Guy flying drone over thousands!

[SkyPath Studios]

I attended a cross country state race in Bloomington, Illinois. Thousands of participants and audience were lined up together. I noticed a man flying a Mavic air 2 over all these people. Not only did he fly over thousands with out proper permission, or really at all, he took off in the middle of a crowd not 2 feet away. This man was flying recklessly and ended up crashing his drone into a 60 foot tree. Luckily it didn’t fall on anyone, but if it had fallen. Someone would’ve gotten hurt. This is a prime example of a reckless person who doesn’t know the first thing about drones.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

Did anyone 'accidentally' step on the drone?

 

[vindibona1]

Most of us here know the rules and regs and try to color inside the lines wherever possible. But it seems to me that all the hubub the lawmakers create, this is a prime example why the overkill (and most legislative overkill) is useless. If morons like this don't know or observe the basics what good are all the extra restrictions? It's not unlike the drive for excessive firearm regulation. There are no laws that don't already exist that could be written that could stop any more firearm crimes, 99.9% of which perpetrated by criminals who don't obey laws anyway. It just handcuffs the good guys and does nothing to the law breakers. But it's morons like this who make legislators/regulators make it so much harder for us 99%ers who do everything in our power to stay within the rules.

 

[AZDave]

Most of us here know the rules and regs and try to color inside the lines wherever possible. But it seems to me that all the hubub the lawmakers create, this is a prime example why the overkill (and most legislative overkill) is useless. If morons like this don't know or observe the basics what good are all the extra restrictions? It's not unlike the drive for excessive firearm regulation. There are no laws that don't already exist that could be written that could stop any more firearm crimes, 99.9% of which perpetrated by criminals who don't obey laws anyway. It just handcuffs the good guys and does nothing to the law breakers. But it's morons like this who make legislators/regulators make it so much harder for us 99%ers who do everything in our power to stay within the rules.

It's morons like this who make lots of citizens demand that legislators/regulators do something about ... etc etc.

Fixed that for you. The overkill comes from people like us ... the topics are just different.

 

[Drone_Pilot]

It just takes one moron to
to screw it up for everyone else. ?

 

[vindibona1]

It's morons like this who make lots of citizens demand that legislators/regulators do something about ... etc etc.

Fixed that for you. The overkill comes from people like us ... the topics are just different.

Excess legislation does squat. Inadequate enforcement and prosecution (and social pressure) makes the uninformed pseudo-intellectuals demand more useless legislation.

 

[AZDave]

Excess legislation does squat. Inadequate enforcement and prosecution (and social pressure) makes the uninformed pseudo-intellectuals demand more useless legislation.

I didn't say that it does. But I don't think you are being very objective. The demands for that excess legislation comes from all quarters of society ... liberal pseudo-intellectuals and right wing zealots alike. If you can't think of examples from all sides you are being purposefully blind. I'd bet a bunch of money that future demands for stricter drone laws won't be coming from just liberals (and I'm fundamentally a conservative myself).

 

[vindibona1]

I didn't say that it does. But I don't think you are being very objective. The demands for that excess legislation comes from all quarters of society ... liberal pseudo-intellectuals and right wing zealots alike. If you can't think of examples from all sides you are being purposefully blind. I'd bet a bunch of money that future demands for stricter drone laws won't be coming from just liberals (and I'm fundamentally a conservative myself).

The demand for stricter (and unnecessary or wrong-headed) laws of all sorts tend to come from (sadly) largely from those who know little about the subject. And often those laws are written with all sorts of negative unintended consequences, when in fact the existing laws, were they enforced in most cases are all that's necessary to stop the unwanted action.

 

[AZDave]

The demand for stricter (and unnecessary or wrong-headed) laws of all sorts tend to come from (sadly) largely from those who know little about the subject. And often those laws are written with all sorts of negative unintended consequences, when in fact the existing laws, were they enforced in most cases are all that's necessary to stop the unwanted action.

That's certainly true. And it's also true that the folks who write the laws are often not only not well versed in the subject, but their motivation is often simply to pander to the ignorant and uninformed in their base instead of enacting something with real usefulness. But since we elect those people ... as others have often said, we get the government we deserve.

 

[thispilothere]

I attended a cross country state race in Bloomington, Illinois. Thousands of participants and audience were lined up together. I noticed a man flying a Mavic air 2 over all these people. Not only did he fly over thousands with out proper permission, or really at all, he took off in the middle of a crowd not 2 feet away. This man was flying recklessly and ended up crashing his drone into a 60 foot tree. Luckily it didn’t fall on anyone, but if it had fallen. Someone would’ve gotten hurt. This is a prime example of a reckless person who doesn’t know the first thing about drones.

Is the issue that he flew over a crowd? Or that he took off near people?

 

[Saladshooter]

Is the issue that he flew over a crowd? Or that he took off near people?

Both of course.... Flying over one person or a crowd is prohibited. And taking off near a crowd of folks without launching from a controlled area, while maintaining a safe perimeter is reckless and dangerous.

 

[thispilothere]

Both of course.... Flying over one person or a crowd is prohibited. And taking off near a crowd of folks without launching from a controlled area, while maintaining a safe perimeter is reckless and dangerous.

I thought the new rules allowed flights over people. The OP's own YT page has him flying over students at a graduation.

 

[Saladshooter]

I thought the new rules allowed flights over people.

Under the new rules pilots flying with the 107 certification with small drones can fly over people but there are limitations including no having no exposed props that can cause injury, having injury mitigating devices that prevent the drone from hitting someone with a force that can cause serious injury (parachutes) and compliance with Remote ID. Almost no no one can claim compliance with the new regs.

 

[SkyPath Studios]

I thought the new rules allowed flights over people. The OP's own YT page has him flying over students at a graduation.

Yes as others have said, you may fly over people as long and you have a TRUST certificate, have a drone less than .55 lbs, and have prop guards. You may also fly a drone over people if they are in you operation, or you have specific and personal permission from them. The school that had asked me to film had gotten permission from every student, and the students that did not give permission, it just avoided flying over, or anywhere near them. Particularly the ones on the end. I also filed a flight on LAANC and checked the box of "flying over people" which I have received permission for.

 

[Vic Moss]

It looks like it's time to for some clarification about Operations Over People (OOP).

First, there is a legal way to fly over people currently. But unless this person had a waiver to do so, he was illegal. And since he has a Mavic Air 2, he did not have a 107.39 Waiver because none have been granted but Mavic Air 2 drones.

The only way to currently fly over people is with a drone that weighs less than 250g (or .55lbs), and has no "rotating parts that will lacerate human skin" upon contact. This describes Category 1 OOP compliant drones only. The official definition of 14 CFR § 107.110 can be found on page 4383 here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-15/pdf/2020-28947.pdf. The FAA does not certify Category 1 drone, it is up to the Remote Pilot in Command to do so.

Also, there are no Category 2-4 drones out yet.

OOP is only available to people who have a current Remote Pilot Certificate are flying under Part 107 rules. TRUST has nothing to do with it, and recreational flyers are not allowed to fly their drones over people regardless of permissions asked and/or granted by those being flown over.

Even if this guy had a 107.110 compliant drone, he would only be allowed to fly over "open-air assemblies" if his drone had Remote ID (RID) capabilities as described in either § 89.110 or § 89.115(a). And since RID doesn't exist yet, that's not an option. So yes, this guy was 100% illegal in his flight. There is no way for him to be compliant with any of the current legal options for OOP.

So before I am asked how I would have handled it, I would have approached him and advised him to land as soon as safely possible. I would have helped him clear a spot to land. And then I would have taken that opportunity to educate him on safe a responsible drone use.

The FAA asked us to self-police whenever possible. This would have been a perfect chance to do that. And since he was flying in such a fashion, it's a safe bet he wasn't registered as a Recreational Flyer, have TRUST under his belt (& have a copy with him), or have his registration number on his drone.

It's up to all of us to keep this industry and hobby safe. This would have been a perfect chance to do that.

 

[Dbez1]

Vic Moss is correct and I believe it’ll probably be some time before drones are equipped with Remote ID, which is one of the basics for flying over people.

 

[Vic Moss]

Vic Moss is correct and I believe it’ll probably be some time before drones are equipped with Remote ID, which is one of the basics for flying over people.

RID is one of the basics for flying over "open-air assemblies", but not required for standard OOP. We don't need RID to fly compliant drones over individuals and smaller groups of people.

 

[Saladshooter]

Also, there are no Category 2-4 drones out yet.

Are you sure of this one?..... I thought I saw a very short list of Category 2 drones retrofitted with safety devices that the FAA had approved.

 

[Vic Moss]

Are you sure of this one?..... I thought I saw a very short list of Category 2 drones retrofitted with safety devices that the FAA had approved.

Nope. Unless it's came out last week while I was out of pocket at UAS Expo. And even then, it would have been all the buzz at the Expo.

 

[paulomurteira]

I attended a cross country state race in Bloomington, Illinois. Thousands of participants and audience were lined up together. I noticed a man flying a Mavic air 2 over all these people. Not only did he fly over thousands with out proper permission, or really at all, he took off in the middle of a crowd not 2 feet away. This man was flying recklessly and ended up crashing his drone into a 60 foot tree. Luckily it didn’t fall on anyone, but if it had fallen. Someone would’ve gotten hurt. This is a prime example of a reckless person who doesn’t know the first thing about drones.

Luckily, as you say, the drone, crashed, and luckily he may not buy another one...