seaplane lane that gets used once or twice a year. It's one of the busiest seaplane lanes around. Kenmore Air Harbor W55 and Seattle Seaplanes 0W0 both have airport manager's phone numbers listed in the FAA Chart Supplement. Here is a link to the FAA's website that allows you to insert the 3 letter identifier for any airport and get the manager's phone number. Chart Supplements – Basic Search I actually contacted both and spoke briefly with the manager at 0W0. He was friendly but clearly stated his concern that especially in the case of seaplanes they often operate down to the surface legally and some guy flying his FPV rig way beyond VLOS has no adequate way of keeping his drone separated. I have a call back in for the manager at W55.

B.1: All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others.

B.9 : "The pilot of an RC model aircraft shall: (a) Maintain control during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot. (b) Fly using the assistance of a camera or First-Person View (FPV) only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #550. (c) Fly using the assistance of autopilot or stabilization system only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #560."

While it's somewhat debateable whether or not this pilot was in noncompliance with B.9 it's probably some of the most violated sections of the safety code that occurs with FPV self stabilized sUAS.

So in my hot so humble opinion this flight whether argued to have been flown under EITHER part 107 OR part 101 is in violation of several federal regulations.

 

[Steven Graham]

FWIW, I just had a lengthy conversation with the airport manager for W55. He said he's probably had just short of 10 calls from part 101 pilots and he knew that it was just a notification requirement. He said it offered a little relief when people actually called in a notification as it indicates they are trying to follow the provisions of the law and operate responsibly. He indicated he thought a lot of people are using drones to photograph their boats or homes and that he just gives them a little brief on the nature of and times that you are most likely to see their aircraft flying and simply asks that pilots do what they can to keep low and fly in close when full scale is identified.

Contrary to some views that everyone in full scale being against sUAS this is one guy who said he actually understands the benefits of sUAS and thinks they are "kinda neat"

 

[dangerd]

In case anyone is interested it's tonight online seminar:
Drone Airspace Notifications - Authorizations and Waivers

I think that's a rather broad interpretation. After all, calling or not does not effect whether you're potentially interfering with traffic. Am I missing something key here? I mean I could call an uncontrolled field, leave a message, then fly my drone on short final, and DEFINITELY be potentially interfering with operations. Flying closer to the Space Needle than even a manned helicopter (much less fixed-wing) would normally fly is interfering a lot less...


Again, not trying to be an annoying contrarian but I fail to see how notifying an airport has anything to do with right-away provisions. A hot air balloon has right away over a fighter jet, but no one is calling the airport to decide.


That's a great idea! I'm going to start doing that myself.

 

[htownphantom]

This looks very similar to what happened to me about 3 years ago with my Phantom 1.Took my Phantom to fly around a tall monument outside of Houston,got to the park before they opened on a weekday and was only one in park when they opened.Had done some earlier flights before the fateful one.Was standing within 100 yards of monument and was doing a circular path around the monument and when it got to the backside it lost connection and made a beeline back to me and smashed right into the side of the monument and landed on the roof of the base of the monument.The custodian of the building was very nice and retrieved it for me,it was damaged pretty bad but repairable.Never posted the footage on youtube or anywhere.
I couldnt understand why I lost connection when I wasnt that far away.
When I got home took batteries out of remote and took them to work the next day and they were very low.I could have sworn I read in manual that rc was supposed to have audible alarm to warn you of low batteries,guess I was wrong.