Guy flying drone over thousands!

[Saladshooter]

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.

Thanks for the reply..... I looked back and found what I was looking at. It was the very short list of drones approved under waivers before the new rules went into effect. To your point, to date no drones have been approved under the new regs.

 

[BigAl07]

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.

Let's put some facts to this...

Category 2 & 3 both require the aircraft possess a Declaration of Compliance from the Manufacturer which will be issued from the FAA and the aircraft clearly marked as such. NONE have been granted because the manufacturers can't even "submit their request for a DoC" until at least 9 months after the release of the new Rules/Regs (4/16/2021).

This means that the manufacturers couldn't even submit their request until AFTER 1/16/2022 and then the FAA will process, evaluate, and approve or deny at some random time after. Might be quick (doubt it) but most likely will be like molasses in January.

Keep in mind that Cat 2 & 3 do not have an RID component for OOP. They DO require the RID component for Operating over Assemblies in addition to the other requirements including the DoC requirement.

 

[Vic Moss]

Thanks for the reply..... I looked back and found what I was looking at. It was the very short list of drones approved under waivers before the new rules went into effect. To your point, to date no drones have been approved under the new regs.

That makes sense. There are some people who have 107.39 waivers with the Parazero parachute systems on their Mavics. They will also probably be the first ones to become OOP Category 2 compliant.

 

[cgmaxed]

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.

Thus, laws shall be broken

 

[Vic Moss]

Thus, laws shall be broken

Laws aren't there for those who willingly will break them. They are for those with integrity and knowledge to follow them. Education is the key to making that a non-issue for as many drone owners as possible.

 

[Droniac]

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

Both.

 

[tlswift58]

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.

Taking off in a crowd was STUPID and against any current rules.

Flying "over" people is not. Now hovering over a crowd is, but simply doing a pass over people is not. It's almost impossible to video / take pics say of a race where there are thousands of people everywhere and not fly over 1 or 2 of them.

I have flown around somewhat decent crowds, but did my very best to be on the very fringes or flying over buildings nearby in case something might happen. Yet, to get from one viewpoint to another I did have to fly over "some" people, but did not loiter or hover over them.

When people fly over beaches / etc where people are - do they not fly over them every once in awhile? Being safe and trying to fly on the edge / fringe is a good thing, but not always possible.

 

[TheSnowyPilot]

#StopTreeAbuse.
Somebody clearly needs to learn how not to flush his money down the metaphorical toilet.

 

[GFields]

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.

Well said and thank you!

 

[vindibona1]

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.

Is that to allow flying over people, or preventing flying over people as known speed cameras prevent people from speeding (or collect a spitload of revenue from the unsuspecting)? [Chicago red light cameras]

I suspect Autel might see a rush on sales of their current model drones that don't yet have RID or any sort of geofencing and some pilots taking their chances skipping RID. We can almost bet that with DJI if you somehow don't report to the mother ship that you've activated RID they'll brick your drone until you do.

 

[Vic Moss]

Is that to allow flying over people, or preventing flying over people as known speed cameras prevent people from speeding (or collect a spitload of revenue from the unsuspecting)? [Chicago red light cameras]

I suspect Autel might see a rush on sales of their current model drones that don't yet have RID or any sort of geofencing and some pilots taking their chances skipping RID. We can almost bet that with DJI if you somehow don't report to the mother ship that you've activated RID they'll brick your drone until you do.

There will be no forensic ability to collect RID data. Once you turn off the drone, it will no longer be trackable. It won't be used for any revenue collection unless RID becomes networked. And that's not part of the RID rule. So they literally have no way to bill you for anything.

RID used for open-air assemblies will be used to make sure those flying over crowds are allowed. This will actually open up some airspace for us that is currently closed due to regulation.

And Autel can't get their product out at this point, there will be no rush on anything just to avoid RID or GEO Fencing. It would be pointless.

 

[silveij]

The pilot flying over the crowd is completely wrong unless the entire crowd was knowingly assisting as visual observers. Crashing into the tree is probably the most positive outcome for that situation. Most likely the pilot was not part 107 or TRUST certified.

Think the use of the drone for filming a cross country race is an interesting idea. If the RPIC had a controlled and decently large monitored area (fenced off/visual observers) that the RPIC could launch the drone from safely and fly over the monitored area/straight-up, essentially using the drone like a periscope you could be ok.

For category 2 drone use I think it going to go the way of assisted/neutral buoyancy from a balloon/tube. Don't think any of the high performance drones will qualify for Category 2 as they all drop like a rock and will easily exceed the 11 foot-pounds of kinetic energy at most heights.

Drone Kinetic Energy Calculator for Multi-Rotors (Velocity, Time, & Foot-Pounds)

jrupprechtlaw.com

 

[Vic Moss]

The pilot flying over the crowd is completely wrong unless the entire crowd was knowingly assisting as visual observers.

That is not an option. Only those people critical to the safety of the operation can be used as VOs. The FAA is quite clear that you cannot call everyone in a group a VO and be legal.

 

[PinpointUAVS]

The pilot flying over the crowd is completely wrong unless the entire crowd was knowingly assisting as visual observers. Crashing into the tree is probably the most positive outcome for that situation. Most likely the pilot was not part 107 or TRUST certified.

Think the use of the drone for filming a cross country race is an interesting idea. If the RPIC had a controlled and decently large monitored area (fenced off/visual observers) that the RPIC could launch the drone from safely and fly over the monitored area/straight-up, essentially using the drone like a periscope you could be ok.

For category 2 drone use I think it going to go the way of assisted/neutral buoyancy from a balloon/tube. Don't think any of the high performance drones will qualify for Category 2 as they all drop like a rock and will easily exceed the 11 foot-pounds of kinetic energy at most heights.

Drone Kinetic Energy Calculator for Multi-Rotors (Velocity, Time, & Foot-Pounds)

jrupprechtlaw.com

According to the calculator in your link, even a Mavic Mini exceeds 11 ft/lbs if higher than 20’ AGL.

 

[Vic Moss]

According to the calculator in your link, even a Mavic Mini exceeds 11 ft/lbs if higher than 20’ AGL.

Luckily there is no KE transference requirement for Category 1.

 

[thispilothere]

According to the calculator in your link, even a Mavic Mini exceeds 11 ft/lbs if higher than 20’ AGL.

So does a Nerf football at about 30 feet.

 

[cgmaxed]

Is that to allow flying over people, or preventing flying over people as known speed cameras prevent people from speeding (or collect a spitload of revenue from the unsuspecting)? [Chicago red light cameras]

I suspect Autel might see a rush on sales of their current model drones that don't yet have RID or any sort of geofencing and some pilots taking their chances skipping RID. We can almost bet that with DJI if you somehow don't report to the mother ship that you've activated RID they'll brick your drone until you do.

Your probably correct. Another big problem with rid, besides people knowing the pilot's location, is all your flight data is recorded and saved. Say someone sends in a complaint about you, then, for some reason, the FAA reviews all your data for the last 2-3 years, can they suddenly fine you retroactively? That's a scary thought? It's like getting caught speeding, but they don't send you a notice or ticket 2 years later.

EDIT- MAYBE I'M WRONG: DOES ANYONE KNOW IF RID DATA IS GOING TO BE SAVED OR RECORDED FOR FUTURE INSPECTION?

 

[vindibona1]

Your probably correct. Another big problem with rid, besides people knowing the pilot's location, is all your flight data is recorded and saved. Say someone sends in a complaint about you, then, for some reason, the FAA reviews all your data for the last 2-3 years, can they suddenly fine you retroactively? That's a scary thought? It's like getting caught speeding, but they don't send you a notice or ticket 2 years later.

EDIT- MAYBE I'M WRONG: DOES ANYONE KNOW IF RID DATA IS GOING TO BE SAVED OR RECORDED FOR FUTURE INSPECTION?

Not to get too far off the reservation, particularly because this is an international forum, but American culture has traditionally been one of individual rights which also demanded individual responsibility. My fear (and observation) is that we are extinguishing the very thing that made America the shining beacon of the world. Every time government (now corporations, i.e. DJI, Facebook, Twitter, Google) decide that some regulation or "community guideline" is "needed" to be invoked a little piece of what made America great gets killed off. Many of the sheeple are fine abdicating their responsibilities, and society, rather than holding the individual accountable then turns to the numbskulls... err "leaders" who have the power to invoke authority who react with kneejerk force and the precision of a chainsaw to assuage those who have the power of messaging. I just remember days when the rules were set and what happened was on you (me). We didn't have people picking and choosing which laws needed enforcing, and thus needed far less of them, which IMO for the most part, provided a better lifestyle and living standard for those of us Americans only a generation ago.

 

[Vic Moss]

Your probably correct. Another big problem with rid, besides people knowing the pilot's location, is all your flight data is recorded and saved. Say someone sends in a complaint about you, then, for some reason, the FAA reviews all your data for the last 2-3 years, can they suddenly fine you retroactively? That's a scary thought? It's like getting caught speeding, but they don't send you a notice or ticket 2 years later.

EDIT- MAYBE I'M WRONG: DOES ANYONE KNOW IF RID DATA IS GOING TO BE SAVED OR RECORDED FOR FUTURE INSPECTION?

There is no forensic ability for storing and saving RID data. It will not be stored on the drone, and once you turn it off it will go away.

The only way for that to be accomplished is if there is an app open in the area (close by due to limited range of RID), and it has storage capabilities. It could also be stored via smart city grid if they decide to encompass RID receivers.

This is the main reason networked RID wasn't part of the RID final rule.

 

[vindibona1]

There is no forensic ability for storing and saving RID data. It will not be stored on the drone, and once you turn it off it will go away.

The only way for that to be accomplished is if there is an app open in the area (close by due to limited range of RID), and it has storage capabilities. It could also be stored via smart city grid if they decide to encompass RID receivers.

This is the main reason networked RID wasn't part of the RID final rule.

You've just cited two ways in which your personal flight data could become public without your consent... and we haven't even see the RID software yet. If your computer can be hacked by a skilled 6th grader, or your car's fob can be hacked easily, you can bet it wouldn't take much to for an ambitious person to develop a tool for those who would love to invade your privacy.

You mark my words, this RID stuff is only the proverbial Canary in the coal mine. I wonder what George Orwell would be writing today were he still alive.