Could this be legal?

[JD2020]

I just bought a Mavic 2 Zoom. I've been watching a lot of YouTube videos about how to fly, and some that just show flights. In one, a guy flies his drone over three miles down a very busy road lined with skyscrapers in in a large city. I suppose it is sort of "line of site" in some sense in that he could see all the way to where the drone was, but I don't now how he could see it at all over three miles away (or even over one mile away). He said he had a strobe, but I didn't see one, and that wouldn't make it visible that far away, I don't think (but I don't know that). I know that I've flown my Mavic Zoom about 1000' away at about 80' high, and it was becoming difficult to see even at that distance.

He flew over 400', but near the very tall buildings, which I guess may be allowed? I don't want to link to the video. I don't want to get anyone in trouble. I'm just trying to understand what is permissible. I don't think I'd ever try a flight like this, but, if it's legal, it would make me more comfortable with much shorter flights that I might be willing to try. I guess I tend to see my drone as a flying hazard and intend to be overly cautious with it.

 

[ac0j]

Thats a tough question. A real grey area so to speak. If the streets below were crowded, that was probably not a good idea. I wouldnt do it.

 

[dondi]

does the flying distance really matter ?

 

[TrayBoz]

For what it's worth, there are THOUSANDS of videos on YouTube of people doing illegal things. There are thousands of drone videos of people not following FAA regulations and rules.

I wouldn't make any decisions regarding where to fly your drone based on what you've seen on YouTube.

For that matter, I would make very few personal decisions in life on ANY matter based on what I've seen on YouTube.

 

[RaptorMan_M2Z]

Im a new M2Z owner also and new to the UAS community, though back in the day my father and I as a child were associated with our local AMA club and flew a fixed winged RC. But back to the question, from what Ive been able to make out with local current laws which are so ever changing. The LoS ( Line of Sight ) could be a area of debate and Id think FAA and other law enforcement agencies would lean to say that was the 1st error in judgement. the hight, the GRT ( general rule of thumb ) is no higher than 400' AGL ( Above Ground Level ) or you are in a 400' radius of a structure and then you can go 400' above said structure according to the FAA law 14CFR107, and the only grey area there is 14CFR91119C section A limits how close a helicopter can fly around such things as a radio tower so not sure if they combine UAS's in with helicopters or not. Also keep in mine that class Echo air space is off limits and that starts at 1200' so even with this rule saying you can go 400' taller then some structure just keep in mind air space classification and restrictions. So with that said the ceiling for a UAS would then be 1199' but ethically Im not sure why anyone would want to hit that ceiling with a hobbist UAS. Also last factor is whats the condition of said area will you be flying over people/ a crowd? Remember IMHO a responsible UAS pilot shouldnt fly over crowds for the rare accident potential, Again saftey IMHO should trump the right given to do something. Only other thing I would say is use common sense and ALWAYS air on the side of caution. If you have to ask or ponder if your doing the right thing I'd advise do not do it, until you research and ensure you follow the CYA protocol.

 

[bushie]

What country are you in? This is an international forum and laws differ from country to country.

 

[gnirtS]

The have prosecuted some people in the UK for them being stupid enough to film breaking the law and putting the evidence on youtube/facebook.

 

[BrandonBelew]

I'd be amazed if someones vision was good enough to see something the size of a DJI drone a mile away un-aided, let along 3.

 

[Daleini Torrin]

From what I remember when getting my FAA cert, the answer to this question has a big "if" involved.....
- If they got the appropriate waivers/approvals to fly in the city, then it would not be illegal. To fly in a congested city, they would likely need to get some or all of the following waivers/approvals: beyond line of sight, airports nearby, flying over people, flying during the night, etc
I can't recall all of the waivers and approvals needed, that's just the gist of the ones I can recall.

 

[gnirtS]

I'd be amazed if someones vision was good enough to see something the size of a DJI drone a mile away un-aided, let along 3.

UK guidelines for LOS are "about 400m" or used to be as a guideline. The law is "Line of sight" but the previous laws gave guideline examples.

 

[okw]

UK guidelines for LOS are "about 400m" or used to be as a guideline. The law is "Line of sight" but the previous laws gave guideline examples.

That interesting. I can see the Mavic that far out without my glasses on. And over a half mile with them. Much further at night.

 

[gnirtS]

LOS isnt you can see "IT".
The intent of the law is you can see it, its orientation AND any potential hazards approaching it.
If the mavic is a tiny dot in the distance you cant see its orientation (for control purposes) and certainly couldnt claim to see hazards beyond it.
As for night flying, outside the US its illegal in most places.

 

[shotes]

From what I remember when getting my FAA cert, the answer to this question has a big "if" involved.....
- If they got the appropriate waivers/approvals to fly in the city, then it would not be illegal. To fly in a congested city, they would likely need to get some or all of the following waivers/approvals: beyond line of sight, airports nearby, flying over people, flying during the night, etc
I can't recall all of the waivers and approvals needed, that's just the gist of the ones I can recall.

In the U.S. the FAA does not issue waivers for flying over people or line of sight. But at twilight a strobe can be seen at a mile.

It is possible to find places to launch in a city to get stationary downtown views. Simply launch on an empty public space next to an empty construction site. As long as that construction site is next to a tall building the drone can fly building height plus 400, assuming no low clouds.

Flying down a river might provide a moving image legally if the river is empty of traffic.

In either of the above scenarios there is a significant chance of the police being called.

 

[Daleini Torrin]

In the U.S. the FAA does not issue waivers for flying over people or line of sight. But at twilight a strobe can be seen at a mile.

It is possible to find places to launch in a city to get stationary downtown views. Simply launch on an empty public space next to an empty construction site. As long as that construction site is next to a tall building the drone can fly building height plus 400, assuming no low clouds.

Flying down a river might provide a moving image legally if the river is empty of traffic.

In either of the above scenarios there is a significant chance of the police being called.

The FAA does issue waivers. See this website for reference on waivers for FAA Part 107:
Request a Part 107 Waiver or Operation in Controlled Airspace

 

[shotes]

The FAA does issue waivers. See this website for reference on waivers for FAA Part 107:
Request a Part 107 Waiver or Operation in Controlled Airspace

They issue waivers for night flying. The only known waiver for flying over people is a single waiver for a single event issued to CNN AFAIK. You will never get a waiver for flying over people, it is extremely unlikely you would ever get a waiver for line of sight. Unless you perhaps own a deserted and fenced island where you will contain your operation.

 

[Daleini Torrin]

They issue waivers for night flying. The only known waiver for flying over people is a single waiver for a single event issued to CNN AFAIK. You will never get a waiver for flying over people, it is extremely unlikely you would ever get a waiver for line of sight. Unless you perhaps own a deserted and fenced island where you will contain your operation.

Part 107 Waivers Granted
Search "107.39" without quotes. That is the waiver for Operation Over Human Beings
Search "107.31" without quotes. That is the waiver for Visual Line of Sight
This method of searching the FAA website will ensure the results show all the waivers issued.

While I agree that not many have been issued, and that there need to be very specific circumstances for them to be issued, they do issue them, definitely more than one, in both situations. No disrespect meant at all, from any of this, if that's how it can be taken. And yes, I agree, extremely unlikely for a single person to get a 107.39/107.31 waiver, but then again, it really does depend on circumstances. All that being said, we're getting off topic of the primary question at hand, "is it legal?". While it can be legal, it takes a lot of effort to obtain the appropriate waivers to be done legally as an individual. If done as part of a company/business, with the appropriate need/requirements met, then it can be done.

My personal opinion on most of the youtube videos and such of drones flying over cities, during night, etc, is that they have not obtained approval or a waiver to do so and are thus, operating illegally. I doubt the FAA has the resources to track down every single drone video posted, verify the legality, and pursue the person who did it, it's just not feasible in my mind.

Hope this helps and we've straightened out any miscommunications.

 

[shotes]

The intent of the law is you can see it, its orientation AND any potential hazards approaching it.

It's interesting to me that a drone can arguably be flown farther under regulation in poor light than during the day. At a quarter mile with strobes during twilight I can easily see a drone and orientation at a quarter mile. During the day it's a small dot I might lose it momentarily against a dark tree.

I'm struggle with how I want to use strobes in the lower light I often shoot. I know strobes will result in more police calls in some rural areas I like to shoot. I've started testing strobes on the top of the drone to reduce the light effect for viewers low and nearer the craft.

The concepts of strobes and stealth are in conflict. I probably need to explore bright lights that can be switched off.

 

[Mossiback]

Is it legal? The legality debate will go back and forth depending on location, permits, and circumstances. The better question is whether it is smart and safe. In this case; "over three miles down a very busy road lined with skyscrapers in a large city", is neither smart or safe. You should never fly down a busy road and you should always keep your Mavic in visual contact.

 

[4wd]

The have prosecuted some people in the UK for them being stupid enough to film breaking the law and putting the evidence on youtube/facebook.

I can only think of one and he was flying over crowded football stadiums.
I suspect the TV rights people were edgy and pushing things along.

 

[shotes]

Is it legal? The legality debate will go back and forth depending on location, permits, and circumstances. The better question is whether it is smart and safe. In this case; "over three miles down a very busy road lined with skyscrapers in a large city", is neither smart or safe. You should never fly down a busy road and you should always keep your Mavic in visual contact.

Well, if we are being "legal" you can fly down a busy road if all heads are covered by a roof. An expressway in winter should be legal if I recall the rules correctly.

Smart is another matter. For non-commercial use I don't know why the potential cost would be more than the benefit of getting the shot.