Fly over traffic at 200 ft???

[kensteele]

Excellent - don't prohibit it until it happens - is that the argument? So perhaps we should allow drones to fly around airports and runway approach lanes until we start seeing collisions, and only then worry about prohibiting that? You are just an endless source of logical fallacies.

have you seen how many people are flying drones over cars? sure it's dangerous. but so is speeding down a two-lane highway after a nice rain or at night with deer in the woods. i've never heard anyone talk about the risks when it comes to drones; it's all about don't do this and don't do that. drones flying around airports and runways increase the risks 10-fold, that's a bad, bad idea...not sure why you would suggest something like that.

it's already illegal to propel a moving object into a vehicle's windshield. that includes drones. that's enough for me and it's a good law and it's working. zero drones in windshields so far. but you probably think it's because the faa made a silly law about it. some of us know better; we know why that law exist. and so will you eventually...when it changes to a risk based decision instead of a blanket prohibition.

"state law says no baseball fields located near a major highway, we don't want foul balls to hit a car windshield, distract the driver, cause a crash, injury or kill. all baseball fields must be located 300 feet from any road. if home plate is nearest that road, 100 feet. each stadium must have a 2,000 net erected along all side and on a windy day, use this formula to determine if you can play a game or not: direction of wind x strength of each player / time of day = covert to feet...."

laws. you don't have to do anything. i'll take care of it. first i'll make sure the state and local laws don't codify this absurdity and then second we'll work on the faa to come up with something better...for all of us. good news is you don't have to accept it. you can always always not fly your drone over cars.

 

[kensteele]

A drone does not have to hit the windshield to cause an accident. Just crashing landing in the road may be enough.

yeah that would be bad. can't fly over roads either?

 

[Mossiback]

yeah that would be bad. can't fly over roads either?

I fly over/along roads quite often. I don't fly over/along freeways packed with traffic. This whole discussion boils down to what ifs and if the flight is worth the risk. Even though the odds against catastrophe are great, where is the line and who draws it?

 

[BigAl07]

I fly over/along roads quite often. I don't fly over/along freeways packed with traffic. This whole discussion boils down to what ifs and if the flight is worth the risk. Even though the odds against catastrophe are great, where is the line and who draws it?

Exactly!

Aviation is about trying to mitigate risks and always flying as if the "What If" is about to happen.

Reckless behavior (like flying over traffic) is one of the things that will make this hobby even harder and more restrictive than it is. It's only a matter of time until such actions have a genuine negative outcome and when it does the Knee-Jerk reactions will be boggling.

 

[kensteele]

is this considered [unlawful] flying over traffic?

 

[RBacio]

is this considered [unlawful] flying over traffic?

And if you think that's bad, you should see Austin during rush hour.

 

[ChrisOutdoors]

is this considered [unlawful] flying over traffic?

Didn't watch the whole thing. There's a difference between flying over traffic and filming traffic.

 

[BigAl07]

is this considered [unlawful] flying over traffic?

I watched some of it "scrubbed through it pretty quickly" and without your flight data I'd venture to guess that you were mostly in a fixed point NOT directly over traffic and merely panning and yawing the camera.

Didn't watch the whole thing. There's a difference between flying over traffic and filming traffic.

^^^ Nailed it ! ! ! Well done

 

[kensteele]

Didn't watch the whole thing. There's a difference between flying over traffic and filming traffic.

well help us out. what's the difference? is this video legal or not? he seems to be directly over the cars at many times. or cross over the freeway back and forth? if cars are your target, is it ok to film over the car?

i don't go up and down roads over the tops of cars but i do cross them on the road without hovering so i'm just trying to understand the definition. when i get laanc in my neighborhood, it will be all but impossible to fly in my neighborhood without flying over cars so i would like to know please.

it's not my video. this seems to be filmed by mavic air; i just got my first drone, m2z, earlier this year. don't think i would have the courage to fly over all those cars for that long.

if they come out with mavic 2 air with occusync and pro camera, i will buy it.

 

[sar104]

well help us out. what's the difference? is this video legal or not? he seems to be directly over the cars at many times. or cross over the freeway back and forth? if cars are your target, is it ok to film over the car?

Can you point to when in the video the aircraft is either directly over vehicles or crossing the roadways?

 

[kensteele]

Can you point to when in the video the aircraft is either directly over vehicles or crossing the roadways?

44, 59, 501, 548, 557 overhead

147, 632 how do you get there without crossing over a road (traffic)

so i can't see directly below to know for sure; that's why i am asking; need clarification please.

does the rules say directly overhead so if they off by the slightest amount, you're ok? i see alot of nice side shots and i understand those but many of those places, there's no way to get there without flying over a road and cars on that road. so is that ok to fly over just as long as you don't hover, can you cross a road as long as you dodge the cars?

i fly like this guy all the time and if it's legal than i guess i'm fine. i'm not like a traffic helicopter, i don't plow up and down the freeway.

btw, i don't expect anyone to answer. the typical "read the rules, it's clear (gvt rules are always clear)" is probably the response. or he's not over traffic, you're mistaken, physics, optics get your eyes checked (which isn't the point, i just searched yt and found a video, maybe i chose poorly). still would like to get the questions answered. sometimes i just post here so if others come along, they can read the discussions and benefit and maybe learn along with me. to me some of the rules are confusing and i want to fly safe just like anyone else. but that's ok, it doesn't have to be in my post....there are others.

 

[sdold]

well help us out. what's the difference? is this video legal or not?

Arguing whether this is legal or not before an FAA inspector takes enforcement action probably won't yield much, just opinions. If someone from the FAA thinks this is a violation and takes action, pay attention and see where it goes, then we'll have a better idea of what we can/can't get away with.

 

[sar104]

44, 59, 501, 548, 557 overhead

147, 632 how do you get there without crossing over a road (traffic)

so i can't see directly below to know for sure; that's why i am asking; need clarification please.

does the rules say directly overhead so if they off by the slightest amount, you're ok? i see alot of nice side shots and i understand those but many of those places, there's no way to get there without flying over a road and cars on that road. so is that ok to fly over just as long as you don't hover, can you cross a road as long as you dodge the cars?

i fly like this guy all the time and if it's legal than i guess i'm fine. i'm not like a traffic helicopter, i don't plow up and down the freeway.

btw, i don't expect anyone to answer. the typical "read the rules, it's clear (gvt rules are always clear)" is probably the response. or he's not over traffic, you're mistaken, physics, optics get your eyes checked (which isn't the point, i just searched yt and found a video, maybe i chose poorly). still would like to get the questions answered. sometimes i just post here so if others come along, they can read the discussions and benefit and maybe learn along with me. to me some of the rules are confusing and i want to fly safe just like anyone else. but that's ok, it doesn't have to be in my post....there are others.

No - it's not directly over vehicles at any of those times. No - you cannot infer that it had to fly over the roads to take those shots - the pilot may well have launched from various locations because, unlike you, he can probably understand simple and clearly-written rules.

 

[sar104]

Arguing whether this is legal or not before an FAA inspector takes enforcement action probably won't yield much, just opinions. If someone from the FAA thinks this is a violation and takes action, pay attention and see where it goes, then we'll have a better idea of what we can/can't get away with.

The FAA is not going to take action for violation of rules unless there is evidence that rules were violated. And in any case, this discussion, painful though it is, is about the rules, not about the FAA enforcement of them.

 

[Hegemone]

"unlike you, he can probably understand simple and clearly-written rules. " seems a little aggressive.

 

[sar104]

"unlike you, he can probably understand simple and clearly-written rules. " seems a little aggressive.

Agreed - but having attempted, unsuccessfully, to reason with this particular poster multiple times, and counter at least some of the completely false information that he just keeps dumping on this forum, I've ended up just being blunt with him. He happily admits that he doesn't bother to research anything, doesn't bother to fact check, and doesn't even bother to read the threads before posting.

It's reasonable to discuss the intent of the "don't fly over people" rule, including how it applies to flying over traffic and whether it means don't fly across a road or don't linger over traffic, but here he posts a video that shows neither of those actions while claiming that it shows both, and then tries to argue that the rule makes no sense.

 

[Hegemone]

Agreed - but having attempted, unsuccessfully, to reason with this particular poster multiple times, and counter at least some of the completely false information that he just keeps dumping on this forum, I've ended up just being blunt with him. He happily admits that he doesn't bother to research anything, doesn't bother to fact check, and doesn't even bother to read the threads before posting.

It's reasonable to discuss the intent of the "don't fly over people" rule, including how it applies to flying over traffic and whether it means don't fly across a road or don't linger over traffic, but here he posts a video that shows neither of those actions while claiming that it shows both, and then tries to argue that the rule makes no sense.

Forums are rarely great learning environments. People latch on to ideas like snapping turtles and rarely let go. A lot of threads seem to end with arguments rather than discussions. It is what it is. Lots of great information once you filter out the noise.

 

[sar104]

Forums are rarely great learning environments. People latch on to ideas like snapping turtles and rarely let go. A lot of threads seem to end with arguments rather than discussions. It is what it is. Lots of great information once you filter out the noise.

In general that's true, although I think that a lot of the threads on this forum are very educational. A lot of good questions and answers, and a lot of technical discussion. And then there is the small minority of posters who seem to be here simply to create confusion and get attention. Thankfully they mostly don't last very long.

 

[Prmath]

I read in the rules/regs where we can to fly over people unless part of the "team" and only if they are under cover (outdoor pavilion etc) and not over people unless in a stationary vehicle. I have got a project which h requires me to map a section of a major interstate (I will be at 200 ft) - can I do it or must I be off to the side?
Thanks

Flying over the Center median ....... I wonder

 

[sdold]

The FAA is not going to take action for violation of rules unless there is evidence that rules were violated. And in any case, this discussion, painful though it is, is about the rules, not about the FAA enforcement of them.

My point is if an inspector thinks it's a violation, it'll be something you'll get caught up in and have to defend against. For example it's common for inspectors show up at airports, see something they don't like, and begin an enforcement action based on a violation of 91.13(a) (reckless operation) even if no clear violation of another rule occurred, so it's realistic to expect it in the drone world too with 107.23(a). As far as horizontal distance from people that you're 200 feet over, there is no precise answer that will keep you out of trouble for the above reason.

Edited about six times for clarity...