Could the FAA fine me for flying my drone 1 foot off the ground in my backyard solely because it's not in "visual line of site"?

[BigAl07]

**********************************************************************************
Ok gang... you've gone from a friendly debate to getting personal and totally forgetting the core principle of this forum is BE NICE! If you can't be nice then refrain from posting in that thread (or completely if it's that difficult).

This is the ONLY warning I'll leave in this thread and the next time we start getting personal, pointing fingers, and being rude we will close the thread and most likely give the remaining offenders some time OFF from the forum.

I hope that's clear and leaves no grey area for those who insist in arguing and debating rules & regulations (forum, FAA, or otherwise . . .)

**********************************************************************************

 

[Chaosrider]

I'd like regulations to be clearly applicable and logical, not open to misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Sure, everyone should know in their own conscience what the "intent" of the regulation is. But if it's vaguely worded or illogical, then what is the actual threshold between what's enforceable or not?

That's one aspect of enforceability.

Another, and more dominant aspect, is cost and intrusion. Neither the FAA nor any other government entity will ever have the budget to enforce the fuzzy edges.

And no sensible person wants the government to have the power and resources for that level of government intrusion.

TCS

It's pretty obvious that particular clause of the regulation is absurd in its application to consumer level drones. And surely Tranport Canada would never impose such a fine for failure to record the name of the Chinese repair technician. But if it's an excusable omission, why even write such an absurd regulation?

Does the FAA's Part 107 include a similar clause?

I don't recall seeing that in 107, but I haven't looked specifically for it.

In the US, there's a pretty sharp distinction between the "Pilot", and the "Owner/Operator". This kind of thing would fall into the "Owner/Operator" bin. IIRC, other than doing a pre-flight, 107 doesn't address it.

As a practical matter, I think they'd define DJI as a person in your example. Corporations count as people for many legal purposes.

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

**********************************************************************************
Ok gang... you've gone from a friendly debate to getting personal and totally forgetting the core principle of this forum is BE NICE! If you can't be nice then refrain from posting in that thread (or completely if it's that difficult).

This is the ONLY warning I'll leave in this thread and the next time we start getting personal, pointing fingers, and being rude we will close the thread and most likely give the remaining offenders some time OFF from the forum.

I hope that's clear and leaves no grey area for those who insist in arguing and debating rules & regulations (forum, FAA, or otherwise . . .)

**********************************************************************************

I *FULLY* endorse that approach!

I've run a private email list for 25 years, and the only rule is that you can't insult anyone on the list, while posting to the list. Repeat violations are subject to being suspended from, or banished from, the list.

However, insulting *IDEAS*, instead of people, isn't just acceptable. It's encouraged!

Attacking ideas is fine on my list. Attacking people, isn't.

Thx!

TCS

 

[NG Wildman]

Throwing in my 2 cents here
VLOS and BVLOS are pretty clear. But it's not just the distance, it's the responsible and controlled operation of the AC.
In a court of law (USA) generally speaking things will often come down to 'what would a reasonable person think, do say etc.'. for that reason I (being reasonable (in my mind anyway)) would say flying safely under the height limit and up to about 1500' in distance in about MY limit and here is why: just because I can see the drone, does not mean I can see its inclination, what direction it is pointed nor if there is another AC or animal just past my drone (which is still within VLOS) that I am unable to see. And that could potentially make things unsafe. There will probably never be a razor sharp answer here and if you had a good attorney that may be able to argue intent etc., things may be even more blurred. As for me, I may or may not have flown around a water tower for example where I lost VLOS for a moment and I believe that to be technically wrong to do. What I look at (too) is even if you are within the rules and determined not to be at fault; I you cause property damage or personal injury, you still have to live with that. Part of my property has a 400' ceiling and part has 200'. If I was flying legally at 400' and a plane was incorrectly off its glide path and my drone caused damage...1st I would have been responsible to yield way to a manned aircraft, but even if found not to be at fault; I would never think that I was not responsible. My point being just because you can does not mean you should AND just because it is not permitted does not mean you can't. Use you heads and don't put yourself in a situation to need to worry about it.

 

[MARK (LI)]

I've not read the numerous posts on this forum where pilots lost control nearby but out of VLOS. If I had, perhaps I would not have asked the question. Since I've not read these posts, perhaps someone could explain a scenario to me, where I'm a foot off the ground in clear airspace on my own property with no structures or people around for miles, within a few hundred feet. of the RC, and then I end up causing harm to someone or something. That's really my question.

This happened to me last March...my first drone was a Phantom2+ that I bought used.........I was in y own yard and got it off the ground...a little higher than your 1 foot scenario...maybe 3 feet high, absolutely no wind ......I was a few feet away from it and was looking at the screen trying to figure out some setting....I could see the drone out of the corner of my eye ......I was holding the controller in my hands...not touching the sticks or the wheel at all...I noticed the drone moving...it was going up and to its right...I had it facing me, so to my left.....I grabbed the stick to bring it down, but it had a mind of its own...it continues to rise and move laterally , fairly slowly until it hit a tree branch at which time it came down hard breaking a prop guard, the prop and the gimbal...the battery also popped out of it ...if it hadn't hit the tree it would have kept going into something else like a neighbor's house...or an aircraft in the distance or just continued till the battery died and it would have fallen ...possibly on someone...is that the kind of situation you were asking about?

The rules have to be uniform and apply to all situations, they are for everyone's safety, and they apply to everyone .....they have been explained to you....I could be going out on a limb here, but it just sounds to me like you want to argue about the regs and your obvious opinion that they are an over reach by the FAA.....

 

[Meta4]

I grabbed the stick to bring it down, but it had a mind of its own...it continues to rise and move laterally , fairly slowly until it hit a tree branch ...i f it hadn't hit the tree it would have kept going into something else like a neighbor's house...or an aircraft in the distance

Drones don't fly around all by themselves.
Hands off the sticks and they just sit there waiting for your control inputs.
There will have been a cause of the incident you described and it's likely the flight data would show what that was.

or just continued till the battery died and it would have fallen ...possibly on someone

Your drone won't just fall from the sky when the battery gets low.
On reaching critical low voltage levels, it will autoland to prevent such a thing happening.

 

[MARK (LI)]

@Meta4 , I am familiar with your past posts and realize that you think you know everything....and I have asked you in PMs to just ignore me ...As you were not there you are just stating an opinion...anything mechanical is capable of a malfunction....it was a Phantom...not as sophisticated as more modern drones...and when I did apply pressure to the stick to bring it down...it did not respond at all...as I said...it happened slowly ...I had time to react and the controls did nothing

 

[Dangerly]

it just sounds to me like you want to argue about the regs and your obvious opinion that they are an over reach by the FAA.....

I have no opinion about the FAA regulations at this time as I am relatively ignorant as to all the issues. I wrote:

"I'm trying to understand the limits of the FAA's authority over private property"

I understand you think this implies I think the regulations are an overreach, but I honestly don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion on that question. I do know that the Causby SCOTUS decision that created the doctrine to protect landowner rights while giving aircraft the right to fly over private property includes this interesting bit:

“If the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. . . . The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.”

 

[AnzacJack]

the number 1 thing relating to aviation safety is situational awareness. If you cant see the craft, how can you possibly have any awareness of the situation?

 

[Meta4]

.As you were not there you are just stating an opinion

What you'd like to dismiss as "opinion" was completely factual.
My understanding of what drones can (and cannot) do, and how they are programmed comes from painstaking analyisis of the recorded flight data from hundreds of incidents like yours, going back to 2015 and is backed up with thousands of incident-free miles of professional flying.

That experience has also shown that inexperienced flyers frequently don't understand what actually happened in their flight incidents, and often are mistaken about what actually happened and why.

Without that experience, your opinion of the incident is an uninformed and incorrect guess.

I understand that you have very little regard for anything I say, but I'm explaining that your incident couldn't have happened the way you described hoping that other new flyers don't get the wrong impression about flight incidents.
There will have been a simple reason for the incident and the cause is most likely to be found in the recorded flight data.

 

[MARK (LI)]

You are wrong when you say I have little regard....the fact is I have no regard for what you think or say or, as in this case your stated opinion....get over yourself ......you do not know everything ...that is just another one of your opinions

 

[dirkclod]

Guys let’s reread post #41. Now with that in mind this is over.
This is closed till @BigAl07 reads what has been posted since his
post then it may be reopened or not.
dc

 

[BigAl07]

That's ALL folks