Flying over people...

[Mossiback]

The person that causes the damage is responsible, of course. Whether he be an experienced 107 pilot, a hobby flyer, or a 9 year old that got the drone for Christmas.

The pilot is responsible, but who pays the bills? I was attempting to start a liability discussion. The lawyers will go after everyone involved so you better have good insurance coverage before you even consider flying over people. Even with insurance, I can see the coverage denied if the flight is not within the regulations. Personally, I do not think the risk is worth the effort, regardless of whether it is "legal" or not.

 

[Kcobello]

If you are paying for insurance, It could be said you are "paying ahead" for any mishaps that may or may not occur.
I wouldnt be surprised that if after any major incident, the insurance company drops you and flags you as risky.
Making it impossible or very hard to get insured again.
As you said, insured or not, it would be a very good thing to think hard about doing risky things.

Well, Why does anyone have insurance then? I look at it as. My rig fails someway and "glides" into someone tending grapes and they get injured or killed. I will be using that insurance and not hopefully losing everything my wife have worked hard for over 12 years.

 

[Kcobello]

The pilot is responsible, but who pays the bills? I was attempting to start a liability discussion. The lawyers will go after everyone involved so you better have good insurance coverage before you even consider flying over people. Even with insurance, I can see the coverage denied if the flight is not within the regulations. Personally, I do not think the risk is worth the effort, regardless of whether it is "legal" or not.

This is accurate. Every insurance company looks at all the factors to be able to deny, or reduce their liability. Even recording your flight info, vests, safety plans, and warning signs can come into play for the person not doing it responsibly.

 

[ac0j]

The pilot is responsible, but who pays the bills? I was attempting to start a liability discussion. The lawyers will go after everyone involved so you better have good insurance coverage before you even consider flying over people. Even with insurance, I can see the coverage denied if the flight is not within the regulations. Personally, I do not think the risk is worth the effort, regardless of whether it is "legal" or not.

First, I agree 100% But There is a huge gap between a bump on the head or a rotor cut and death and destruction Hardly a million dollar lawsuit in most cases. There hasnt been any death by drone cases YET, so who knows how that would work out.
Killing or crippling a person with a drone that ways less than one pound is a stretch. I can see an eye being taken out which would make a difference as well, but again accidents like that are few and far between. Of course having insurance will CYA. But probably only ONCE in the case of a major incident.
You stand more of a chance finding yourself in a major lawsuit every time you drive your car than you do when flying your drone. IF you are flying safe.

Well, Why does anyone have insurance then? I look at it as. My rig fails someway and "glides" into someone tending grapes and they get injured or killed. I will be using that insurance and not hopefully losing everything my wife have worked hard for over 12 years.

You are exactly right! But really, what are the chances that your out of control drone will cause a death or permanent injury? Pretty darn slim, NOT SAYING IMPOSSIBLE! Your insurance premium reflects the amount of risk your policy is taking into account. If there were people being killed or maimed once or twice a month with drones, you probably couldn't afford to pay the premiums, IF they would even offer a policy. It would be like trying to buy collision insurance on a stock car..

 

[sjnovakovich]

No Herein lies your issue. I have over 25 years using orthoimagery, over 30 years working with radio control "toys"s, I am a GIS analyst who uses mapping for all types of projects. I built my own rigs (kit) and imagery relay systems for my aerial business before all the click and fly rigs came out. I also have been a photographer for over 35 years (part time). I am not just a 107 and business card. That my friend is a total lack of respect. Understand commercial because right now you dont. We see people flying illegally all the time. Especially this time of year with the festivals, rides and being all lit up. Who cares on those. There doing it for free, which we do a lot of charity work. Just because you have a phantom does'nt make you a responsible person when it comes to this business. Also truthfully I dont think its the 107'ers that are causing the problems with airports, emergency situations and ambulance calls. or at least I hope not.

You sound like one of the guys who wants to fence in the entire sky for only those who are making money.

 

[Mossiback]

... There is a huge gap between a bump on the head or a rotor cut and death and destruction Hardly a million dollar lawsuit in most cases...

People and lawyers are so sue-happy these days that it does not take a physical injury for a lawsuit. The OP stated that he would be flying over people. A crash near someone could bring a "psychological damage" lawsuit because they are now afraid of going outside. The odds of any of this happening are small but should be taken into account when deciding where to fly.

 

[ac0j]

People and lawyers are so sue-happy these days that it does not take a physical injury for a lawsuit. The OP stated that he would be flying over people. A crash near someone could bring a "psychological damage" lawsuit because they are now afraid of going outside. The odds of any of this happening are small but should be taken into account when deciding where to fly.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Classic flyer]

As far as flying over people goes, I don't believe it's legal( 107 or hobby ) but it's definitely not the SMARTEST or SAFEST thing to do...COMMON SENSE and SAFETY rule the day...Be safe, fly smart

 

[baddog]

I just thought I'd see what others are experiencing.

I've been to events, like car shows, where I see someone flying a drone, which does in fact pass over people. Not low, but over them just the same.

I have a local, city owned, tourist site that wants a drone video of route to the site. Maybe following someone over the route, showing how to get there. This would be from a bit of altitude...certainly not close to the ground. Well, I guess that's relative. Maybe 20-30 ft altitude.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing this. Not from the ability standpoint, but from the fact that FAA says to not fly over people.

I did talk to the city public relations department, where I would need to send the form to approve by the city, and they said they had no restrictions about that.

What are you folks experiencing, and thoughts?

I fly under Part 107 license. I have been doing a downtown city shoot for over a month now. To avoid people, I go early on a Saturday or Sunday morning, just before sunrise, to get some shots over normally crowed daytime foot traffic areas. Most of the time I am over city structures and or Streets with just cars (You can fly over cars). When there is foot traffic. I just stay over roof tops. Pain in the A## when the weather does not workout. That is why it has take almost a month to shoot but I would rather be safe and make sure everyone else is too.

 

[R.J.]

AGAIN, ANYONE that puts a video on YouTube without a part 107 is in violation.

False Information or put a link to it. Regardless this is not accurate.

 

[Dizzy1971]

I just thought I'd see what others are experiencing.

I've been to events, like car shows, where I see someone flying a drone, which does in fact pass over people. Not low, but over them just the same.

I have a local, city owned, tourist site that wants a drone video of route to the site. Maybe following someone over the route, showing how to get there. This would be from a bit of altitude...certainly not close to the ground. Well, I guess that's relative. Maybe 20-30 ft altitude.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing this. Not from the ability standpoint, but from the fact that FAA says to not fly over people.

I did talk to the city public relations department, where I would need to send the form to approve by the city, and they said they had no restrictions about that.

What are you folks experiencing, and thoughts?

Where I live there’s no flying over ppl. End of story. However I hear that in some jurisdictions it’s ok if the people being flown over are part of the photo/video shoot. I suppose one could follow a bit behind the subject and not be out of bounds on the rules.

 

[theDRONEranger]

Please see Item 2, Option #1, statement 2.
This is directly from the FAA www.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions

Bottom line is, it is your decision!

Flying for Fun Under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

1. What is the definition of recreational or hobby use of a UAS?
   Recreational or hobby UAS use is flying for enjoyment and not for work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire. In the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, the FAA relied on the ordinary, dictionary definition of these terms. UAS use for hobby is a "pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation." UAS use for recreation is "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion."
   
   
2. Do I need permission from the FAA to fly a UAS for recreation or as a hobby?
   There are two ways for recreational or hobby UAS fliers to operate in the National Airspace System in accordance with the law and/or FAA regulations. Each of the two options has specific requirements that the UAS operator must follow. The decision as to which option to follow is up to the individual operator.
   
   Option #1. Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:
   1. Register their UAS with the FAA
   2. Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only
   3. Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines
   4. Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
   5. Give way to manned aircraft
   6. Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport
   7. Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
   Option #2. Fly under the FAA's Small UAS Rule (14 CFR part 107). Under this rule, operators must:
   
   1. Register their UAS with the FAA as a "non-modeler"
   2. Obtain an FAA Remote Pilot Certificate
   3. Follow the operational requirements (PDF) of Part 107

 

[bikencat]

The purpose of your flight is to benefit a city tourist attraction and generate "commercial" activity for the city. Your flight is not for your own personal enjoyment or relaxation (a hobby flight). The fact that you would do it for free doesn't matter. People try to skirt the 107 requirements all the time, but there is no question that you'll need a 107 certification to do this legally. Chances are you'll never get caught/fined over a flight like this, as enforcement is lax at best, but the laws are quite clear on this.

so... if you own an airplane and take a friend to shoot a video for his small business you have to be a commercial pilot? If you own a boat and take a friend to shoot a video for his small business from his personal boat you are certainly not required to be a licensed captain, if not being paid. The difference here is that he wants to fly in restricted space. Space may or not require 107 and waiver, not money. That is what defines commercial or not. Money. The rest is either taken out of context or someone being an a hole and bending that rule.

 

[theDRONEranger]

so... if you own an airplane and take a friend to shoot a video for his small business you have to be a commercial pilot? If you own a boat and take a friend to shoot a video for his small business from his personal boat you are certainly not required to be a licensed captain, if not being paid. The difference here is that he wants to fly in restricted space. Space may or not require 107 and waiver, not money. That is what defines commercial or not. Money. The rest is either taken out of context or someone being an a hole and bending that rule.

Let's stay within the bounds of what a sUAS pilot can do! You are straying into a very differing arena. We are drone sUAS pilots, NOT airplane pilots.

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions

Flying for Fun Under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

1. What is the definition of recreational or hobby use of a UAS?
   Recreational or hobby UAS use is flying for enjoyment and not for work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire. In the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, the FAA relied on the ordinary, dictionary definition of these terms. UAS use for hobby is a "pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation." UAS use for recreation is "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion."
   
   
2. Do I need permission from the FAA to fly a UAS for recreation or as a hobby?
   There are two ways for recreational or hobby UAS fliers to operate in the National Airspace System in accordance with the law and/or FAA regulations. Each of the two options has specific requirements that the UAS operator must follow. The decision as to which option to follow is up to the individual operator.
   
   Option #1. Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:
   
   1. Register their UAS with the FAA
   2. Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only
   3. Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines
   4. Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
   5. Give way to manned aircraft
   6. Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport
   7. Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
   Option #2. Fly under the FAA's Small UAS Rule (14 CFR part 107). Under this rule, operators must:
   
   1. Register their UAS with the FAA as a "non-modeler"
   2. Obtain an FAA Remote Pilot Certificate
   3. Follow the operational requirements (PDF) of Part 107
3. Does the new Small UAS Rule (part 107) apply to recreational UAS operations?
   Part 107 does not apply to UAS flown strictly for fun (hobby or recreational purposes) as long as these unmanned aircraft are flown in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of P.L. 112-95). Visit our "Fly for Fun" webpage for safety rules and guidelines that apply to recreational UAS operations. The small UAS rule codifies the provisions of section 336 in part 101 of the FAA's regulations, which will prohibit operating a UAS in manner that endangers the safety of the National Airspace System.
   

 

[GringoLoco]

As a new drone owner, I'm still trying to figure out how I'd be flying commercially if I did it for fun and gave the video away for free. Commercial LITERALLY means for compensation. I don't work for free, so it's recreational/hobby whether the FAA chooses to acknowledge it or not. I'm not saying that's the way the law is, I'm saying the FAA has taken liberties with the English language, and apparently we're okay with it.

 

[neggy]

so... if you own an airplane and take a friend to shoot a video for his small business you have to be a commercial pilot? If you own a boat and take a friend to shoot a video for his small business from his personal boat you are certainly not required to be a licensed captain, if not being paid. The difference here is that he wants to fly in restricted space. Space may or not require 107 and waiver, not money. That is what defines commercial or not. Money. The rest is either taken out of context or someone being an a hole and bending that rule.

I am a Part 61 Private Pilot, ad I can not take anyone up for money or commercial purposes period end of discussion.

You can, after getting 250 hours in your book,test for a commercial pilot license and the FAA really tightens up on your skill set... I mean you better be able to hit every maneuver spot, with almost no room for variance.

Now if you wanted to take a friend up to take pictures for his personal use.... no problem.

I can't charge someone for taking them up, but we can share the expenses equally legally.

If my friend and I want to fly down to Key West for lunch, we can split the costs, and trust me you will want someone to share the expenses with.

BTW to get 250 hours it is going to cost you about 50 grand out of pocket or more

Even to get Part 61, you are dropping 15 grand so you try not to break the rules and have the FAA pull your ticket.

People flying Drones, even under Part 107, don't have a lot of money at risk.

 

[theDRONEranger]

As a new drone owner, I'm still trying to figure out how I'd be flying commercially if I did it for fun and gave the video away for free. Commercial LITERALLY means for compensation. I don't work for free, so it's recreational/hobby whether the FAA chooses to acknowledge it or not. I'm not saying that's the way the law is, I'm saying the FAA has taken liberties with the English language, and apparently we're okay with it.

Ok, you’re right! You make the video. Hopefully, your drone will not drop out and hit anyone and get sued. (A whole other issue). So, you make your video, and you give it away. You even go so far as to obtain a warrant from the person you gave it to that says you gave it away freely to them and are no longer of any possession of it. That you could care less what becomes of it!
So, bottom line, you make a video and give all rights to someone else and go fly your drone another day and be happy. happy, happy, happy!
But, if you publish it anytime, anywhere . . .

 

[Bob in Savannah]

Who here is a lawyer?

 

[theDRONEranger]

Who here is a lawyer?

Not I, but if you are seeking legal advice on this issue, I could recommend two of the foremost best for drone pilots. Be forewarned, their rates may be high. I do know there are at least 2 out there who are also 107 certified. One in Colorado and one in Florida. Both would most likely be happy to answer legal questions after remittance.

 

[Bob in Savannah]

Be forewarned, their rates may be high.

Ugh. There in lies the problem...