Flying over towns and cities?

[kona]

To weigh as much as a Mavic, you're talking about a rather big bird such as a large crow, or a Western Seagull like we have here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Yeah, I wouldn't want to be hit on the head by a Western Seagull that suddenly fell out of the air, but it would be better than getting hit on the head by a falling Mavic. A seagull is mostly softer tissue surrounded by feathers. A Mavic is mostly hard metal and plastic. Also, since the overall mass density of a seagull is less than that of a Mavic, the terminal velocity due to air resistance of a falling seagull is going to be significantly less than the terminal velocity of a falling Mavic.

Also, seagulls are least likely to die while flying (they will usually spend a lot of time on the ground being sick before). Mavics are most likely to die while flying.

But I don't understand the concerns in this thread, because AFAIK there has not been a single accidental drone death yet. Still it would be good to have mandatory liability insurance for drone flyers (which given the non existent accidents will cost close to nothing) and maybe a basic pilot certification process. But creating ridiculous regulations like in Canada makes no sense.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I've read stories on here about all 3 of those systems causing Mavics to either crash, fly away or nearly do one of the two because it did something unexpected or weird as a result of those systems.

You have to assume a lot of the stories people post here about crashes and flyaways are because of inexperienced drone pilots.

 

[raymo]

Yeah that's what I mean - as far as I'm aware none of them are airworthy in the way an aeroplane or helicopter are airworthy, so none of them are yet fit for flying over towns or groups of people. I stand ready to be corrected if there are expensive, professional hexa/octo-copters that are truly resilient to failures and legal to fly over those areas, but I haven't heard of them.

Hopefully technology will continue to get cheaper and more capable and in a few years we can fly over those areas.

DJI produces a number of professional grade multis having up to triple redundancy system. Pricey though.

 

[Malinois 1]

Back when the Phantom first came out... Many folks in the hobby (including myself) were extremely pissed at DJI because we predicted that folks would buy and fly without bothering to understanding and learn the many factors that can affect a safe flight. Factors that were learned the hard way but under much safer conditions through building, testing, crashing and learning; back to rebuilding a better airworthy drone (hate that word drone). Most folks who have been doing this a long time would never attempt to fly downtown in a heavily populated area, over people etc., because they know the risk is very high that something will go wrong. One major factor for example is radio frequency interference. You just don't know what frequencies are out there that could interfere with your flight. Many users are unaware or have no clue about radio frequencies i.e 2.4mhz vs 5.8 let alone the characteristics of them. I remember helping a friend of mine setup his Phantom II. I was astonished that DJI was using 5.8 frequency instead of 2.4 for the Phantom II. This could explain the rash of Fly aways the phantom II was experiencing at the time. They have since went back to 2.4 however 2.4 still cannot penetrate large concrete buildings at a distance and anyone who has a basic knowledge of frequencies knows this. You will need at least 400-900Mhz to do this and 900mhz is illegal in most countries and 400mhz you need a ham license to operate. Unfortunately there is a false sense of security when operating these drones. People feel (and rightly so) they bought a product and therefore the product should work period and equally unfortunately they come to realize this false sense of security at their detriment and the detriment of the hobby.... Just my two cents. Sorry for rambling....

 

[MPPilot]

I really think that just like manned aircraft drones should only be able to be regulated by the FAA. Every little despot running a town, park commission, or county shouldn't be able to arbitrarily decide that drones can't fly there. They don't do that with manned aircraft. Its ridiculous.

They do if the manned aircraft are taking off or landing in their park.

 

[m0j0]

because they know the risk is very high that something will go wrong. ..

really? Statistics just don't bear this out at all. I believe there is a chance something could go wrong I just don't believe there is a "very high risk" that something could go wrong.

And by go wrong... I mean something that results in a crash..

 

[m0j0]

They do if the manned aircraft are taking off or landing in their park.

That's a good point, in keeping with that though they don't control the airspace over the park though.

 

[SamBGb]

Back to the original OP post I think, here in the UK the rules are.

"Keep the right distance from people and property"
People and properties – 150ft (50m)
Crowds and built up areas – 500ft (150m) and don’t overfly

I think the don't overfly is the important part there that basically tells you flying over cities is not allowed, as I take it congested areas would include major Cities. I am thinking the interpretation of this code has intentionally been left vague so the authorities can decide if they can prosecute a person or not.

 

[MPPilot]

That's a good point, in keeping with that though they don't control the airspace over the park though.

Don't remember where I saw it but I understand that National Parks are restricted airspace up to 700 feet AGL due to a bill that was passed by Congress. As we can only fly up to 400 feet AGL I guess we are SOL. City/County/State parks I don't believe have this protection and their regulations may be able to be challenged if anyone has enough pocket money for the legal battle.