Flying over people

[Thomas B]

Superstarpup, I kinda took this to mean above..."Is it permitted to fly a couple of hundred yards over those neighborhoods in order to reach the river or the lake that borders the city? "

200yards = 600ft
Illegal regardless of thoughts.

 

[BanditsRoost]

200yards = 600ft
Illegal regardless of thoughts.

Oops, brain was thinking in meters......?

 

[ABro]

Best rule is don’t do anything stupid ?

 

[STKNRUD]

I guess the airlines shouldn’t fly a Boeing 737 Max over anything but ocean. I am bad.

 

[STKNRUD]

FAA says to follow the safety standards of an approved community based organization like the AMA. AMA says not to fly over any occupied buildings. How are you suppose to know if every house, barn or building is occupied or not? I think I’ll just stay inside and fly on my computer sim.

 

[Drgnfli]

FAA says to follow the safety standards of an approved community based organization like the AMA. AMA says not to fly over any occupied buildings. How are you suppose to know if every house, barn or building is occupied or not? I think I’ll just stay inside and fly on my computer sim.

Yep! I see that coming! I fly mostly in the boonies where there are few, if any people. I discover an occasional video of mine flying over a person or 2 walking a forest trail. I did not see them on my screen at the time. Should I turn myself in?

This subject boggles my mind with its unbelievable stupidity! Wait until more businesses start using UAVs in their business - this flying over people will be dropped, canceled, ignored! $$ is the final decider... IMHO!

 

[Terry63]

How Good Is Your Depth Perception?
Flying VLOS I find it hard to judge whether I am beyond an object on the ground or this side of the object on the ground.
I think the rules will evolve dependent upon what causes accidents from here forward. How many innocent by standers ( non crew members ) have been injured by drone strikes?
Eventually someone will build an FPV system with a wraparound screen in goggles, there by giving the pilot peripheral vision. Combine that with head tracking and gimbals and you would be able to see anything an on-board pilot would. You could then see what you are about to fly over and turn to avoid it.

 

[OnlyMavic]

We're all smart enough to know that it's nigh on impossible to prevent your drone from flying over people 100% of the time, if you're flying over areas where people are, or are known to have been. It's never about what you know at liftoff. It's about what you discover while in flight. Unless you have conducted a ground reconnoiter under your entire planned flight area, and have visual evidence that there are in fact no people in the area under which you plan to fly your drone, there are simply no guarantees. You typically don't have control over the people on the ground, and whether or not they are present under your flight path is something you may not know until you're actually over them, and violating the regulation. If you suddenly see people appear under your craft, you can surely move away from them. But the ability to avoid positioning your craft over people is not something any of us are able to do with full certainty all the time. Basically, you just have to do your best to comply. Intent is key.

 

[dronerdave]

Not sure about intent. If I'm flying an RC aircraft and it gets away from me in a area with few people but ends up hitting somebody on the ground, I didn't intend to do it but am still liable for my actions. If I wasn't flying over people then I wouldn't of hit the person. I've always thought If it's blatantly obvious you were flying over people and something goes wrong, if you damage property or hurt someone, the court has more of a opportunity throw the book at you.

 

[OnlyMavic]

If I wasn't flying over people then I wouldn't of hit the person.

Well... just how far outside the safety cylinders over people do you need to be flying before that syllogism becomes unassailable truth? Kind of a fuzzy line, isn't it? It could be argued that, under certain totally unexpected circumstances, a drone that "got away from you" could still come down and hit someone, in spite of the fact that you were flying WELL away from them. What would the court say if you were you were doing a very good job of not flying over people, but your drone still hit someone. Doesn't "intent" come into that a little bit? Or maybe "motive" is the more relevant term. You might still be liable, but you can't have the FAA rulebook thrown at you for it. Or can you? Maybe this is just one of those quaint little gray areas baked into the law that gives everyone a little wiggle room in either direction.

 

[dronerdave]

Even if the rules were more black and white concerning flying close to people and your intent was to fly well away from people, you'd still be liable if you hit someone. And yes I do think the court would take your intent to fly safe into consideration but it probably won't carry much weight when used as an excuse to avoid blame if something horrible goes wrong... you're still liable for your actions. Probably a reason why many RC pilots have insurance for such things.

 

[Terry63]

Well... just how far outside the safety cylinders over people do you need to be flying before that syllogism becomes unassailable truth? Kind of a fuzzy line, isn't it? It could be argued that, under certain totally unexpected circumstances, a drone that "got away from you" could still come down and hit someone, in spite of the fact that you were flying WELL away from them. What would the court say if you were you were doing a very good job of not flying over people, but your drone still hit someone. Doesn't "intent" come into that a little bit? Or maybe "motive" is the more relevant term. You might still be liable, but you can't have the FAA rulebook thrown at you for it. Or can you? Maybe this is just one of those quaint little gray areas baked into the law that gives everyone a little wiggle room in either direction.

If you happened to be driving your late model car, with immaculate service record and carefully obeying the law and suddenly a previously unknown factory defect causes you to lose control of your car and an accident ensues, who will likely be first to get the blame? You! Your insurance company will pay the bill. Your insurance company may subsequently sue the auto manufacturer etc... You will not be charged with a crime, however you may have to fight traffic infractions unfairly issued against you. I think this is a fair parallel to your statement using a car in place of a drone. If intent or motive comes into play then someone must have doubts about just how accidental the "accident" was. In that case you could be charged with a crime, putting the incident in a whole different category.

To get a better understanding of the FAA's viewpoint of this issue you could read the study material for a part 107 pilot's license. Not all of it but the section on rules and regulations, particularly the part on reporting accidents. Knowledge conquers fear.

 

[dronerdave]

If intent or motive comes into play then someone must have doubts about just how accidental the "accident" was. In that case you could be charged with a crime, putting the incident in a whole different category.

I agree.
But I actually don't think the FAA is going to worry much about a recreational flight near people unless it's an obvious hazard such as flying over a stadium of people or similar. 107 operators are held to a higher level and their flight would probably be scrutinized closer for a host of reasons if caught doing something out of line. However in the case of a flight causing property damage, death or similar tragic occurrence, a rec pilot could be in trouble if reports by people involved suggest the pilot wasn't following the guidelines and it can be proved as a hazardous flight. Even if the proposed RID rules become law, flying close to people will be practically impossible to enforce if we are flying overhead and no incident happens other than a somewhat disgruntled person on the ground is complaining about the flight. That probably happens daily. And even if the intent is to fly a safe mission, if 30 people are complaining about your aircraft being overhead of their group, the pilot must contend with that. I seriously do not see that as something the FAA will want to get into but maybe law enforcement would respond to those complaining.
At our club flying field we always are flying close to people especially those sharing the operators flight line box. A year or so ago a newbie pilot crashed his plane into my legs. OUCH! His intent wasn't to crash or even to harm me. It's important to understand that the FAA rules in the past mainly referred to fixed wing RC aircraft and the recent rules were more of a band aid fix to a problem with how technologically advanced flying platforms are being or can be used operating w/i the NAS. That is a different issue.
Last Monday one of our club pilots crashed his turbine powered RC jet that resulted in a fireball upon impact. It crashed into a dry field and the winds were about 7MPH. The fire spread quickly and although members did their best to control the fire, it got out of control and I had to call the fire dept out to handle it. Luckily no structures or persons were harmed. The pilot never intended to crash his 15,000 dollar aircraft. The pilot never intended to start a fire. The pilot did intend to follow the safety rules and his flight was well within the those rules. However he did cause the fire and he may be directly liable for the fire departments cost to respond/extinguish the fire. I'd hate to see what would have happened if a building burned and/or someone was injured or killed. As mentioned it put the incident in a whole different category...something for lawyers to argue. It's why we all have insurance.