Filmed the M2P with the MPP

[BingErr]

Testing out the Hyperlapse feature on my new Mavic 2 Pro, but I realized I get really bored waiting 20 minutes for the Hyperlapse to complete. So I brought along my Mavic Pro Platinum to get shots of the M2P in flight. Having a lot of fun so far with this new amazing drone.

Video is a mix of MPP and M2P shots.

 

[Neil Reid]

Holy cow- this is what I'd love to be able to do. Love the drone to drone shots- brilliant. Very creative uses of light- the props spinning slowly on the ground bring mood and interest. Nice sound track. Well done indeed and thanks for posting!

 

[Bob1956]

Flying over traffic , businesses, homes and people. Not good.

 

[BingErr]

Holy cow- this is what I'd love to be able to do. Love the drone to drone shots- brilliant. Very creative uses of light- the props spinning slowly on the ground bring mood and interest. Nice sound track. Well done indeed and thanks for posting!

Thanks man.

 

[Neil Reid]

Flying over traffic , businesses, homes and people. Not good.

He was at a pretty significant altitude with zero dwell time at any point. It's legal in the U.S. to fly over traffic as I understand it. There weren't any crowds he flew over, and if you look closely, the four people he launched from included his significant other and the guy with the drone- you can see his controller and all seemed pretty cool about it. He wasn't over them, it looked like a dronie shot, ie., moving up and away. The other couple earlier in the shot, was again, the drone guy and his girl.

Honest question: what was illegal or uncool about this vid?

 

[BingErr]

He was at a pretty significant altitude with zero dwell time at any point. It's legal in the U.S. to fly over traffic as I understand it. There weren't any crowds he flew over, and if you look closely, the four people he launched from included his significant other and the guy with the drone- you can see his controller and all seemed pretty cool about it. He wasn't over them, it looked like a dronie shot, ie., moving up and away. The other couple earlier in the shot, was again, the drone guy and his girl.

Honest question: what was illegal or uncool about this vid?

Yes, the people standing at the end were all participants in the video.

 

[Bob1956]

The way I’m interpreting part 107 it’s illegal to fly over any non participant who is not in a stationary covered structure. People in cars are in a covered structure but they’re not stationary. People in the parking lots and yards and cars were all willing participants of this video?
I found this video very uncool. Exactly the kind of thing that invites more laws and restrictions

 

[dirkclod]

He was at a pretty significant altitude with zero dwell time at any point. It's legal in the U.S. to fly over traffic as I understand it. There weren't any crowds he flew over, and if you look closely, the four people he launched from included his significant other and the guy with the drone- you can see his controller and all seemed pretty cool about it. He wasn't over them, it looked like a dronie shot, ie., moving up and away. The other couple earlier in the shot, was again, the drone guy and his girl.

Honest question: what was illegal or uncool about this vid?

Have you ever did a hyper lapse. Like at the beginning.
have you any idea how long that takes. I do. Im not up
on the legalities like a lot @BigAl07 is but before anything
is posted that is incorrect I hope he sees my flag and see
what he thinks.

 

[BingErr]

The way I’m interpreting part 107 it’s illegal to fly over any non participant who is not in a stationary covered structure. People in cars are in a covered structure but they’re not stationary. People in the parking lots and yards and cars were all willing participants of this video?
I found this video very uncool. Exactly the kind of thing that invites more laws and restrictions

It's all good. I respect that you shared your opinion. I feel the FAA intentionally makes their rules murky to enforce them as they want. A previous clarification stated that a vehicle provides enough protection from a potential falling drone. If this has ever been taken to court that would provide clarification. Has it? Has the FAA ever prosecuted a hobby pilot for flying over a moving car?

 

[Bob1956]

There’s always a first time

 

[BigAl07]

Lots of very bad (and very wrong) information in this one short thread. Let's take it one step at a time and see if we can't clear this up.

Flying over traffic , businesses, homes and people. Not good.

You are spot on sir. Not good is exactly right.

He was at a pretty significant altitude with zero dwell time at any point. It's legal in the U.S. to fly over traffic as I understand it. There weren't any crowds he flew over, and if you look closely, the four people he launched from included his significant other and the guy with the drone- you can see his controller and all seemed pretty cool about it. He wasn't over them, it looked like a dronie shot, ie., moving up and away. The other couple earlier in the shot, was again, the drone guy and his girl.

The Federal Regulations offer on "allowance" for increased altitudes, reduced/eliminated dwell times or any such fluff. Flying over PEOPLE is flying over PEOPLE period. If you fly over a pinky toe you are flying over a PERSON.

While it does not appear you flew directly over "the other drone guy and his girl" there is no way you didn't fly over SOME people during the making of that video.

Honest question: what was illegal or uncool about this vid?

What's illegal? Flying over traffic like that is VERY illegal and down right reckless as all get out.

Yes, the people standing at the end were all participants in the video.

Just to be clear... if you're going to hang your tail feathers on the legality of this you need to know how to state it. "Participants" in a video is not an allowance for the regulations. The only people who can be "Flown Over" are people that are part of your "Crew".... Pilot, Visual Observer, Safety Officer etc. Technically you can train people to be Visual Observers and fly over them all you want but if there is an incident they'd better be able to corroborate your story.

Contrary to what many try to "Sell" on the inter-web..... signing waivers, releases, and anything else does NOT allow the RPIC to fly over people.

It's all good. I respect that you shared your opinion. I feel the FAA intentionally makes their rules murky to enforce them as they want. A previous clarification stated that a vehicle provides enough protection from a potential falling drone. If this has ever been taken to court that would provide clarification. Has it? Has the FAA ever prosecuted a hobby pilot for flying over a moving car?

The FAA sincerely desires to make the rules easier but it's just the fact that AVIATION SAFETY is not something that can be simplified. If you're going to play with the big boys in the sky you gotta play by the rules.

Oh... so since no one has been prosecuted (That we are aware of) that justifies the illegal actions? Also the problem with your theory is what happens if the falling sUAS causes a distraction to the vehicle doing 60mph and they then cause an accident..... Is it then still OK to fly your toy over moving traffic and for extended periods of time and distance.

Here's a heart felt suggestion to you.... If I were in your shoes I would absolutely remove that video from the internet ASAP. All it would take would be an anonymous email or phone call to the ABC Dept and an investigation would come about. You've given authorities more than enough to make contact with you and with the amount if flying over moving vehicles at highway speeds is more than enough to suggest more than "just" education.

 

[BingErr]

Lots of very bad (and very wrong) information in this one short thread. Let's take it one step at a time and see if we can't clear this up.


You are spot on sir. Not good is exactly right.


The Federal Regulations offer on "allowance" for increased altitudes, reduced/eliminated dwell times or any such fluff. Flying over PEOPLE is flying over PEOPLE period. If you fly over a pinky toe you are flying over a PERSON.

While it does not appear you flew directly over "the other drone guy and his girl" there is no way you didn't fly over SOME people during the making of that video.


What's illegal? Flying over traffic like that is VERY illegal and down right reckless as all get out.


Just to be clear... if you're going to hang your tail feathers on the legality of this you need to know how to state it. "Participants" in a video is not an allowance for the regulations. The only people who can be "Flown Over" are people that are part of your "Crew".... Pilot, Visual Observer, Safety Officer etc. Technically you can train people to be Visual Observers and fly over them all you want but if there is an incident they'd better be able to corroborate your story.

Contrary to what many try to "Sell" on the inter-web..... signing waivers, releases, and anything else does NOT allow the RPIC to fly over people.



The FAA sincerely desires to make the rules easier but it's just the fact that AVIATION SAFETY is not something that can be simplified. If you're going to play with the big boys in the sky you gotta play by the rules.

Oh... so since no one has been prosecuted (That we are aware of) that justifies the illegal actions? Also the problem with your theory is what happens if the falling sUAS causes a distraction to the vehicle doing 60mph and they then cause an accident..... Is it then still OK to fly your toy over moving traffic and for extended periods of time and distance.

Here's a heart felt suggestion to you.... If I were in your shoes I would absolutely remove that video from the internet ASAP. All it would take would be an anonymous email or phone call to the ABC Dept and an investigation would come about. You've given authorities more than enough to make contact with you and with the amount if flying over moving vehicles at highway speeds is more than enough to suggest more than "just" education.

Thanks, good info. I'll try to read the entire post when I have enough time. Thanks for watching and commenting.

 

[BingErr]

Oh... so since no one has been prosecuted (That we are aware of) that justifies the illegal actions? Also the problem with your theory is what happens if the falling sUAS causes a distraction to the vehicle doing 60mph and they then cause an accident..... Is it then still OK to fly your toy over moving traffic and for extended periods of time and distance.

Still researching this topic but in the meantime I'd like to make it clear that I was NOT saying it was legal because it hasn't been prosecuted. I was simply stating that if there was a case of an FAA fine or ruling that it would make a great resource. So far I have found none, so that's a bummer.

But, what is unclear to me still is the difference between Part 107 flight and Recreational Flight. So far all the information shared here is for Part 107. When you look at the rules regarding Recreational Flight the closest rule is "Never fly over groups of people, public events, or stadiums full of people." To me, flying over buildings, houses, and businesses (if they aren't busy) are all fair game. People in cars is debatable, but your guys make some valid points that even if this is acceptable by Recreational Flight standards it could be dangerous if the drone caused a distracted driver. But if a driver can see a drone a few hundred feet in the air they obviously aren't paying attention to the road in front of them.

Thank you to everyone for sharing the Part 107 rules that were applicable. I'll continue to research hobby flight over roads and cars. Any non-Part 107 information on flying over traffic welcome. Thanks

 

[BigAl07]

Still researching this topic but in the meantime I'd like to make it clear that I was NOT saying it was legal because it hasn't been prosecuted. I was simply stating that if there was a case of an FAA fine or ruling that it would make a great resource. So far I have found none, so that's a bummer.

But, what is unclear to me still is the difference between Part 107 flight and Recreational Flight. So far all the information shared here is for Part 107. When you look at the rules regarding Recreational Flight the closest rule is "Never fly over groups of people, public events, or stadiums full of people." To me, flying over buildings, houses, and businesses (if they aren't busy) are all fair game. People in cars is debatable, but your guys make some valid points that even if this is acceptable by Recreational Flight standards it could be dangerous if the drone caused a distracted driver. But if a driver can see a drone a few hundred feet in the air they obviously aren't paying attention to the road in front of them.

Thank you to everyone for sharing the Part 107 rules that were applicable. I'll continue to research hobby flight over roads and cars. Any non-Part 107 information on flying over traffic welcome. Thanks

In regards to Hobby/Recreational flight we are in sort of a "half way there" type of situation as the rules are still being developed and as such currently incomplete from a purely technical stand point. The FAA has built several "opportunities" into their rules allowing more reach and enforcement in some areas. One such curcumstance falls in at #3 which states:
Follow the safety guidelines of a community based organization.

Currently there is only one such CBO although I suspect this could change in the future. Just for fun here's the one existing/acknowledged CBO's guidelines that comes into play in your flight:

"I will not fly a model aircraft in a careless or reckless manner. "
How could flying directly over and hovering over traffic NOT be considered careless or reckless? Also local laws about careless and reckless behavior could (most likely would) come into play here with your local authorities.
" I will avoid flying directly over unprotected people, moving vehicles, and occupied structures. "
Now I do believe "occupied structures" is a bit of a wide sweeping term and needs to be clearly defined.... but the rest of it is pretty cut-n-dried. Moving Vehicles is pretty straight forward a NO-NO.

Why not just take this directly to the "Horse's Mouth" and contact your local FSDO (now called FSO) and run the scenario by them. To be fair and honest describe to them exactly what you did (or maybe word it as something you MIGHT plan to do) and paint an accurate description of what your video entails. I wouldn't actually "show" them the video though as it's not going to fair well for you in that instance. At the very least you'll get some "educational time" with an FAA representative and worse case... who knows....

Just to help you out here's a link to where you can get the contact information for your local FSO:

Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO)

www.faa.gov

Here are some links to the items I've quoted above:

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/105.pdf

 

[nd4wmike]

Very irresponsible and unsafe for the public.

 

[Teddy warrick]

Omg every time someone puts up a video there someone that is just got to be the police in the sky I guess if you have nothing better in life to do but to tell someone you shouldn’t do that or this how about taking care of yours and I will take care of mine.Good Video man if you go online there is all kinds of videos were people are flying over roads.If you live where I do you will fly over them or sell your drone there is no other way to fly.Im so glad I sold my DJI stuff and went to Autel it’s not as much of this stuff.being said on the Autel Evo form.....

 

[kwilliams6045]

If you ever have questions...just call the FAA. I have called on a number of occasions and I have always been able to speak with someone who can explain whether your mission would be in violation of FAA regulations.
I will say that many parts of your video definitely without a doubt shows FAA rule violations. I’m not sure if you’re a 107 pilot or not but if you are, you could jeopardize your rating. If not, the FAA would most likely just educate you on the violations. Had your UAS failed and struck a vehicle or person, you’d be held liable and you could be charged with a crime for being reckless. If your drone hit a windshield, causing an accident and possibly death, you could be charged with a state law under a “reckless” statute.

 

[BigAl07]

Omg every time someone puts up a video there someone that is just got to be the police in the sky I guess if you have nothing better in life to do but to tell someone you shouldn’t do that or this how about taking care of yours and I will take care of mine..........

"Omg...." seriously?

Some of us have more "skin in the game" that others and increased regulations can directly affect our income and putting food on the table.

And it needs to be said that the FAA has repeatedly asked us to "Poilice Ourselves" which we are doing a very poor job of.

So yes trying to educate fellow sUAS operators is something many of us "do" and in many ways it is still "Taking care of yours"........

As far as I can recall "education" hasn't hurt anyone and this thread has been an excellent opportunity for many people to learn and expand their sUAS knowledge. Is that really such a bad thing? REALLY?

........Im so glad I sold my DJI stuff and went to Autel it’s not as much of this stuff.being said on the Autel Evo form.....

This is not a DJI problem is just happens that DJI has a LARGE portion of the market shares so more DJI users are participating. I happen to fly more than a half dozen different brands but the irony is the regulations are not BRAND specific.

 

[BingErr]

In regards to Hobby/Recreational flight we are in sort of a "half way there" type of situation as the rules are still being developed and as such currently incomplete from a purely technical stand point. The FAA has built several "opportunities" into their rules allowing more reach and enforcement in some areas. One such curcumstance falls in at #3 which states:
Follow the safety guidelines of a community based organization.

Currently there is only one such CBO although I suspect this could change in the future. Just for fun here's the one existing/acknowledged CBO's guidelines that comes into play in your flight:

"I will not fly a model aircraft in a careless or reckless manner. "
How could flying directly over and hovering over traffic NOT be considered careless or reckless? Also local laws about careless and reckless behavior could (most likely would) come into play here with your local authorities.
" I will avoid flying directly over unprotected people, moving vehicles, and occupied structures. "
Now I do believe "occupied structures" is a bit of a wide sweeping term and needs to be clearly defined.... but the rest of it is pretty cut-n-dried. Moving Vehicles is pretty straight forward a NO-NO.

Why not just take this directly to the "Horse's Mouth" and contact your local FSDO (now called FSO) and run the scenario by them. To be fair and honest describe to them exactly what you did (or maybe word it as something you MIGHT plan to do) and paint an accurate description of what your video entails. I wouldn't actually "show" them the video though as it's not going to fair well for you in that instance. At the very least you'll get some "educational time" with an FAA representative and worse case... who knows....

Just to help you out here's a link to where you can get the contact information for your local FSO:

Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO)

www.faa.gov

Here are some links to the items I've quoted above:

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/105.pdf

That's good info. I plan to call and ask them how they feel about flights over roadways (parallel vs perpendicular) Thanks again!

 

[Pete Rachz]

Very nice video, more of this..