USA flying over people

[licensed pilot]

Per 107.39(b) a stationary vehicle is a yes, a moving vehicle is a no.

Yes, 107.39 is quite clear on that regard.
§ 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.

 

[PatrickP]

Yes, 107.39 is quite clear on that regard.
§ 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.

thanks for the detail and contact info!

 

[owenpga]

so another option might be:

Send the drone up over one of the big structures, other large footprint buildings in the complex. This would seem to cover all my basis. There no one under the drone except the building.. The property manager and security are aware of the possibility of drones being flow for the photos. My biggest concern is I somehow get nailed for doing this. I'm not sure how that would happen, but I guess it could. Part of me wants to just say no to the architect. I'm obviously not a seasoned commercial UAS pilot.

 

[churchboy]

so another option might be:

Send the drone up over one of the big structures, other large footprint buildings in the complex. This would seem to cover all my basis. There no one under the drone except the building.. The property manager and security are aware of the possibility of drones being flow for the photos. My biggest concern is I somehow get nailed for doing this. I'm not sure how that would happen, but I guess it could. Part of me wants to just say no to the architect. I'm obviously not a seasoned commercial UAS pilot. View attachment 14550 View attachment 14550 View attachment 14550 View attachment 14550 View attachment 14550
View attachment 14550

You are careful and concerned. That shows you are ready for this. Remember, the same photographs that you take for your client will also document your compliance with the law. You are not flying naked. Don't fly over people, and there will be no imagery that shows you did.

 

[kcobello]

Since you stated you are a Part 107 operator this means, at the least, you're operating in he US.



The above statement pretty much nails it. You can apply but don't hold your breath because the odds (at least right now) are pretty much very against it.

Ideally you'd have an area for each shot clearly marked off where no people or cars can pass/stop under your aircraft. Anything else is pretty much assuming all the risk and liability which might not be in your best interest long-term. If someone decides to "report you" you'll want to have documentation that you created the Safety Area under the aircraft.

Safety area under the aircraft really doesn't pass according to our local FSDO inspector. His reasoning is even at an angle away from people and having protection under the aircraft there is a chance the aircraft can " glide" into a person, yes I said glide. I didn't argue the point. I guess if your running parallel to the person(s) you would think that would be ok, because the glidepath would not be into the people. I just feel we are being regulated from doing anything to a certain point. We have "hobbyists" all over Buffalo flying over people at the events, no one says anything.

 

[owenpga]

Safety area under the aircraft really doesn't pass according to our local FSDO inspector. His reasoning is even at an angle away from people and having protection under the aircraft there is a chance the aircraft can " glide" into a person, yes I said glide. I didn't argue the point. I guess if your running parallel to the person(s) you would think that would be ok, because the glidepath would not be into the people. I just feel we are being regulated from doing anything to a certain point. We have "hobbyists" all over Buffalo flying over people at the events, no one says anything.

Would you have the number you called? I just called our local FSDO and he was very nice but wouldn't get into the details of this subject. Said he wasn't allowed to elaborate on topic. obviously told me to try for waiver. thanks

 

[Casey53]

I'm going through that now where a director wants the drone secured via a cable for safety and at least 30 feet away from participants even being cabled and dropped in front of them. "I want a 30 foot safety buffer zone. Understood?"

Welcome to "We Never Can Have Enough Safety, Class 101."

 

[BigAl07]

Safety area under the aircraft really doesn't pass according to our local FSDO inspector. His reasoning is even at an angle away from people and having protection under the aircraft there is a chance the aircraft can " glide" into a person, yes I said glide. I didn't argue the point. I guess if your running parallel to the person(s) you would think that would be ok, because the glidepath would not be into the people. I just feel we are being regulated from doing anything to a certain point. We have "hobbyists" all over Buffalo flying over people at the events, no one says anything.

I fully understand your logic (and frustration) but from the FSDO's standpoint you have to keep in mind that UAS are much more than just our MultiRotors. The UAS catagory includes fixed wing aircraft ( we use a fixed wing in some of our mapping and SAR operations) so the rules have to be able to cover these platforms as well.

With that being said, if this operation was "straight up and down" and there is a secure/safe area (of course larger than the aircraft itself to account for drift etc) then I'm confident the OP has done their due diligence.

At the end of the day it comes down to this... IF something happens and someone is struck or there is some type of property damage (other than the UAS) then the operator was clearly at fault and did not follow proper protocol barring some unforeseeable outside force (SAM attack maybe).

 

[licensed pilot]

so another option might be:

Send the drone up over one of the big structures, other large footprint buildings in the complex. This would seem to cover all my basis. There no one under the drone except the building.. The property manager and security are aware of the possibility of drones being flow for the photos. My biggest concern is I somehow get nailed for doing this. I'm not sure how that would happen, but I guess it could. Part of me wants to just say no to the architect. I'm obviously not a seasoned commercial UAS pilot. View attachment 14550 View attachment 14550 View attachment 14550 View attachment 14550 View attachment 14550
View attachment 14550

"The property manager and security are aware of the possibility of drones being flow for the photos." Then get them to block out any area people may walk or drive in. I don't see why this is a big deal.

This whole discussion reminds me of an old joke. A man is driving around the block looking for a place to park but all spaces are full except for space in an area clearly marked "NO PARKING." A cop was standing nearby so the man asked him "can I park there?" Cop replies "no you cannot." The indignant man says "what about all those other people?" Cop replies "they didn't ask!"

 

[kcobello]

I fully understand your logic (and frustration) but from the FSDO's standpoint you have to keep in mind that UAS are much more than just our MultiRotors. The UAS catagory includes fixed wing aircraft ( we use a fixed wing in some of our mapping and SAR operations) so the rules have to be able to cover these platforms as well.

With that being said, if this operation was "straight up and down" and there is a secure/safe area (of course larger than the aircraft itself to account for drift etc) then I'm confident the OP has done their due diligence.

At the end of the day it comes down to this... IF something happens and someone is struck or there is some type of property damage (other than the UAS) then the operator was clearly at fault and did not follow proper protocol barring some unforeseeable outside force (SAM attack maybe).

I do agree with you, but they send letters even when you do your due diligence and nothing happens, I know I received one, because they reviewed my social media after a complaint was lodged for selling aerial photos on SmugMug, even though I was 333 at the time. They closed the complaint after they found I was 333 but found after researching a couple of videos there were some questions. I don't say there wrong, but I do want to get "flying over people" clarified some day.

 

[kcobello]

Would you have the number you called? I just called our local FSDO and he was very nice but wouldn't get into the details of this subject. Said he wasn't allowed to elaborate on topic. obviously told me to try for waiver. thanks

It is the Rochester NY, FSDO. I questioned flying over people on an angle with a structure below to block and the response was it was not acceptable.

 

[licensed pilot]

People are going to complaint, specially competitors, so long as you operate legally there's nothing to worry about. I believe the word "over" is defined in the dictionary, and Part 107.3 does not offer any further definition, nor 107.39.

I suspect if we keep asking the fisdos, they are going to go back to the lawyers (yuk) and ask for a legal definition of "flying over people" and eventually 107.3 will be expanded and we may not like the new definition. Let us keep applying our God-given good common sense; don't fly over people and don't aim your bird at people so that momentum and a failure will carry it over their heads. That isn't all that difficult to understand. Competent pilots are not the problem, but those who are unsafe and like to push the envelope are. The FAA couldn't care less until we drop a drone on someone's head, then they will be forced to react.

 

[licensed pilot]

It is the Rochester NY, FSDO. I questioned flying over people on an angle with a structure below to block and the response was it was not acceptable.

I'm slow, does "flying over people on an angle" means not flying over people but parallel to them? Every time I fly, I fly "over people at an angle," although they may be a mile away (?)
Is the attached scenario (don't laugh at my art) what the FISDO says you can't do?

 

[kcobello]

View attachment 14564

I'm slow, does "flying over people on an angle" means not flying over people but parallel to them? Every time I fly, I fly "over people at an angle," although they may be a mile away (?)
Is the attached scenario (don't laugh at my art) what the FISDO says you can't do?

Awesome LP. That's it. I don't agree with his response. I contacted our attorney at Traverse Legal and he said the FAA says over people so our local may be off a little but I don't like being guilty until proven innocent..

LP nice Picasso work....

 

[licensed pilot]

Your fisdo sounds a little nutty.

 

[Steven Brown]

"The property manager and security are aware of the possibility of drones being flow for the photos." Then get them to block out any area people may walk or drive in. I don't see why this is a big deal.

This whole discussion reminds me of an old joke. A man is driving around the block looking for a place to park but all spaces are full except for space in an area clearly marked "NO PARKING." A cop was standing nearby so the man asked him "can I park there?" Cop replies "no you cannot." The indignant man says "what about all those other people?" Cop replies "they didn't ask!"

Property managers are loathe to inconvenience their tenants and by extension, those tenant's customers in any way, especially when they have to do work to make it happen. Can't tell you how many times I've been brought in at the last minute (photos are due in 48 hours) as a subcontractor by an agency that has no clue about the laws. In cases like these I employ the "straight up and down" technique, stick to green belts and covered structures, and both my VO and I wear vests and hard hats. The VO's main job is to keep curious people from distracting me with questions, and keep them at a safe distance.

 

[licensed pilot]

"Can't tell you how many times I've been brought in at the last minute (photos are due in 48 hours) as a subcontractor by an agency that has no clue about the laws."
Get it all the time, particularly controlled airspace jobs. I just say no.

 

[The Editor]

"Can't tell you how many times I've been brought in at the last minute (photos are due in 48 hours) as a subcontractor by an agency that has no clue about the laws."
Get it all the time, particularly controlled airspace jobs. I just say no.

Yup, I've had some of those - the best one was a phone call at 11am saying "We need some photos of a park and boating lake to run in the local newspaper"
"Sure" I said, "When do you need them for?"
"2pm this afternoon at the latest" was the reply
Guess what I said?.......

 

[kcobello]

Some just don't understand our situation. They still think our rigs are from RadioShack and we are just holding on to a childhood hobby...

 

[Buzz In California]

The feds cannot "makeup" rules on their own.

HA HA HA>>>LOL
That's a great quote, I wish I'd had said that