Can't fly over people???

[Aussie Oldtimer]

Legislators who don't fly will make more laws about a hobby they know very little about & we will all suffer in the end. The 'rules' are already slowly choking the fun out of the hobby. No one will ever control the 1% ___holes who speed in cars, drive recklessly or fly drones dangerously & ruin it for the law-abiding 99% - that is the way life goes & it will continue this way forever...

I worked for many years in a law enforcement organisation and 99% of the time any changes we proposed, came back from the lawyers 1st draft with little or no correlation to what we submitted

They had no practical idea of what we really wanted so they guessed. Eventually after many draft rewrites, we got it right

in support of the person i spoke with at casa, he was a drone flyer and knew the issues.

 

[Maviac]

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.

I know that this was sort of an anecdotal comment, but it’s not remotely true. It wasn’t remotely true of Flight 1549 either. If it were, everyone on that plane would have been dead. The true glide ratio is about 15-to-1, which is pretty good (I think my Cessna’s about 9:1 and it’s pretty good too).

 

[ifrdriver]

Sooooo, let me get this straight the FAA in their brilliance says UAV's at a maximum weight of 55 pounds cant fly over people or structures because of the potential of a unit failure, but it is OK for a Gulfstream G550 fully loaded with fuel at 91,000 pounds to take off from a city airport over thousands of people hourly. How stupid! If we are looking up piloting our craft how can we fly and watch for one person walking below from 300 feet in the air. Are they this concerned about a fully fueled Robinson 22 helicpoter at 1,370 pounds piloted by a student in training flying low over cities, with thousands of people below. Our UAV's have small batteries for power flying camera platforms. General Aviation, Jet, Helicopters run on 100LL and JetA, much more hazardous in a crash than small batteries.

Pilot Who Crashed Plane Into Yorba Linda Home Not A Chicago Police Officer

According to officials, a badge and retirement papers found on the pilot were fake.

losangeles.cbslocal.com

How can we fight back over this government overreach.

 

[deleted member 877]

Sooooo, let me get this straight the FAA in their brilliance says UAV's at a maximum weight of 55 pounds cant fly over people or structures because of the potential of a unit failure, but it is OK for a Gulfstream G550 fully loaded with fuel at 91,000 pounds to take off from a city airport over thousands of people hourly. How stupid! If we are looking up piloting our craft how can we fly and watch for one person walking below from 300 feet in the air. Are they this concerned about a fully fueled Robinson 22 helicpoter at 1,370 pounds piloted by a student in training flying low over cities, with thousands of people below. Our UAV's have small batteries for power flying camera platforms. General Aviation, Jet, Helicopters run on 100LL and JetA, much more hazardous in a crash than small batteries.

Pilot Who Crashed Plane Into Yorba Linda Home Not A Chicago Police Officer

According to officials, a badge and retirement papers found on the pilot were fake.

losangeles.cbslocal.com

How can we fight back over this government overreach.

I suggest that you do some more research regarding the FAA regulations to get a better understanding of the bigger picture.

In terms of your wanting to “fight back over this government overreach”’, I could think of a thousand more viable endeavours.

There are many thousands of drone pilots who enjoy flying their aircraft whilst remaining fully compliant with all of the FAA regulations. It’s a no-brainier - you don’t need to fly over people.

 

[ifrdriver]

That would mean not flying in any urban area. Totally unrealistic. Do airplanes not fly over urban populations on a regular basis? Why are UVA's put into a much different class. If there is no push back pretty soon UAV's for the civilian population will be sitting on the desk or mantle as decorations unable to fly them because of restrictions. Amazon, UPS, FedEx, Google will be the only ones in the air. I am not a radical, just would like to enjoy a little freedom from government over reach.

 

[Maviac]

That would mean not flying in any urban area. Totally unrealistic. Do airplanes not fly over urban populations on a regular basis? Why are UVA's put into a much different class. If there is no push back pretty soon UAV's for the civilian population will be sitting on the desk or mantle as decorations unable to fly them because of restrictions. Amazon, UPS, FedEx, Google will be the only ones in the air. I am not a radical, just would like to enjoy a little freedom from government over reach.

While I too question the logic of this absolute rule (aside from flying over dense crowds, which is more justifiable), the analogy doesn't really hold up. If UAS pilots were held to the same training requirements of commercial or even private pilots, and if UAS systems had to comply with the same regulatory requirements of manned aircraft, maybe it would be more accurate. But just reading about incidents from members of this forum could lead a rational neutral party to conclude that some caution should be exercised here.

Now, in reality, if you happen to fly directly over a person, the chance of harming that person is virtually zero, unless there's a power loss while hovering right over them (assuming you're not just flying at 6 feet). Usually, you're going to be moving in one direction and by the time the aircraft hit the ground if there was a loss of control, it'd be nowhere near them. Again, with a crowd of people things are a different, and I suspect that's really the intent behind the rule, but it was simpler to just institute a blanket rule.

 

[deleted member 877]

That would mean not flying in any urban area. Totally unrealistic. Do airplanes not fly over urban populations on a regular basis? Why are UVA's put into a much different class. If there is no push back pretty soon UAV's for the civilian population will be sitting on the desk or mantle as decorations unable to fly them because of restrictions. Amazon, UPS, FedEx, Google will be the only ones in the air. I am not a radical, just would like to enjoy a little freedom from government over reach.

Why are UAVs in a much different class than regular airplanes? I’m guessing that it’s because UAVs are remotely piloted. And oh, maybe also because most UAV operators have squat in terms of training or aeronautical experience.

Try to look at this from the FAA’s perspective. Then you will begin to understand what’s going on and why.

 

[FormerMember07122019_2]

As a licensed manned aircraft pilot (VFR), I agree that the training for sUAV pilots is minimal to none comparatively. In addition, the regulations, currency requirements (pilot skill checks), aircraft safety checks, health checks, and redundancy of manned aircraft systems make them overall much safer in the sky. But, what does safer really mean? A key difference is the relative danger to people and property on the ground. If a manned aircraft has an incident (mechanical or pilot error) that causes a crash the potential for casualties and property damage is extremely high. Conversely, if a sUAV crashes the same potential is very low. I have not personally heard of any innocent bystander dying from being hit by a sUAV drone. My conclusion is that drones are probably more likely to have a mishap but overall have less negative repercussions to people and property on the ground.

 

[ifrdriver]

Good response thanks.

 

[Drgnfli]

I suggest that you do some more research regarding the FAA regulations to get a better understanding of the bigger picture.

In terms of your wanting to “fight back over this government overreach”’, I could think of a thousand more viable endeavours.

There are many thousands of drone pilots who enjoy flying their aircraft whilst remaining fully compliant with all of the FAA regulations. It’s a no-brainier - you don’t need to fly over people.

How can you classify a "TOY" with a fully fueled aircraft carrying PASSENGERS? There are times we have to fly our toys over people just to fly. The FAA & others make it sound like drone flyers are trying to kill thousands of people... IMHO!...

 

[deleted member 877]

How can you classify a "TOY" with a fully fueled aircraft carrying PASSENGERS?

At no point have I classified a "TOY" with a fully fueled aircraft carrying PASSENGERS. You need to think before you type mate.

There are times we have to fly our toys over people just to fly.

Do what the rest of us do and go fly somewhere where there are no people. SIMPLE.

The FAA & others make it sound like drone flyers are trying to kill thousands of people... IMHO!...

I'm glad that you included "IMHO" because there wouldn't be a rational person on the planet who would agree with such a ridiculous statement.

 

[dirkclod]

I hope we have not come to this again guys as we have already been there before and not going back.
Everyone take a step back and take a breath .
Please...

 

[deleted member 877]

I hope we have not come to this again guys as we have already been there before and not going back.
Everyone take a step back and take a breath .
Please...

Suggest closing this thread. It has well and truly run its course.

 

[Lon Denard]

In Oz, you have a 30m radius where you cant fly over people or buildings that might have someone inside just in case they walk out of the building. Think of it as a 60m wide cylinder below the drone and its easy.

If someone walks out of the bush, then you must move away asap. simple

The obvious reason is so that if/when the drone fails, it doesn’t fall and injure them. Obviously the higher you are the harder it will hit the person on the deck.

We tend to follow rules here and where there are no rules, we use common sense. That’s why we have less restrictions that the US I suppose

Wait, you think you have "less" restrictions in your lives than we do in the US? Hahahaha!

 

[Simmo]

I have not personally heard of any innocent bystander dying from being hit by a sUAV drone. My conclusion is that drones are probably more likely to have a mishap but overall have less negative repercussions to people and property on the ground.

Triathlete injured as drone falls during race

Reports that a drone hit an athlete competing in a triathlon in Western Australia's Mid West are being investigated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The owner of the drone said he believed the device was "hacked" into, causing the operator to lose control of the device. It...

www.abc.net.au

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Triathlete injured as drone falls during race

Reports that a drone hit an athlete competing in a triathlon in Western Australia's Mid West are being investigated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The owner of the drone said he believed the device was "hacked" into, causing the operator to lose control of the device. It...

www.abc.net.au

Interesting report, nearly 5 years ago, hadn't heard of this.

Of course, like many drone near misses, there is great doubt she was hit by the drone as per the article, but even if it fell behind her, then she stumbled and fell, it was a near miss obviously.
It is also the case this was a licensed pilot covering the event for the organisers, so probably had 15m permissions ?
I'm not sure if that would require all competitors to agree to being filmed from that distance.

I wonder what sort of drone it was ?

This channel hopping business, also thought that wifi connections could be easily taken over, not so the dedicated channels, apart from the very high end droneshield type technology.

 

[BigAl07]

Why are UVA's put into a much different class.

I'm glad you asked.... let's start at the bottom and work our way up the reason ladder:

A) Hobby operators (currently) have no requirement to get any form or training in regards to learning the LAWS, Airspace, Aviation etc.
AA) Even the most basic Manned Aircraft Pilot has a MIN # hours classroom time, 40 hrs of actual FLIGHT time (20 of which are with an instructor), have been tested both book wise and most importantly an actual FLIGHT PROFICIENCY test.

B) The vast majority of the sUAS we see operated today have multiple "single failure points" which means that any ONE thing goes wrong in that sequence the aircraft tumbles to the ground out of control.
BB) Even the most basic manned aircraft have several layers or redundancy in critical systems.

C) There are almost no maintenance requirements for the vast majority of our hobby grade sUAS.
CC) Manned aircraft require not only detailed maintenance logs etc but they also require periodic inspections and even complete system overhauls are specified hours of operations.

D) Even those of us holding the FAA Part 107 (RPIC) have not demonstrated ANY flying ability what so ever and we carry credentials stating we are supposedly "Commercial Operators". All the Part 107 means is we were able to study for and pass a standardized test with 70% or better. It means nothing in flying ability since there is not even a requirement to have ever flown a sUAS to get the credentials.

Honestly, you're comparing apples to mud holes and the comparison just doesn't work...PERIOD!!

 

[Simmo]

Interesting report, nearly 5 years ago, hadn't heard of this.

Of course, like many drone near misses, there is great doubt she was hit by the drone as per the article, but even if it fell behind her, then she stumbled and fell, it was a near miss obviously.
It is also the case this was a licensed pilot covering the event for the organisers, so probably had 15m permissions ?
I'm not sure if that would require all competitors to agree to being filmed from that distance.

I wonder what sort of drone it was ?

It wasn't a near miss!! It hit her in the head!!
15 mtr permissions still does not permit flying overhead.

 

[787steve]

That would mean not flying in any urban area. Totally unrealistic. Do airplanes not fly over urban populations on a regular basis? Why are UVA's put into a much different class. If there is no push back pretty soon UAV's for the civilian population will be sitting on the desk or mantle as decorations unable to fly them because of restrictions. Amazon, UPS, FedEx, Google will be the only ones in the air. I am not a radical, just would like to enjoy a little freedom from government over reach.

Yes, airplanes do fly over urban populations on a regular basis. Airports require a LOT of land. Because of the cost of land in urban areas, airports are almost always built well into the country. But then the businesses, hotels, restaurants, and subdivisions come to surround the airport. And most airplanes have to have a runway from which to operate. So unless we want to build new multi billion dollar airports every few years, we have to accept airplanes flying over populated areas. These same airplanes provide tremendous service to their communities.
Our drones provide us with enjoyment. That's it. A tiny percentage might perform some service for their local community, but basically they are toys. I love my Mavic, but my community wouldn't feel any pain if I stopped flying it.
On any given day on this board you will see "my drone went crazy", "can anyone look at my logs and tell me where my drone is", "my drone failed to return home", etc. Simply put, they are toys, often operated by inexperienced flyers, and way too frequently coming to earth in an uncontrolled manner.
You really cannot seriously relate drone regs to airplane regs.
Fly safely, considerately, and enjoyably.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

It wasn't a near miss!! It hit her in the head!!
15 mtr permissions still does not permit flying overhead.

Ouch, she looks pretty shaken up there.

Don't recognise the drone, what is it, anyone know ?

Did you read that article yourself ?
Or has it been further clarified that she was indeed struck by the drone ??

I was going from the other sides story as per article . . .
"The drone is owned by local videographer Warren Abrams (New Era Photography and Film, which was supposedly "was covering the event") who said video footage clearly showed the drone drop just behind Mrs Ogden."
and
"There have been conflicting accounts about whether Mrs Ogden was hit by the drone or whether she fell and was injured after being startled by it."

I guess if he had that footage, he would have given it to CASA, perhaps in hope to ease any penalty, one would assume a penalty of some sort will be forthcoming.
Maybe he should release it (if not ruled out by investigators) publicly to prove his version.

As I said, regardless it was a very near miss, and by a much larger, heavier drone than most hobbyists fly too !!

I spotted this reading the article again . . .
"Neither Mr Abrams nor his business appear on the list of the 92 operators certified nationally." (At the time early 2014.)

Wonder if he was operating under excluded category ?