Let's see how many FAA (and other) rules Ken broke

[Hands Down]

The article linked IS up to date, it was updated with the latest rules changes.
While you COULD do sustained flight over people in moving vehicles with a Category 1 drone (prop guards and less than 250 grams) it must be done in a close/restricted access site and everyone must be on notice. If you can't do that, then you cannot do sustained flights over moving vehicles (and of course, you always need a categorized drone).

You are saying "sustained flights" here. But just like for OOP, over is over, transitioning or not. Right?

I'm asking because that seems to be a big source of confusion here. That the rules are somehow different if you're just doing a fly-over as opposed to hovering, and I don't think they are different.

 

[Vic Moss]

It helps me.

It's probably also noteworthy that as of October 2023, the only FAA OOP approved drones are made by AgEagle. No DJI drones are approved as far as I can

I'm confused about moving vehicles at this point.

Think of a pickup truck. You can fly over the empty bed of a moving pickup, but not over the driver in the cab.

That help?

 

[mobilehomer]

For Part 107 - Note: Sustained flight over an open-air assembly includes hovering above the heads of persons gathered in an open-air assembly, flying back and forth over an open-air assembly, or circling above the assembly in such a way that the small unmanned aircraft remains above some part the assembly. ‘Sustained flight’ over an open-air assembly of people in a Category 1, 2, or 4 operation does not include a brief, one-time transiting over a portion of the assembled gathering, where the transit is merely incidental to a point-to-point operation unrelated to the assembly.

from this page - https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/operations_over_people

 

[Hands Down]

Think of a pickup truck. You can fly over the empty bed of a moving pickup, but not over the driver in the cab.

That help?

It does some. Although ensuring I fly only over the bed of a moving pickup truck and not the cab is not something I'd trust my current pilot skills to achieving.

Can I fly over a moving freight train, so long as I only fly over rail cars that clearly contain only freight?

 

[DARKSeifer]

I think the distinction here is that Ken is a well-known YouTuber, so in a pretty real way he's an ambassador to our hobby and business. The issue is that he continually violates rules--and proudly, I might add, and people watching may conclude that if Ken does it, it has to be legal. That, to my mind, is the harm--it may cause others to copy Ken and hurt all of us in the process. He is NOT setting a good example.

As for the link to pilotinstitute, above, it's dated 2020, and I think the rules have changed since then. Last I looked it up, you CAN fly over a moving vehicle, but you can't do it continuously, and the drone has to weigh under a certain amount, but again, I'm pretty sure that even a 249g drone is too heavy.

At least he flies his drone and has fun with it.

The hobby path is the same for everyone, you start learning the rules, doing the exams, buying your first mini, then you realize what you learned is wrong, and you can fly in far less places than you thought, get annoyed by a few karens/police/guards, and then you must decide what you do with the hobby whych is basically:

A) Keep flying and enjoying the hobby no matter what (this means breaking the rules because drone rules are excplictly made to kill the hobby), you try to keep away from trouble, but if trouble finds you, you stay cool and live to fly another day.

B) You fold your drone in a cool position and leave it on the shelf, waiting to get permission to fly from the ones that are trying to kill the hobby because of money.

Ken is on the A side, I'm on the A side, and anyone currently flying their drones it's on the A side.

 

[mavic3usa]

At least he flies his drone and has fun with it.

The hobby path is the same for everyone, you start learning the rules, doing the exams, buying your first mini, then you realize what you learned is wrong, and you can fly in far less places than you thought, get annoyed by a few karens/police/guards, and then you must decide what you do with the hobby whych is basically:

A) Keep flying and enjoying the hobby no matter what (this means breaking the rules because drone rules are excplictly made to kill the hobby), you try to keep away from trouble, but if trouble finds you, you stay cool and live to fly another day.

B) You fold your drone in a cool position and leave it on the shelf, waiting to get permission to fly from the ones that are trying to kill the hobby because of money.

Ken is on the A side, I'm on the A side, and anyone currently flying their drones it's on the A side.

I'm on the A-side, too.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Let me ask your opinion on this. Do you think the props of a Mini 3 or 4 pro could lacerate the skin without a prop guard? Personally I don't know. I watched a pretty elaborate simulation from the Pilot Institute where they concluded that they indeed could. But they didn't use actual humans or skin - only materials they felt approximated skin.

I can say, having used an actual human with skin, yes.

Bad handcatch. Fortunately, not severe injury, but easily could have been. Mini3P.

 

[Droning on and on...]

You are saying "sustained flights" here. But just like for OOP, over is over, transitioning or not. Right?

I'm asking because that seems to be a big source of confusion here. That the rules are somehow different if you're just doing a fly-over as opposed to hovering, and I don't think they are different.

My focused reading of the FARs says there's no distinction – in what's written. There has been suggestion that the interpretation of the same words varies depending on whether hovering or transiting, but with the FAA such an evolution would be written in an official release from the administration.

In any case, a drone in transit is just as subject to failure as one hovering, and presents the same danger. Arguably even a bit more if there is also a significant horizontal velocity in addition to the gravity-induced vertical velocity. In fact, if low enough, the 40mph transit speed may be the significant component of the velocity vector when the aircraft smacks someone in the head, or plows through a windshield on the highway.

So while being able to transit is convenient, the safety issues are the same.

 

[New England Droning]

Think of a pickup truck. You can fly over the empty bed of a moving pickup, but not over the driver in the cab.

That help?

So Vic I'll respond to yours and ask to confirm my assumptions. If I'm near a busy roadway/highway with a mini2 or bigger then I should think twice about crossing overhead the highway. Not running along it overhead but directly perpendicular (the shortest distance) is still a possible no-no. unless I'm looking down or I can see with my VLOS that there is a clear space, then that is the only way to cross any roadway. (Mavic 3 Pro with RID) but no protective gear)
This is why I don't like flying in/near towns.
If for whatever reason the traffic on the highway is bumper to bumper and stopped then this is an invisible wall that will prevent me from (responsibly) crossing the highway/roadway. I think it's safe to say that whether it's the trunk of the car or the bed of a truck there is a larger chance that a drone falling from 300' will possibly hit the passenger compartment and in risk management terms this becomes a prohibited action. Because you can't say with 100% certainty that you won't drop and hit an occupied vehicle.
I think most people here would cross the roadway and violate the rule. I was near Acadia NP and I was standing on the side of Route 102 and traffic was light so I went up and then crossed the empty road but if cars had been a bit thicker I don't know that I would have worried as I'm watching the situation at 50' or so...
I think it comes down to what would happen if an FAA official was standing next to us in this scenario and at what point are we in breach of safety.

And yes I thnk all these scenarios need to be hashed out because different people thank about them in different ways I will also accept that I over-think everything

 

[mavic3usa]

I think it comes down to what would happen if an FAA official was standing next to us in this scenario and at what point are we in breach of safety.

I wouldn't fly with an FAA official standing next to me. The difference between me and the perfect flyer is about 2% when it comes to safety (read: I'm a pretty safe drone flyer) but since I'm not perfect and the potential penalties are so high for violations, I would immediately land my drone and depart the area.

I agree with you, this should be discussed. The FAA rules are so vague and confusing and ambiguous that you would have to be the perfect flyer to not have to depend on some sort of discretion from the FAA official standing next to you. Which is fine because we depend on such discretion our daily lives whether it's driving a car or working on the job. However, the difference here is the penalty. If the popular reply to this is: these drone rules aren't enforced that way then I think you have your answer (it isn't a safety issue).

if you want to be able to traverse cars and people and cross the busy freeways, wait until Amazon and UPS drones start flying then we'll all get some relief...in so many ways.

 

[LoudThunder]

A lot has been already stated but I will simply add that at 3:00, it was stupid and careless to land the drone on the woman's hand, it came in too fast and it very well could have "slapped the Pretty off her face…"

As for entering the US Pipe and Foundry Plant, just because it did not have a No Trespassing sign up does not mean it is an invitation to trespass…

And then at 6:00, they knew that you could not trespass on the property and they also know that under a roof, the FAA has no authority, so they were again trespassing by flying your drone inside the structure…

At 17:50 they contemplate harassing the police officer, because it probably was not illegal. They prove that age does not equal maturity…

And at 9:40, it is absolutely illegal to pilot a drone from a moving vehicle (of any kind of vehicle) over an area that is not classified as "Sparsely Populated…"

At 11:15, they are flying over moving traffic..

At this point I am just too upset that they think that's it OK to pull Foolish Stunts like this. These antics are the reason Remote ID is so very necessary and endowment needs to be more stringent…

 

[Dmcvey]

Just saying......over cars and people

 

[LoudThunder]

Just saying......over cars and people

Here is the Real "Just Saying…"

The FAA's Section 6. 14 CFR Part 107, sUAS Operations, and Section 49 U.S. Code § 44809 - Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft has no authority over the operations of Military Aircraft even at sporting events or anywhere else…

Other Rules apply, but not these…

 

[mavic3usa]

A lot has been already stated but I will simply add that at 3:00, it was stupid and careless to land the drone on the woman's hand, it came in too fast and it very well could have "slapped the Pretty off her face…"

As for entering the US Pipe and Foundry Plant, just because it did not have a No Trespassing sign up does not mean it is an invitation to trespass…

And then at 6:00, they knew that you could not trespass on the property and they also know that under a roof, the FAA has no authority, so they were again trespassing by flying your drone inside the structure…

At 17:50 they contemplate harassing the police officer, because it probably was not illegal. They prove that age does not equal maturity…

And at 9:40, it is absolutely illegal to pilot a drone from a moving vehicle (of any kind of vehicle) over an are that is not classified as "Sparsely Populated…"

At 11:15, they are flying over moving traffic..

At this point I am just too upset that they think that's it OK to pull Foolish Stunts like this. These antics are the reason Remote ID is so very necessary and endowment needs to be more stringent…

For anyone who is wondering:

"In the United States, "sparsely populated" is quantified as having only 20 people in every 10 acres. To make that easier to visualize, we can scale the ratio down to 2 people in an area that is roughly the size of a football field."

 

[Zbip57]

14 CFR § 107.25 does indeed say:

§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system—
(a) From a moving aircraft; or
(b) From a moving land or water-borne vehicle unless the small unmanned aircraft is flown over a sparsely populated area and is not transporting another person's property for compensation or hire.

That seems explicitly clear, sort of. But it sure seems overly restrictive.

In Canada the equivalent restriction in CARS 901.37 says:

Prohibition — Operation of Moving Vehicles, Vessels and Manned Aircraft
901.37 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft while operating a moving vehicle, vessel or manned aircraft.

Here you can fly from a moving vehicle. You just can't be operating both the drone and the vehicle at the same time.

You can use a visual observer to keep track of the drone monitoring the airspace, while you focus on flying it. But CARS 901.20 (4) says the visual observer must then also be focused on his task and not operating the moving vehicle at the same time.

Visual Observers
901.20 (1) [...]
(2) [...]
(3) [...]
(4) No visual observer shall perform visual observer duties while operating a moving vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

For the moment ignoring all the other stupid aspects of what Ken was doing, technically flying from a carriage being towed by a mule wouldn't have been illegal in Canada as long as Barkley had actually being focused on doing his job of visual observer rather than tasked with holding a camera to record what Ken was doing.

Neither of them was watching the drone! Ken even had to prompt Barkley to take a peek to make sure the drone wasn't being backed into a tree, or flying low enough to be hit by a car. That was all obviously reckless and stupid.

But I'm wondering why the FAA outright restricts flying from any moving vehicle? Flying from a moving motorboat being driven by one person, while you concentrate on flying your drone, with a third person acting as visual observer to keep the drone in sight at all times, isn't illegal in Canada but is prohibited by the FAA.

What exactly is a moving vehicle? What if the boat isn't actually "under way", but is freely drifting with the current or wind? That's "moving", no? What if it's moored or anchored, but swinging at the end of a long mooring line? That's also "moving". What if it's securely tied to a dock, but rocking with some waves? Is that "moving"? Or is all of that perfectly okay as long as your boat is floating in a football field sized area containing less than two other people?

And what's the deal with saying it's then only okay in a sparsely populated area but not if transporting another person's property for compensation or hire. I thought the whole point of the distinction between the recreational exemptions versus full Part 107 concerned commercial compensation or hire.

So why is there this Part 107 regulation that apparently says you can fly from a moving vehicle or boat in a sparsely populated area only for fun, but not commercially?? Your FAA regulations make my brain melt.

 

[mavic3usa]

14 CFR § 107.25 does indeed say:

That seems explicitly clear, sort of. But it sure seems overly restrictive.

In Canada the equivalent restriction in CARS 901.37 says:

Here you can fly from a moving vehicle. You just can't be operating both the drone and the vehicle at the same time.

You can use a visual observer to keep track of the drone monitoring the airspace, while you focus on flying it. But CARS 901.20 (4) says the visual observer must then also be focused on his task and not operating the moving vehicle at the same time.

Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

For the moment ignoring all the other stupid aspects of what Ken was doing, technically flying from a carriage being towed by a mule wouldn't have been illegal in Canada as long as Barkley had actually being focused on doing his job of visual observer rather than tasked with holding a camera to record what Ken was doing.

Neither of them was watching the drone! Ken even had to prompt Barkley to take a peek to make sure the drone wasn't being backed into a tree, or flying low enough to be hit by a car. That was all obviously reckless and stupid.

But I'm wondering why the FAA outright restricts flying from any moving vehicle? Flying from a moving motorboat being driven by one person, while you concentrate on flying your drone, with a third person acting as visual observer to keep the drone in sight at all times, isn't illegal in Canada but is prohibited by the FAA.

What exactly is a moving vehicle? What if the boat isn't actually "under way", but is freely drifting with the current or wind? That's "moving", no? What if it's moored or anchored, but swinging at the end of a long mooring line? That's also "moving". What if it's securely tied to a dock, but rocking with some waves? Is that "moving"? Or is all of that perfectly okay as long as your boat is floating in a football field sized area containing less than two other people?

And what's the deal with saying it's then only okay in a sparsely populated area but not if transporting another person's property for compensation or hire. I thought the whole point of the distinction between the recreational exemptions versus full Part 107 concerned commercial compensation or hire.

So why is there this Part 107 regulation that apparently says you can fly from a moving vehicle or boat in a sparsely populated area only for fun, but not commercially?? Your FAA regulations make my brain melt.

 

[Vic Moss]

For anyone who is wondering:

"In the United States, "sparsely populated" is quantified as having only 20 people in every 10 acres. To make that easier to visualize, we can scale the ratio down to 2 people in an area that is roughly the size of a football field."

Actually the FAA doesn't define "sparsely populated". On purpose. They leave it up to the person flying the drone or planning the route. You'll see the term “typically fact-dependent” thrown around in discussions about this.

But the official answer can be found here: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ntron-AFS-800-2_2012_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

That paper deals with Part 91, but those can and do cross over fairly frequently.

 

[LoudThunder]

But the official answer can be found here:

I went to the Referenced Memorandum and then to the referenced Rule and it is as clear as mud…

The FAA even writes that they are unable to provide a "discrete definition" which means what you see is what you get and it's not much…

 

[Zbip57]

He got reported because he joked that he was flying the plane and the drone at the same time, which would have been illegal if true. But in his video he explains a friend was operating the drone.

 

[Zbip57]

More of Ken flying a drone from a "moving vehicle".