FAA gives CV police permission to fly below LOS

Photo Booth · Jul 9, 2020

The FAA has granted permission to the Chula Vista Police Dept (San Diego County) to fly their drones below line of sight when necessary in an emergency situation. It is the first such FAA waiver issued to a police dept in the U.S.

Chula Vista police get OK to lose sight of drones in low-to-the-ground spots

CHULA VISTA — Chula Vista police now have federal permission to fly drones in low-to-the-ground areas where they may lose sight of them — maybe in backyards, under tarps and o…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Mark

CactusJackSlade · Jul 9, 2020

"beyond line of sight" I assume you meant?

Photo Booth · Jul 9, 2020

CactusJackSlade said:
"beyond line of sight" I assume you meant?

Nope. Below line of sight is more accurate. See article.

Phantomrain.org · Jul 9, 2020

Interesting:

The newest FAA waiver is for tactical uses in an immediate area. It allows the drone to fly not just out of sight of the operator and it must stay below 50 feet. It also must remain within 1,500 feet of the pilot.

dirkclod · Jul 9, 2020

Any tool they can use to protect a officer i’m 100% for.

bcfd29 · Jul 9, 2020

Presumably these will start to become more common resulting in "standing exemptions" to public safety entities so that they may operate without waiting for an FAA event/incident specific clearance during emergencies.

Most public safety agencies/entities train to a level of competence defined in a standard developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) whose title is "NFPA 2400: Standard for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems". This document was created by stakeholders from all areas of public safety (including police), and includes competencies and skills defined for pre-flight, mission planning, flight, maintenance, training, operator/observer certification, etc.

It goes well beyond FAA 107 and related regs to better define specific skill sets (and ways to measure competency) for the tactical use and deployment of these assets, so that this specific user group has a higher bar to follow, and these resources can be used safely and to best advantage.

The standard can be read online by anyone on the NFPA web site if you have an interest (NFPA.org or search NFPA2400) and anyone can submit comments as the standard is revised on a regular basis (typically every three years).

Cw4bray · Jul 9, 2020

I don't know why the police would bother requesting a waiver other than for the reason of "testing the waters". As a "public use" entity their vehicles are exempt from FAR's.

https://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapter%2014/03_014_001.htm#:~:text=The%20FAA%20Administrator%20has%20the,clearly%20in%20the%20public%20interest

.

THE CYBORG · Jul 9, 2020

I like this part
“Another example of when it would be appropriate to use a drone in this way is when person with a gun ducks behind a building. “We don’t want to stick our head around a building to see if they are still there,” Redmond said. “We would rather fly a drone behind the building.”
Good point.

Photo Booth · Jul 9, 2020

The Chula Vista city council approved $37,000 for the police to add one more drone to its program. That's a pretty darn expensive drone.

Mark

brett8883 · Jul 9, 2020

Cw4bray said:
I don't know why the police would bother requesting a waiver other than for the reason of "testing the waters". As a "public use" entity their vehicles are exempt from FAR's.

https://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V03%20Tech%20Admin/Chapter%2014/03_014_001.htm#:~:text=The%20FAA%20Administrator%20has%20the,clearly%20in%20the%20public%20interest
.

Yea that was what I thought too. Does anybody understand why LE would need this type of waiver to conduct the type of operations they mention in the article.

My understanding was that if LE used a drone to see what a guy ducking behind a building with a gun id doing that would be exempt as a public aircraft operation.

Frankly even under part 107 allows this for brief periods of time.”Brief” being purposefully vague.