Flying over cars and houses

[RocketmanTurbo]

I have seen a couple of videos here of flights over highways and houses. I was under the impression that flying over cars was not allowed. When I need to fly across a highway, I hover and wait until there is no traffic before crossing. Is that proper? Sort of akin to looking both ways before crossing the street, when we were kids.

Also, in my area, I often need to fly over houses to get where I am going. I am not flying low however and my lowest altitude is roughly 160-250 feet. When possible, I veer off to the tree line avoiding houses. But, at times, it is unavoidable as I live in a congested area. If anyone could elaborate on these two circumstances, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[THE CYBORG]

I think you are doing things the responsible way, why court trouble when you don't have to

 

[BigAl07]

I agree with T_C above. That's how I fly as well. I've even had to reschedule a shoot because we had to fly over the road and traffic was too heavy. We came back later when traffic was light and we have more "resources" to help enhance our Situational Awareness and do it safely.

 

[theDRONEranger]

I have seen a couple of videos here of flights over highways and houses. I was under the impression that flying over cars was not allowed. When I need to fly across a highway, I hover and wait until there is no traffic before crossing. Is that proper? Sort of akin to looking both ways before crossing the street, when we were kids.

Also, in my area, I often need to fly over houses to get where I am going. I am not flying low however and my lowest altitude is roughly 160-250 feet. When possible, I veer off to the tree line avoiding houses. But, at times, it is unavoidable as I live in a congested area. If anyone could elaborate on these two circumstances, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Perfectly legal to fly over cars and people. Certain situations apply. Vehicles must be stationary (essentially that does NOT intend to mean stopped at a traffic light as the vehicle may be placed in motion without notice whereas persons making out in a parked vehicle in a parking lot could be acceptable), and people must be under protective cover (exception: assigned crew members, i.e., VOs), all 100 of them at an outdoor wedding. Please correct if am in error.

 

[brett8883]

Please correct if am in error.

Vehicles must be stationary

This is a part 107 rule.

§ 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.

(essentially that does NOT intend to mean stopped at a traffic light as the vehicle may be placed in motion without notice whereas persons making out in a parked vehicle in a parking lot could be acceptable

There’s no distinction between being at a stop light or parked. I haven’t heard this before, it just says “stationary.” A case of maybe good advice to follow but it’s nowhere in the rules.

However, there’s no mention of flying over people or cars, stationary or otherwise, mentioned in the Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

Another example of probably good advice that maybe should be followed anyway but recreational fliers aren’t specifically prohibited at this point from flying over cars or people. This may change when the CBO requirements go into effect but until then the rules to fly recreationally are:

(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

**(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization's set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.

(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

**(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

(8) The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance with chapter 441 of this title and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request

** denotes rules not yet implemented

 

[theDRONEranger]

This is a part 107 rule.

§ 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.




There’s no distinction between being at a stop light or parked. I haven’t heard this before, it just says “stationary.” A case of maybe good advice to follow but it’s nowhere in the rules.

However, there’s no mention of flying over people or cars, stationary or otherwise, mentioned in the Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

Another example of probably good advice that maybe should be followed anyway but recreational fliers aren’t specifically prohibited at this point from flying over cars or people. This may change when the CBO requirements go into effect but until then the rules to fly recreationally are:

(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

**(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization's set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.

(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.

(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

**(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

(8) The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance with chapter 441 of this title and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request

** denotes rules not yet implemented

Sorry I did not delineate between 107 and recreational for you. Quite correct on the vehicles, I thought it kinda common sense that a vehicle ‘on’ a roadway was considered in motion!, not considering parking lots as roadways. But then again, seeing as how some people can manage to zip along at high speeds in parking lots . . .

flying over people and cars is quite correct, it is a 107.

 

[lilewis]

I don't know how, if you're at 350ft AGL and your camera is pointed at the horizon (even in a sparsely populated area), and you're moving forward, you can know there is an individual on a sidewalk, or even see a road directly below the drone. We have many high trees here in Ct that completely hide roads unless you're directly over them.

 

[anotherlab]

I don't know how, if you're at 350ft AGL and your camera is pointed at the horizon (even in a sparsely populated area), and you're moving forward, you can know there is an individual on a sidewalk, or even see a road directly below the drone. We have many high trees here in Ct that completely hide roads unless you're directly over them.

That gets back to the VLOS requirements for 107. In this case section 107.31, item 4

§107.31(4)
Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

If you are flying as a recreational flyer, the FAA uses simpler language:

Never fly over groups of people, public events, or stadiums full of people

If you can't see the people below the drone because of high trees, then you are not in compliance with the FAA's definition of VLOS.

 

[Vic Moss]

I'll be blunt here. This is assuming you're flying under 107 rules.

There is no rule that says we can't fly over vehicles, moving or otherwise. I'm not saying it's smart, just not illegal. If there was a rule about this, then the FAA would not have put out a ANPRM on the subject in early 2019 proposing adding a rule about making it illegal to fly over moving vehicles and establishing a waiver process for it. As of now, that is not developed or part of any law.

So, for now, you can legally fly over moving vehicles, as long as you don't fly over the people in them. The next question is how can you tell if you're over people in the vehicles you're flying over. Basic answer is you can't.

So this boils down to being safe and responsible. I'd strongly advise anyone to not fly down a long line of cars as the travel on the highway. That's just asking for trouble. But as far as flying over moving vehicles safely, that can easily be done. And honestly, if anyone has flown in urban environments at all for any length of time, they'd be lying if they said they're 100% positive they've never flown over any moving vehicles. I have no doubt I have.

But again, this can be done very safely. It's up to you as the pilot in command (under 107), or as the drone operator (under recreational rules) to decide if it's safe and weigh the mitigations against the possible hazard.

Having said all of that, I'll end on this.

If there is an accident, or if you cause an accident by distracting the driver of a moving vehicle (whether you were over them or not), then your are going to get in trouble because you violated 107.23, Hazardous Operations.

So make sure you can do it safely, and if the worse happens, be prepared to face the consequences.

As far as flying over homes, just do it. But don't be annoying about it. I fly over homes all the time. If people have an issue with it, I tell them to call the cops.

 

[dawgpilot]

I'll be blunt here. This is assuming you're flying under 107 rules.

There is no rule that says we can't fly over vehicles, moving or otherwise.

Unless those vehicles are robotic and carry no humans inside, 14 CFR § 107.39 certainly bans flying over them while moving.

 

[Vic Moss]

Unless those vehicles are robotic and carry no humans inside, 14 CFR § 107.39 certainly bans flying over them while moving.

Sorry, they don't. It only prevents you from flying over people. Not over moving vehicles. Trust me, I've had this conversation with the FAA. They agree.

 

[dawgpilot]

Sorry, they don't. It only prevents you from flying over people. Not over moving vehicles. Trust me, I've had this conversation with the FAA. They agree.

The moving vehicles contain people.

 

[Vic Moss]

The moving vehicles contain people.

Yes, that's obvious.

But the definition of "over", is "directly over". So unless you are directly over someone, it's not illegal. This is how the law is written, and this is how it works.

This loophole is EXACTLY why the ANPRM last year attempted to clarify rules.

It is 100% legal to fly over moving vehicles under 14 CFR Part 107. Legal doesn't make it safe or smart, but legal it remains for now. We'll see what happens when RID comes out and if the ANPRM is ever codified and becomes law. Until then, just be safe.

Again, I've talked with the FAA about this, and they agree 100%. They've even changed some press released based on my suggestions when they've mentioned it in one. I work very closely with the FAA's UAS Integration Office and their social media team.

It is not illegal, and 107.39 does not forbid flying over moving vehicles.

 

[dawgpilot]

Who specifically at the FAA

Yes, that's obvious.

But the definition of "over", is "directly over". So unless you are directly over someone, it's not illegal. This is how the law is written, and this is how it works.

This loophole is EXACTLY why the ANPRM last year attempted to clarify rules.

It is 100% legal to fly over moving vehicles under 14 CFR Part 107. Legal doesn't make it safe or smart, but legal it remains for now. We'll see what happens when RID comes out and if the ANPRM is ever codified and becomes law. Until then, just be safe.

Again, I've talked with the FAA about this, and they agree 100%. They've even changed some press released based on my suggestions when they've mentioned it in one. I work very closely with the FAA's UAS Integration Office and their social media team.

It is not illegal, and 107.39 does not forbid flying over moving vehicles.

Do you mind telling us who specifically at the FAA has given you that interpretation?

It seems completely at odds with the original published rule that established Part 107 (which goes so far as to explain how the rule bans flying over moving vehicles for safety reasons), the waiver requests for 107.39 that are published at the FAA's website, and the clear language of 107.39 itself, which specifies "stationary" vehicles as being the only carve out for liability there.

Edited: We can also quote the explanation directly from the Federal Register's publishing of Part 107:

This rule will allow flight over people located under a covered structure capable of protecting a person from a falling small unmanned aircraft because such a structure mitigates the risk associated with a small unmanned aircraft flying over people. The FAA also agrees with Edison Electric Institute, NRECA, the American Public Power Association, and Continental Mapping that a small unmanned aircraft should be allowed to fly over a person who is inside a stationary covered vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft. The FAA has modified this rule accordingly. This rule will not, however, allow operation of a small unmanned aircraft over a moving vehicle because the moving vehicle operating environment is dynamic (not directly controlled by the remote pilot in command) and the potential impact forces when an unmanned aircraft impacts a moving road vehicle pose unacceptable risks due to head-on closure speeds. Additionally, impact with a small unmanned aircraft may distract the driver of a moving vehicle and result in an accident.

 

[Vic Moss]

Who specifically at the FAA


Do you mind telling us who specifically at the FAA has given you that interpretation?

It seems completely at odds with the original published rule that established Part 107 (which goes so far as to explain how the rule bans flying over moving vehicles for safety reasons), the waiver requests for 107.39 that are published at the FAA's website, and the clear language of 107.39 itself, which specifies "stationary" vehicles as being the only carve out for liability there.

Until the FAA has a new rule codified or court interpretation, no one is allowed to go on record saying this. So no, I won't say who I talked with. But just say it's the highest level. And multiple people there. Both legal and non-legal FAA employees, in-person, on the phone via text or phone calls, or via personal email addresses. All off the record for obvious reasons.

And don't confuse the preamble to 107 with the actual codified language in 107. The preamble is just that, a preamble. It's a collection of opinions and insight by industry stakeholders taken directly from the NPMR for Part 107. If you read the entire 624 page preamble, it's full of language that didn't make the final rules. And some suggestions that are quite ridiculous. While a judge can refer back to the preamble when determining a legal position during a case, it's not actual law.

The only thing that matters is the current language of 14 CFR Part 107. Nothing else does unless there is a published court ruling that states differently. And there isn't one.

But for those reading this, remember that legal does not equate safe. Each individual person at the controls of their drone must make that decision themselves. And be prepared to face the consequences if it was the wrong decision.

 

[dawgpilot]

Until the FAA has a new rule codified or court interpretation, no one is allowed to go on record saying this. So no, I won't say who I talked with. But just say it's the highest level. And multiple people there. Both legal and non-legal FAA employees, in-person, on the phone via text or phone calls, or via personal email addresses. All off the record for obvious reasons.

And don't confuse the preamble to 107 with the actual codified language in 107. The preamble is just that, a preamble. It's a collection of opinions and insight by industry stakeholders taken directly from the NPMR for Part 107. If you read the entire 624 page preamble, it's full of language that didn't make the final rules. And some suggestions that are quite ridiculous. While a judge can refer back to the preamble when determining a legal position during a case, it's not actual law.

The only thing that matters is the current language of 14 CFR Part 107. Nothing else does unless there is a published court ruling that states differently. And there isn't one.

But for those reading this, remember that legal does not equate safe. Each individual person at the controls of their drone must make that decision themselves. And be prepared to face the consequences if it was the wrong decision.

That's unfortunate that you don't want to "name names" because I would like to get something in writing from the FAA's Chief Counsel office. They are the ultimate authority when it comes down to how a rule is being enforced.

Respectfully you shouldn't be advising people here that they can fly over moving cars via some kind of secret interpretation that goes against the plain language of the rule.

Also "legal doesn't make it safe or smart, but legal it remains for now" also isn't true, because the FAA always has the catch-all § 107.23 to fall back on, which bans any sort of flying that is deemed hazardous. There's no such thing as a "loophole" that would allow you to fly in a way that the FAA has decided is a safety hazard. Since the preamble clearly explains why flying over moving cars is dangerous, 107.23 can easily handle that situation.

 

[Vic Moss]

That's unfortunate that you don't want to "name names" because I would like to get something in writing from the FAA General Chief Counsel office. They are the ultimate authority when it comes down to how a rule is being enforced.

Respectfully you shouldn't be advising people here that they can fly over moving cars via some kind of secret interpretation that goes against the plain language of the rule.

Also "legal doesn't make it safe or smart, but legal it remains for now" also isn't true, because the FAA always has the catch-all § 107.23 to fall back on, which bans any sort of flying that is deemed hazardous. There's no such thing as a "loophole" that would allow you to fly in a way that the FAA has decided is a safety hazard. Since the preamble clearly explains why flying over moving cars is dangerous, 107.23 can easily handle that situation.

I don't know what else to say to you to convince you that there is nothing that prevents this in the "plain language of the rule". That language does not exist anywhere in the codified 107.

As far as not wanting to name names, quite simply I can't. Not only would that ruin my relationship with the FAA (one which I've spent years cultivating), it would quite possibly get those people in trouble. If you want something in writing from the FAA General Chief Counsel, I suggest you ask them for one. Maybe they'll give it to you.

And I have no plan to stop advising people about the rules. It's what I do in many situations, including situations where I am asked to do so by the FAA's Safety Team.

And honestly I'm out of time to continue this discussion. I have too much editing to do today, including photos from where I flew over a jail. Which is also not illegal. It's not on the DHS list.

So unless @BigAl07 or one of the other admin here would like to comment on my bonafides, I have no other way to convince you that you are wrong. Reach out to the General Counsel. I believe that is your best next move.

Enjoy, and fly safe.

 

[Grimm]

My understanding is that the rules on flying over moving vehicles changed about a year or two ago. I do not have the specific language to cite, but have seen this stipulation in a number of different places. What I’ve read is that the FAA is concerned about two things: one, the potential impact of a drone and a vehicle moving at a substantial rate of speed, and two, the distraction of seeing a drone flying over traffic that could potentially cause an accident.

 

[dawgpilot]

If you want something in writing from the FAA General Chief Counsel, I suggest you ask them for one. Maybe they'll give it to you.

I have no problem doing that; I've done it before in the past. Unfortunately in my experience they take several months to send a formal reply, so I likely won't be hearing anything back from them soon.

Also noticed you didn't address my point about 107.23, which I think makes all this talk of "loopholes" fairly irrelevant.

 

[BigAl07]

So unless @BigAl07 or one of the other admin here would like to comment on my bonafides, I have no other way to convince you that you are wrong. Reach out to the General Counsel. I believe that is your best next move.

I'm more than happy and honored to speak as to Vic's bonafides. I understand many not accepting his interpretations (just like many doubt mine and that's fine too) because all too often we have people "regurgitating" nonsense they've merely seen on FB of a forum. It's too easy to simply create a log-in for a forum and merely "Claim" yourself to be a Subject Matter Expert. We see it every day. Vic doesn't have 10s of 1000s of posts and you don't see his name on here 24/7 tryin to answer every question coming down the pipe. Don't underestimate his true status in our community and his vast knowledge and experience in our industry as a whole. Vic is deeply embedded in our industry from many different aspects from Hobby, Commercial, and the FAA side of thins. Vic is a Clear/Level headed VOICE for our community and who is also one of the few who often goes to bat to SUPPORT our community against unfair and illegal rules/regulations. Add to that, Vic is also one of our trusted FAA Safety Team Representatives and FAA Safety Team Drone Pro.

I'll go as far to say as Vic is a good friend of mine, a VERY trusted source of CREDIBLE information and he is a Go-To point for me when we have FAA questions/concerns. Vic and I have had many UAS discussions and his input is 2nd to none. Actually, Vic's advice has been BETTER than some we've gotten from other sources within the FAA because not everyone in the FAA is "Drone Savvy" and something speak incorrectly.

To say Vic has some "credible" details and information is putting it mildly LOL!!