Fly over traffic at 200 ft???

[kensteele]

Agreed - but having attempted, unsuccessfully, to reason with this particular poster multiple times, and counter at least some of the completely false information that he just keeps dumping on this forum, I've ended up just being blunt with him. He happily admits that he doesn't bother to research anything, doesn't bother to fact check, and doesn't even bother to read the threads before posting.

It's reasonable to discuss the intent of the "don't fly over people" rule, including how it applies to flying over traffic and whether it means don't fly across a road or don't linger over traffic, but here he posts a video that shows neither of those actions while claiming that it shows both, and then tries to argue that the rule makes no sense.

well that's disappointing. after coming back from celebrating independence in my country with all freedom-loving americans, i find the personal attacks from you continue because you are angry and can't get your way and i won't listen to you. in so many other previous posts you happily admit you don't like recreational pilots and you don't love your country and that you hate the rights and freedoms all americans enjoy especially when they exercise them. which is why you probably had a lousy day yesterday and on july 4th set off with personal attacks on other americans just because they frequently redresses their government and exercises their rights which is often not pretty.

just give it up, you're not going to "reason" with me because that would mean caving in to the rules and regulations that i don't want or like. my rights can be reasoned away and attempts to do so will cause a lot of friction. i joined this forum to participate and get educated and upon finding other people who's opinions and styles differ than my own, sometimes there's going to be a clash. but at least i know how to handle it before i go over the edge.

i also found there's not a lot of fight in this forum (more like go along to get along) and in fact, there are calls for even more government rules and even bigger fines and penalties. i come from a generation that knows you have to fight for your rights, nobody is going to just hand them to you; they will be taken if you look away for even a second. everyone here, we're big boys, nobody is getting dumped on. just chill.

 

[sar104]

well that's disappointing. after coming back from celebrating independence in my country with all freedom-loving americans, i find the personal attacks from you continue because you are angry and can't get your way and i won't listen to you. in so many other previous posts you happily admit you don't like recreational pilots and you don't love your country and that you hate the rights and freedoms all americans enjoy especially when they exercise them. which is why you probably had a lousy day yesterday and on july 4th set off with personal attacks on other americans just because they frequently redresses their government and exercises their rights which is often not pretty.

just give it up, you're not going to "reason" with me because that would mean caving in to the rules and regulations that i don't want or like. my rights can be reasoned away and attempts to do so will cause a lot of friction. i joined this forum to participate and get educated and upon finding other people who's opinions and styles differ than my own, sometimes there's going to be a clash. but at least i know how to handle it before i go over the edge.

i also found there's not a lot of fight in this forum (more like go along to get along) and in fact, there are calls for even more government rules and even bigger fines and penalties. i come from a generation that knows you have to fight for your rights, nobody is going to just hand them to you; they will be taken if you look away for even a second. everyone here, we're big boys, nobody is getting dumped on. just chill.

You are correct that it is impossible to reason with you, and that's not why I bother responding to you - it's to try to offset the constant nonsense that you post and reduce the risk that others inadvertently end up misinformed.

I won't dignify the rest of your post with a response since it has nothing to do with the subject of the forum.

 

[Skyflypilotman]

If I may intercede. This sounds like a topic I just did a segment about our channel.
Have a look.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BerndM]

Well, the way I read into the rule, its ok to do over a moving vehicle as long as it’s a stationary truck making deliveries for a stationary store.

Hmmm....looks like you MAY have found a loophole in the rules. Good job.

 

[AirShark]

A lot of rules are put in place because many people lack logic or common sense. Every week there are multiple posts of drones falling out of the sky on this very site. One could always apply for a waiver. Or maybe these rules should have triggers like " after so many accident's".

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

you're not going to "reason" with me because that would mean caving in to the rules and regulations that i don't want or like

I just stopped right there — I don't need to see any more.

 

[firstbase]

Well, the way I read into the rule, its ok to do over a moving vehicle as long as it’s a stationary truck making deliveries for a stationary store.

Sorry, have to be a little of a spelling nazi...

Stationary - fixed, not moving
Stationery - having to do with writing, paper, etc.

I guess pretty much ALL stores are stationary stores. And you COULD have a stationary truck making a delivery to a stationary store. But...it would never get there. No, I do not have anything better to do than you very much.

 

[BarrySDCA]

It says: "Located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft." A non-stationary vehicle is not one of the options.

Where I am in Carlsbad, California, traffic on the 5 is stationary at rush hour. There is also construction of a new carpool lane going on between the N and S sides of the freeway. The workers are gone by rush hour, it's just a long dirt strip now.

This post got me thinking...hrm...could be fun

 

[kensteele]

I just stopped right there — I don't need to see any more.

"reason" is in quotes for a reason. in this context, my definition of "reason" means: convince me to see things your way by using force. that's what his is trying to do when he means "blunt."

i would hope you can't be "reasoned" with another poster either.

Or maybe these rules should have triggers like " after so many accident's".

yep, two accidents license is suspended; three accidents license is revoked.

but they can't do this because the shame of a registration infrastructure cannot support it.

first enforcement action: $1,000. go up from there.

 

[AirShark]

Actually I meant nation wide, as in two accident's on a highway in the nation and the rule gets enacted nationally. And I was being facetious.

 

[AMann]

Sorry, have to be a little of a spelling nazi...

Stationary - fixed, not moving
Stationery - having to do with writing, paper, etc.

I guess pretty much ALL stores are stationary stores. And you COULD have a stationary truck making a delivery to a stationary store. But...it would never get there. No, I do not have anything better to do than you very much.

Joke killer!!!

Just kiding, but my spell checker said it was write so it must bee! . Well that was embarrassing, know wonder why It got some laughing emojii responses!

 

[firstbase]

Joke killer!!!

Just kiding, but my spell checker said it was write so it must bee! . Well that was embarrassing, know wonder why It got some laughing emojii responses!

Ha! Ask me how I know this little bit of info. Because I did the same thing the other day on another forum. I feel your pain.

 

[Earthman]

I read in the rules/regs where we can to fly over people unless part of the "team" and only if they are under cover (outdoor pavilion etc) and not over people unless in a stationary vehicle. I have got a project which h requires me to map a section of a major interstate (I will be at 200 ft) - can I do it or must I be off to the side?
Thanks

You can 1) be off to the side far enough that if you lose control of the drone it can’t or is very unlikely to hit a moving car, or you might be considered reckless; or 2) you can temporarily close the road during the survey (probably not an option for an interstate); or 3) you can do a ground survey while cars pass, which is dangerous for the surveyors; or 4) you can apply for a waiver of the subject rule.

For the waiver you’ll have to explain in your application how you are going to fly the mission safely, and why flying the mission is safer than Item 3 and why Item 2 isn’t an option. You should also plan to fly the mission on a day with light tragic, consider including highway signage, a parachute and flangers to stop traffic in an emergency, and have $10M of insurance in effect. If you can convince the FAA that flying the mission can be done safely, you may get the waiver.

You could also use conventional aerial mapping with a manned aircraft.

All things considered, you may have a hard time convincing the FAA that flying a drone over moving cars is the best option.

In any case, good luck.

 

[Donnie Frank]

You answered your own question - Part 107 prohibits flying over moving vehicles.

§107.39 Operation over human beings.

No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless that human being is:

(a) Directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft; or​

​

(b) Located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft.​

Funny how we see drone shots directly over traffic in T.V. commercials all the time. And there's no way that many cars is a closed set. Seems the community is fed up with the ridiculous rules and regulations and doing what they need to get the shot anyway.

D

 

[DroningOn]

Funny how we see drone shots directly over traffic in T.V. commercials all the time. And there's no way that many cars is a closed set

Don’t forget local news outlets. In my area, use of drones in news stories have become ubiquitous. They constantly fly over roads and people covering every day stories not to mention flying over peoples houses and lingering over backyards etc. Obviously the FAA doesn’t have a problem with this

 

[sdold]

Funny how we see drone shots directly over traffic in T.V. commercials all the time. And there's no way that many cars is a closed set. Seems the community is fed up with the ridiculous rules and regulations and doing what they need to get the shot anyway.

D

I wouldn't say the "community" (what ever that means) is fed up with the rules because I think they make pretty good sense to most of us. The guys that ignore the important rules like this one are typically not that good, not that sharp, aren't into checking for cracked props or tight batteries, etc etc. Like when an eight year old is given his first pellet gun and continues to fire at the backyard fence even after pop tells him to knock it off. It doesn't occur to him that if he aims a little high or between the pickets it'll go into the next yard and maybe hit the neighbor's kid. To him it seems like a stupid rule because his level of maturity and ability to manage risk doesn't yet match the tool he's been given.

 

[irpnetgb]

A drone does not have to hit the windshield to cause an accident. Just crashing landing in the road may be enough.

Just flying nearby and causing a distraction could be enough!

 

[irpnetgb]

is this considered [unlawful] flying over traffic?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

At no point did I see flying 'over' traffic. Nearby yes, close yes. But NOT over!

 

[irpnetgb]

I read in the rules/regs where we can to fly over people unless part of the "team" and only if they are under cover (outdoor pavilion etc) and not over people unless in a stationary vehicle. I have got a project which h requires me to map a section of a major interstate (I will be at 200 ft) - can I do it or must I be off to the side?
Thanks

Simple answer - no you cannot. you can fly nearby or close but NOT over moving cars. If you really have to map, depending on the locality, what you could do is try very early morning or late at night. Even then, if it a major interstate it will still likely have moving traffic on it. So basically, no!

 

[sar104]

Funny how we see drone shots directly over traffic in T.V. commercials all the time. And there's no way that many cars is a closed set. Seems the community is fed up with the ridiculous rules and regulations and doing what they need to get the shot anyway.

D

I think that you are making way too many assumptions about what you see on television, and I think that you will find that the professional sUAS videographers who shoot those kinds of thing follow the rules to the letter.