Flying over towns and cities?

[NickB]

Is a big NO NO in the UK but i keep seeing posts and pictures on here and FB of this.

Is it not illegal in some countries?

I wouldn't even if i could as i wouldn't want to lose my Mavic nor would i want to risk hurting someone.

Just curious.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Yes it's illegal, and dumb, and people shouldn't be doing it.

 

[Strafe1]

Not absolutely illegal in the US, but it's hard to find conditions that are safe enough to do it.

 

[armoredsaint]

i would not risk it

 

[aesculus]

Yes it's illegal, and dumb, and people shouldn't be doing it.

I'm sorry, what? Do you just fly in the desert?

 

[NickB]

Not absolutely illegal in the US, but it's hard to find conditions that are safe enough to do it.

What do you mean 'conditions'?

 

[Strafe1]

What do you mean 'conditions'?

I guess I meant in my post that neither the Public Law 112-95 nor the FAA regulations stipulate that that is illegal or even regulated for the recreational flier. It is regulated for the Part 107 flier, but then waivers can be obtained to bypass those regulations as well. That is what I meant by "not strictly illegal". But just because there is no formal law or regulation on that, doesn't make it legal to fly recklessly. Some potential conditions when it might be a lot safer? Maybe late night flight when there are no people or traffic to be endangered. Perhaps a small enough town may fit that description. Maybe flying over a wide waterway that goes through a city, or a series of parks that are centrally located. Like I said, tough to find really safe conditions for it, but it's not expressly illegal.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

I'm sorry, what? Do you just fly in the desert?

No I don't fly only in the desert, I'm just not dumb enough to fly toy-grade consumer electronics with absolutely zero redundancy or certification over concentrations of people and property.

 

[Strafe1]

No I don't fly only in the desert, I'm just not dumb enough to fly toy-grade consumer electronics with absolutely zero redundancy or certification over concentrations of people and property.

You're not claiming the Mavic is toy grade, are you? I didn't see a previous post referring a different craft.

 

[chad7218]

There are a lot of posts on this topic already ..... search and you can find some robust dialogue.
The last one was shut down by the moderator as it hit the point of diminishing return and became more of an argument than information sharing. Some good info out there to read is cited in earlier posts. Good luck it's confusing.

 

[iajetpilot]

I really think that just like manned aircraft drones should only be able to be regulated by the FAA. Every little despot running a town, park commission, or county shouldn't be able to arbitrarily decide that drones can't fly there. They don't do that with manned aircraft. Its ridiculous.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

You're not claiming the Mavic is toy grade, are you? I didn't see a previous post referring a different craft.

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not designed, tested, built or certified in any way resembling what's required for a manned aircraft.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to do down the Mavic, it's a remarkable technical achievement, it flies very well, the build quality seems good for what it is.

What I am saying is, when you hit a bird, or a motor fails, or the tiny plastic fixings holding a prop on break, or the software crashes, or the battery fails, or one of many other single non-redundant cheap, untested to aviation standard components fails you've instantly got a one kilo brick hundreds of feet above the head of whatever unfortunate soul happens to be below.

You can also lose navigation and control, as evidenced by the many crashes on here during RTH or when the pilot didn't understand what the aircraft would do in a particular set of circumstances like signal loss during certain automatic flight modes. Now you've got a flying blender you can't control doing it's own thing around a bunch of people - hoping it'll all work out OK isn't a plan.

You've got unqualified pilots with very little aeronautical knowledge or training, flying uncertified craft built like a mobile phone rather than like a 747. Would you want an aeroplane flying over you or your family if you knew it was running android/iOS/windows/etc?

There's nothing wrong with people flying these uncertified, untested little aircraft IMO provided people are sensible about where they operate which includes not over towns and cities.

I will admit that I can see an argument for what someone else said about over large clear areas like rivers and parks being arguably sensible to fly through in towns. I probably wouldn't do it myself - there's still a reasonable chance something unexpected happens and the aircraft flies off doing it's own thing - when it does you're maybe a couple of hundred meters, or alternatively 10-15 seconds away from sending your flying blender into someone's face.

 

[Alabast]

Well said Boris

 

[Foxtrot Uniform]

There is a guy on here doing range tests over Palo alto...

I prefer to fly over the ocean or marsh!

 

[Strafe1]

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not designed, tested, built or certified in any way resembling what's required for a manned aircraft.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to do down the Mavic, it's a remarkable technical achievement, it flies very well, the build quality seems good for what it is.

What I am saying is, when you hit a bird, or a motor fails, or the tiny plastic fixings holding a prop on break, or the software crashes, or the battery fails, or one of many other single non-redundant cheap, untested to aviation standard components fails you've instantly got a one kilo brick hundreds of feet above the head of whatever unfortunate soul happens to be below.

You can also lose navigation and control, as evidenced by the many crashes on here during RTH or when the pilot didn't understand what the aircraft would do in a particular set of circumstances like signal loss during certain automatic flight modes. Now you've got a flying blender you can't control doing it's own thing around a bunch of people - hoping it'll all work out OK isn't a plan.

You've got unqualified pilots with very little aeronautical knowledge or training, flying uncertified craft built like a mobile phone rather than like a 747. Would you want an aeroplane flying over you or your family if you knew it was running android/iOS/windows/etc?

There's nothing wrong with people flying these uncertified, untested little aircraft IMO provided people are sensible about where they operate which includes not over towns and cities.

I will admit that I can see an argument for what someone else said about over large clear areas like rivers and parks being arguably sensible to fly through in towns. I probably wouldn't do it myself - there's still a reasonable chance something unexpected happens and the aircraft flies off doing it's own thing - when it does you're maybe a couple of hundred meters, or alternatively 10-15 seconds away from sending your flying blender into someone's face.

The Mavic certainly isn't toy grade, by generally accepted categories of sUAS's, and it most certainly has redundancies built into it. You may feel otherwise, but you to most, I believe you would be wrong in your characterization of the Mavic, and by extension, even the pro level of quads available since they are using the same technology. Also, there really are only a few idiots out there compared to the many more conscientious and safe pilots. You are badly generalizing and portraying most quad pilots. I haven't read one story about an innocent person being blended by a quad. I have read inumerable stories of people killing people with their cars every day. Point is, there is risk with any many daily activities as well as quad flying. Fly your quad, or drive your car, with the care and attention it deserves, and we'd all be better off. No sense getting bent out of shape and slamming the whole activity when basically nothing has even happened yet. I think urging common sense and safety is much better than just ranting on a personal hot button.

 

[AyeYo]

The Mavic certainly isn't toy grade, by generally accepted categories of sUAS's, and it most certainly has redundancies built into it. You may feel otherwise, but you to most, I believe you would be wrong in your characterization of the Mavic, and by extension, even the pro level of quads available since they are using the same technology.

LOLOLOLOL

The Mavic is absolutely toy grade. Commercial and industrial multi-rotors start at $10k and up. There is nothing "pro" about the Mavic beyond DJI's marketing.

However, that's beside the point...

Flying over dense concentrations over people, property, vehicles, and radio interference is just asking for problems. I fly NEAR downtown and take pictures of downtown, but it do it from the safety of clear areas. A Mavic falling from over the height of downtown buildings onto a city street could easily kill someone.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Well I'm not suggesting that most UAV pilots are reckless, I'm sure most are sensible, I was responding in particular to one poster who said "do you only fly in the desert?" when I said flying over towns and cities is unsafe.

I agree with you - I'm really not slamming the activity and don't believe quad pilots should hide in the corner for fear of anyone disapproving. I think these little craft are amazing and very capable, and quite safe used with a bit of caution.

They _are_ toy grade though, all of them, including inspires and matrices, compared to any manned aircraft - none of them could pass the standards required for certification, and people flying them should really get that so they don't operate them places it would be OK to operate a "proper" aircraft but isn't safe to do so with a quad.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Oh and to add one thing, I saw something cool recently - the MARS parachutes which are auto-deployable when sensing a high sink rate after a failure.

I don't think they do one suitable for a mavic, but on something a bit bigger like a phantom they are a great solution and I think with one fitted it opens up a lot more places to fly without endangering anyone on the ground. You do have to fly high enough though to give time for deployment - something like 200ft.

As far as I'm aware, it's still illegal to fly over built up areas with one fitted, but I think it probably shouldn't be if they are reliable and sized appropriately to reduce the falling speed of a broken drone to something harmless. Hopefully the law will catch up with this eventually.

 

[aesculus]

LOLOLOLOL.

Easy, Big Guy; don't bust a gut. The price tag of a drone doesn't qualify or disqualify it from being "pro". Even a "$10k and up" drone has not the redundancy of a manned aircraft and can come spiraling out of the sky like a wounded duck.

The Mavic is absolutely not toy-grade. I have toy-grade drones. There is obviously a huge difference. That said, they are all toys to some degree or another. Some are just a lot more sophisticated. But if you treat the Mavic like a toy, such as flying it without regard to the safety of others, then nobody will call it a toy. They'll call it a dangerous machine that should be heavily regulated.

 

[Wombat55]

LOLOLOLOL

The Mavic is absolutely toy grade. Commercial and industrial multi-rotors start at $10k and up. There is nothing "pro" about the Mavic beyond DJI's marketing.

That's a ridiculously poor and specious argument and you know it (or, at least, I hope you do).

By your logic a small Cessna is a "toy" because it's insanely cheap compared to a 767. Oh, and that 767 is a "toy", too, because it's insanely cheap compared to a B-2 bomber.

It's obvious to everyone that the build quality of a Mavic is a step above that of the typical "toy" quadcopter.