Can't fly over people???

[Aussie Oldtimer]

If you look hard enough to find a reason NOT to fly you will find one

or look at it from another point, if we ignore the rules, the authorities will just make things harder

 

[deleted member 877]

or look at it from another point, if we ignore the rules, the authorities will just make things harder

Agree 100% but try telling that to some of the clowns who "contribute" to this forum. It's a losing battle - they'll only get it after it's too late.

 

[ROBERTNCREST]

CASA defined 1 person as a crowd

does that include you (the pilot)

 

[packnrat]

Yes, it means directly overhead. If your 45-degree angle positions the drone outside the specified minimum horizontal distance then you're OK.

I admit that I am a vocal advocate of all drone pilots strictly following the rules but I have to say that it's difficult to understand how flying (not hovering) at 400 feet over an isolated couple of people walking on the beach would pose a viable risk.

But in any case, the regulation stands and the airspace regulators would argue that a fault which causes a drone's motors to stop means that it becomes a brick and will plunge vertically - not like a fixed-wing aircraft that can follow a glide path when the motor fails.

Not all fixed winged aircraft can “glide”
The 747 ( great airplane by the way) has a “glide path” of one foot forward. Three feet down.
this is total power fail. ( all thrust gone).
AKA: us airways flight 1549.

 

[deleted member 877]

Not all fixed winged aircraft can “glide”
The 747 ( great airplane by the way) has a “glide path” of one foot forward. Three feet down.
this is total power fail. ( all thrust gone).
AKA: us airways flight 1549.

Though not great it is still a glide path.

 

[dannybgoode]

Just found out the CAA consider anything over 1000 people a crowd. Happy with that - only rules out places you would probably look to avoid I am afraid.

 

[deleted member 877]

Just found out the CAA consider anything over 1000 people a crowd. Happy with that - only rules out places you would probably look to avoid I am afraid.

Interesting. Furthermore I can’t find reference to “flying over people” in the CAA regulations. Have I missed something?

 

[dannybgoode]

Interesting. Furthermore I can’t find reference to “flying over people” in the CAA regulations. Have I missed something?

150m distance from built up areas (no overflight) and crowds of 1000+ and min 50m distance or altitude over isolated buildings or crowds less than 1000. Exception is landing when you can be within 30m of someone not ‘under your control’.

Found the info on the BMFA website.

 

[Bobby Brown]

Please provide the factual information where Drone accidents have killed twelve people in one year?

However, you a entitled to you opinions.

 

[Simmo]

Please provide the factual information where Drone accidents have killed twelve people in one year?

However, you a entitled to you opinions.

Who said that???

 

[Bobby Brown]

Just threw a number in!

 

[packnrat]

lets just hope no condors or turkey vultures die in flight over people. they weigh in far more than most drones.
O the carnage, the loss of life, we need to eradicate them first.... after all its for the children.



no... really. if there is a reason or need to fly over people. then try to be right about it. anything can and will fail.

what is a crowd, or just someone walking into YOUR SPACE. who knows. but we can not, nor should we even try to protect anybody. as like they say (*) hits the fan. best to just think about where you are flying and whats about. like flying in a open park ver in the middle of a very busy day in a them park.

you the pilot knows can happen and takes the chance your drone does not crash. but the avg pep on the street never even (or needed) to think about getting cold cocked by a drone traveling at 20-30 mph.

 

[Aussie Oldtimer]

you missed the point, its not YOUR SPACE.
in OZ, we can fly over other people's land, just not them or the buildings. we can still fly over nat parks and state forests but the minute that someone is injured by a falling drone, that will cease.

your point about falling animals is something out of our control, drones are under our control
so keep doing the wrong thing and our ability will be further restricted.

 

[packnrat]

You missed the point of what I said.

“Your space” is where you are flying, and someone intrudes on you.
As in you are away from everything possible, and a liberal wants to bug you, or impose there will on you.

On the birds it is a jest on how the uptight liberals push there point on everybody else ( not just drones).

Reread the parts about flying away from peps, ver in a theam park. And about who thinks about the risks involved.
As it is up to us the drone pilots who will suffer the end result.

I never said to fly recklessly, or where numbers of peps gather.

Only a fool would spread out a picked blanket in the middle of a busy freeway, hockey, soccer, or rugby field. But some try, just to cause trouble.

If you are flying in a field away from others, but a couple peps settle in to watch.. what you going to do?
Shoo them away?
move?
Pack up and hang your head as you walk away?

But you would be the fool to start flying in a park that is busy and full of peps milling around everywhere.

 

[Aussie Oldtimer]

I have no idea what a liberal is! Is it someone who wants to enjoy the same space that you are enjoying but shouldn’t be able to because you were there first? By imposing their will on you do you mean someone who wants to enjoy the same outdoor area as you?

In OZ, we have a 30m rule and when flying, if someone enters that area, you have to move away. That’s the law as it stands atm. I can see the logic behind it and I think its fair. But like you say, if joe public makes lots of complaints, then we will suffer and eventually drones will be banned



I was flying on a deserted beach in Far nth Qld when kids came from the bush. I was disappointed but I just moved away. Then the little buggers came for a stick beak at this new flying machine – as kids do. I've had adults do the same but they are usually easier to reason with but the kids just kept moving to me.

I wanted to video a waterfall but it was crowded so I went back at 5am when no one was around. But if someone arrived while I was flying, I would have stopped. Everyone should be able to enjoy their thing without being bothered by others. Drones make a lot of noise and if I'm swimming at a waterhole, I don’t want to be bothered by a noisy drone.

All I'm saying is that unless we want to follow the path of other countries where drones are already heavily restricted, then follow the current rules, which are pretty good.

What if you were enjoying the view from a scenic lookout and someone walked up and started smoking. Both have the same ‘right’ to the area but I would move on. Many outdoor areas in Oz have banned smoking simply because most smokers have no idea of the impact they have on others.

If we just do whatever we want to regardless of anyone, then we will get more complaints made and they will introduce tighter regs and or bans will result. .

Remember that we are the new kids on the block. do the right thing or suffer the consequences. liberals or not

 

[deleted member 877]

I have no idea what a liberal is! Is it someone who wants to enjoy the same space that you are enjoying but shouldn’t be able to because you were there first? By imposing their will on you do you mean someone who wants to enjoy the same outdoor area as you?

In OZ, we have a 30m rule and when flying, if someone enters that area, you have to move away. That’s the law as it stands atm. I can see the logic behind it and I think its fair. But like you say, if joe public makes lots of complaints, then we will suffer and eventually drones will be banned



I was flying on a deserted beach in Far nth Qld when kids came from the bush. I was disappointed but I just moved away. Then the little buggers came for a stick beak at this new flying machine – as kids do. I've had adults do the same but they are usually easier to reason with but the kids just kept moving to me.

I wanted to video a waterfall but it was crowded so I went back at 5am when no one was around. But if someone arrived while I was flying, I would have stopped. Everyone should be able to enjoy their thing without being bothered by others. Drones make a lot of noise and if I'm swimming at a waterhole, I don’t want to be bothered by a noisy drone.

All I'm saying is that unless we want to follow the path of other countries where drones are already heavily restricted, then follow the current rules, which are pretty good.

What if you were enjoying the view from a scenic lookout and someone walked up and started smoking. Both have the same ‘right’ to the area but I would move on. Many outdoor areas in Oz have banned smoking simply because most smokers have no idea of the impact they have on others.

If we just do whatever we want to regardless of anyone, then we will get more complaints made and they will introduce tighter regs and or bans will result. .

Remember that we are the new kids on the block. do the right thing or suffer the consequences. liberals or not

What he said !

 

[packnrat]

O and look at my map and photo postings, it will show you that up front i do not fly close to others
found in
NFZ. I'am confused thread.

 

[Earthman]

Well what exactly means? 10' 30' 100' 400'?

I remember reading a response from someone at the FAA to a similar question. They said that the reg means that you can’t fly a sUAS directly above a person or people. So technically, you can fly up to a line projecting vertically from any part of a person or crowd of people, but not beyond it, which would put the sUAS “above” the person or people.

In my opinion, this is a reasonably balanced position for the FAA to take.

However having said the above, other regs say that you can’t fly “recklessly.” So, if you are flying in the vicinity of people or property, lose control for any reason and hurt someone or damage property regardless of where they where when you lost control, you will likely need to argue how your actions as PIC were not reckless knowing that such a thing is possible if not likely given that “everyone knows that sUAS technology is prone to such failures.” You will lose that argument in front of the FAA and in court. Even in a “not your fault flyaway” that hurts someone, you will no doubt be found liable just for putting the thing in the air. After you lose, your expensive legal team can try to sue the sUAS manufacturer for a defect. Good luck with that.

It’s not a question of altitude.

I avoid flying near people within my area of operations, which includes a reasonable safety buffer should I crash.

Know the rules, follow the rules, fly safely, and fly with insurance. Also, when (not if) you crash try to hit (or hope you hit) the softest, least expensive thing you can find.

Well what exactly means? 10' 30' 100' 400'?

Well what exactly means? 10' 30' 100' 400'?

 

[FMR]

In NZ reference is to Don't fly over people no references to distance from just above.
Feel needs to be clarified.
To me even being say 600ft from someone you are still flying above .
Needs to probably state directly above **

 

[GaryOC]

I'm guilty of flying over people when I got my first drone. Mostly using active track to follow me on my bicycle. There were other riders on the bike path. That was early on, I'm much more careful now.

But let me share a close call with you, one that nearly scared the bejesus out of me.

I had the drone tracking me on my bike again, riding on the bike path. The drone was probably 20 feet off the ground. The bike path was about 250 feet from a pretty busy road, three lanes in each direction.

In one section the bike path turns and gets closer to the road for a little while. About 100 feet from it, maybe less. For some reason the drone took that first turn VERY wide and actually drifted out over the road briefly before swinging back to the bike path. I noticed it when I looked back. And yes there were cars and trucks on the road.

If the drone would have dropped lower from a glitch or whatever, that could have been a disaster. Imagine if it suddenly appeared in front of a driver and he panics, swerving the vehicle. It could have resulted in a very serious accident.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share that. It's something I won't forget. And I use much greater care now.