Fly over traffic at 200 ft???

[Mastergunz]

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

 

[sar104]

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.​

 

[Starz]

So, would not a “covered structure” include cars on the interstate?
Or because their moving, that changes the terminology?

 

[Mastergunz]

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.​

Thanks - much like I thought but it is what it is.

 

[sar104]

So, would not a “covered structure” include cars on the interstate?
Or because their moving, that changes the terminology?

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.

 

[AMann]

So, would not a “covered structure” include cars on the interstate?
Or because their moving, that changes the terminology?

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.

 

[Hegemone]

Hitting a moving car could lead to an accident due to driver losing control. That's why the distinction between a moving car and a covered space. Just doesn't seem like good practice to fly over any type of moving traffic.

 

[kensteele]

Hitting a moving car could lead to an accident due to driver losing control. That's why the distinction between a moving car and a covered space. Just doesn't seem like good practice to fly over any type of moving traffic.

is that what happens when a bird hits a car? the car loses controls and crashes leading to an accident?

 

[sar104]

is that what happens when a bird hits a car? the car loses controls and crashes leading to an accident?

At typical vehicle speeds, birds rarely (ever?) make it through the windshield, unlike a 1 kg drone. Of course you probably know that, but it doesn't stop you trolling.

 

[Hegemone]

Some times, when it's a big drone sized bird. Small rocks off interstate bridges have kill people. This is obviously an argument of semantics rather then safety and good practice. I should have listened to my inner voice and refrained from commenting. Letter of the law versus intent. To me this is part of the reason drones have a bad reputation. The fliers liberties versus the liberties of those impacted by drones. In my experiences people are more self centered and don't really care how their actions could hurt or endager people.

 

[Starz]

Hitting a moving car could lead to an accident due to driver losing control. That's why the distinction between a moving car and a covered space. Just doesn't seem like good practice to fly over any type of moving traffic.

that was my conclusion

 

[kensteele]

At typical vehicle speeds, birds rarely (ever?) make it through the windshield, unlike a 1 kg drone. Of course you probably know that, but it doesn't stop you trolling.

that wasn't my point.

anyway, drones are not crashing thru car windshields causing accidents and every time someone brings that up and then says we have to make all kinds of laws to try to prevent it, i'm going to have something to say about it.

you probably think the incidents of drones crashing thru car windshields are low to non-existent because the faa has a regulation about drones flying over cars.

 

[AMann]

It’s funny, but in reality, a drone hit could lead to bad results for a driver if they are not expecting it. Just the fact that it can distract someone, or injure them, especially motorcycle drivers is enough for me to not ever fly 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

 

[Hegemone]

that wasn't my point.

anyway, drones are not crashing thru car windshields causing accidents and every time someone brings that up and then says we have to make all kinds of laws to try to prevent it, i'm going to have something to say about it.

you probably think the incidents of drones crashing thru car windshields are low to non-existent because the faa has a regulation about drones flying over cars.

I don't need a law to tell me what commen sense will dictate but it's not an issue when it reinforces my safety based practices.

The law is in place and I was discussing interpretation like the others were. Not flying over cars at highway speeds seems like commen sense when equipment failure is a distinct possibility. Sadly it is failures to think of potential harms that do lead to accidents that lead to tighter legislation.

The laws as they stand have had little impact on my flying (again they reinforce my common sense safety precautions) and in fact my state legislating that local governments need to stay out of it is huge. Without that type of legislation I can safely say flying could have been regulated out of exist and by small town government thinking. We can all work together so that idiots can be held accountable and responsible flyers can be protected.

 

[sar104]

that wasn't my point.

anyway, drones are not crashing thru car windshields causing accidents and every time someone brings that up and then says we have to make all kinds of laws to try to prevent it, i'm going to have something to say about it.

you probably think the incidents of drones crashing thru car windshields are low to non-existent because the faa has a regulation about drones flying over cars.

Excellent - don't prohibit it until it happens - is that the argument? So perhaps we should allow drones to fly around airports and runway approach lanes until we start seeing collisions, and only then worry about prohibiting that? You are just an endless source of logical fallacies.

 

[krodgerson]

So, would not a “covered structure” include cars on the interstate?
Or because their moving, that changes the terminology?

And if it crashes through the windscreen of a moving vehicle??

 

[Starz]

And if it crashes through the windscreen of a moving vehicle??

That’s what the discussion was about. Whether the rule applied to a moving vehicle. (Read post number three)

 

[Drbobk]

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

Might want to edit “can” in the first line to “can’t”.

 

[ChrisOutdoors]

Not sure why it's a discussion, law reads pretty clear to me. Don't fly your UAS over moving vehicles; common sense folks and easy to comply with.

 

[Mossiback]

...anyway, drones are not crashing thru car windshields causing accidents...

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