Let's see how many FAA (and other) rules Ken broke

[spamgnome]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[mavic3usa]

I posted about his video here: Encounter with Hamilton Police - went well

But that's fine, I can repeat my post:

Apparently these police encounters went "well" also.

So I'm going to post this for the two police encounters, the first one I understand because it is likely the police have standing orders to keep anyone off the property although it would be helpful if there were no trespassing signs posted. But I know in some place, police can act as the property's agent when the business is closed or others unavailable. Good encounter because the officer made brief contact and didn't push the issue; not so good encounter because she immediately told him he wasn't supposed to be there ("which you don't") and set up on them afterwards.

And then the second encounter, officers asking for authorization? Claiming if you are leaving "I won't have to make a phone call?" Ended well but maybe....comments? What would you do?

BTW, I don't fly like Ken Heron, you would never catch me flying where a bunch of people are located or up and down city streets. I guess he believes a sub-250g mitigates some of the risk but still, I'm not a big fan of flying in and around the places in this video even with permission.

 

[spamgnome]

I posted about his video here: Encounter with Hamilton Police - went well

But that's fine, I can repeat my post:

Apparently these police encounters went "well" also.

So I'm going to post this for the two police encounters, the first one I understand because it is likely the police have standing orders to keep anyone off the property although it would be helpful if there were no trespassing signs posted. But I know in some place, police can act as the property's agent when the business is closed or others unavailable. Good encounter because the officer made brief contact and didn't push the issue; not so good encounter because she immediately told him he wasn't supposed to be there ("which you don't") and set up on them afterwards.

And then the second encounter, officers asking for authorization? Claiming if you are leaving "I won't have to make a phone call?" Ended well but maybe....comments? What would you do?

BTW, I don't fly like Ken Heron, you would never catch me flying where a bunch of people are located or up and down city streets. I guess he believes a sub-250g mitigates some of the risk but still, I'm not a big fan of flying in and around the places in this video even with permission.

Yes, a lighter drone inflicts less damage, but I still think he was breaking the rule about not flying from a moving vehicle as well as flying over moving vehicles

 

[mavic3usa]

Yes, a lighter drone inflicts less damage, but I still think he was breaking the rule about not flying from a moving vehicle as well as flying over moving vehicles

We all know the big city is not "sparsely" populated and the law is probably mean to distinguish between urban, suburban, and rural areas but it can argued that less and a handful of people actually saw his drone so it's not like he was flying from a moving vehicle in Times Square. So what does the spirit of the law say about being the one operating the vehicle vs. riding in the vehicle. Did he not keep VLOS at all times? The law is so poorly written and likely legally indefensible that it can hardly be enforced. Hence the thousands of videos of people riding the bikes and motorcycles or in a boat, etc while flying the drone. Years ago I can see this being a problem but I personally feel it is outdated.

§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system—

(a) From a moving aircraft; or

(b) From a moving land or water-borne vehicle unless the small unmanned aircraft is flown over a sparsely populated area and is not transporting another person's property for compensation or hire.

As far as flying over moving vehicles, hopefully this is not outdated:

Everything You Need to Know About Flying a Drone Over Moving Vehicles - Pilot Institute

If you’re a commercial drone pilot, then you’re probably no stranger to finding yourself in a situation where you have to fly a drone in difficult circumstances. This is when the Part 107 restrictions feel particularly restrictive – even when you recognize how invaluable they are for airspace...

pilotinstitute.com

 

[spamgnome]

I think the distinction here is that Ken is a well-known YouTuber, so in a pretty real way he's an ambassador to our hobby and business. The issue is that he continually violates rules--and proudly, I might add, and people watching may conclude that if Ken does it, it has to be legal. That, to my mind, is the harm--it may cause others to copy Ken and hurt all of us in the process. He is NOT setting a good example.

As for the link to pilotinstitute, above, it's dated 2020, and I think the rules have changed since then. Last I looked it up, you CAN fly over a moving vehicle, but you can't do it continuously, and the drone has to weigh under a certain amount, but again, I'm pretty sure that even a 249g drone is too heavy.

 

[mavic3usa]

I think the distinction here is that Ken is a well-known YouTuber, so in a pretty real way he's an ambassador to our hobby and business. The issue is that he continually violates rules--and proudly, I might add, and people watching may conclude that if Ken does it, it has to be legal. That, to my mind, is the harm--it may cause others to copy Ken and hurt all of us in the process. He is NOT setting a good example.

As for the link to pilotinstitute, above, it's dated 2020, and I think the rules have changed since then. Last I looked it up, you CAN fly over a moving vehicle, but you can't do it continuously, and the drone has to weigh under a certain amount, but again, I'm pretty sure that even a 249g drone is too heavy.

Agreed, I think the rule now allows flight over people and cars as long as the flight is not sustained and involves traversing from point A to point B for example.

 

[Hands Down]

I'm not an attorney. Don't take this as legal advice. But the rules don't seem unclear to me.

§ 107.145 Operations over moving vehicles
With the DJI Mavic and Mini drones, you won't meet the "unless" conditions without modifying the drone. With the <249g Minis, you could add a prop guard so that the props can't lacerate skin, but that will take it over 249g. Catch 22.

So you can't fly over moving vehicles that have people in them. I don't see any exceptions listed there.

§ 107.39 Operation over human beings
Again, the Mavic and Minis won't meet the "unless" condition without modification. So you can't fly over people. I don't see any exceptions listed there, other than people that are part of your operation.

You can request waivers for those rules for a specific flight. Please let me know if you try that and manage to get one!

§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft
OK, this one is slightly more vague. But I wouldn't want to be the one to argue to the FAA that my flight in a downtown area was in a sparsely populated area.

And now, just for fun, even though you can't do these things with your GPS-enabled, obstacle-avoiding, flying cinema cameras,I believe you could possibly legally fly over people and moving vehicles with this. Go figure.
https://www.amazon.com/Cheerwing-Beginners-Upgraded-Quadcopter-Batteries/

 

[shb]

You're always going to fly over vehicles and people if your flying in a city. I wouldn't of made the flight from inside the carriage, because I would be worried about my drone.

 

[mavic3usa]

I'm not an attorney. Don't take this as legal advice. But the rules don't seem unclear to me.

§ 107.145 Operations over moving vehicles
With the DJI Mavic and Mini drones, you won't meet the "unless" conditions without modifying the drone. With the <249g Minis, you could add a prop guard so that the props can't lacerate skin, but that will take it over 249g. Catch 22.

So you can't fly over moving vehicles that have people in them. I don't see any exceptions listed there.

§ 107.39 Operation over human beings
Again, the Mavic and Minis won't meet the "unless" condition without modification. So you can't fly over people. I don't see any exceptions listed there, other than people that are part of your operation.

You can request waivers for those rules for a specific flight. Please let me know if you try that and manage to get one!

§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft
OK, this one is slightly more vague. But I wouldn't want to be the one to argue to the FAA that my flight in a downtown area was in a sparsely populated area.

And now, just for fun, even though you can't do these things with your GPS-enabled, obstacle-avoiding, flying cinema cameras,I believe you could possibly legally fly over people and moving vehicles with this. Go figure.
https://www.amazon.com/Cheerwing-Beginners-Upgraded-Quadcopter-Batteries/

Just a question, just wanting to see how you would answer (since I don't have an answer for this right now and it's not about me), all these part 107 rules, do they apply to the recreational pilot who is flying under the exception?

Also what is your comment about "sustained" flight?

We can discuss CBOs later if you wish.

 

[Hands Down]

Just a question, just wanting to see how you would answer (since I don't have an answer for this right now and it's not about me), all these part 107 rules, do they apply to the recreational pilot who is flying under the exception?

Also what is your comment about "sustained" flight?

We can discuss CBOs later if you wish.

I don't think we can discuss USC 44809 without discussing CBOs, since one of the requirements of the recreational exception is that you follow the rules of an FAA-recognized CBO.

One of the reasons I got my part 107 certification is that, at that time, there were no FAA-recognized CBOs, and I'm not a big fan of ambiguity when it comes to activities that could potentially get me in big trouble.

But today, there are some FAA-recognized CBOs. I looked at the AMA's guidelines, and they seem more restrictive than Part 107. They stipulate that you can't fly over people, moving vehicles, and also occupied structures. Unlike Part 107, there are no exceptions in there for people that are part of your operation, or drones with prop guards weighing under 0.55 lbs.

My interpretation of sustained flight over people under Part 107 is that you'd first need to meet the requirements to fly over people in the first place. Which, as we already discussed, you won't meet with a stock Mavic or Mini. But assuming you modified it to meet those requirements, then you'd also have to make sure your UAV is registered with the FAA and broadcasting RID.

What's your interpretation?

 

[Vic Moss]

I'm not an attorney. Don't take this as legal advice. But the rules don't seem unclear to me.

§ 107.145 Operations over moving vehicles
With the DJI Mavic and Mini drones, you won't meet the "unless" conditions without modifying the drone. With the <249g Minis, you could add a prop guard so that the props can't lacerate skin, but that will take it over 249g. Catch 22.

So you can't fly over moving vehicles that have people in them. I don't see any exceptions listed there.

You can't fly over the people in the moving vehicles. You can fly over the people themselves. 107.145 is about people, not the vehicles. The title is misleading.

§ 107.39 Operation over human beings
Again, the Mavic and Minis won't meet the "unless" condition without modification. So you can't fly over people. I don't see any exceptions listed there, other than people that are part of your operation.

You can request waivers for those rules for a specific flight. Please let me know if you try that and manage to get one!

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/107W-2023-01413_Victor_Moss_CoW.pdf.

§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft
OK, this one is slightly more vague. But I wouldn't want to be the one to argue to the FAA that my flight in a downtown area was in a sparsely populated area.

107.25 is very clear. A vehicle can be anything. And downtown is definitely NOT sparsely populated.

And now, just for fun, even though you can't do these things with your GPS-enabled, obstacle-avoiding, flying cinema cameras,I believe you could possibly legally fly over people and moving vehicles with this. Go figure.
https://www.amazon.com/Cheerwing-Beginners-Upgraded-Quadcopter-Batteries/

That link doesn't work, but if it's a <250g drone, and you register it under 107, and it meets the Category 1 OOP criteria, yes you can.

But you can't under 44809.

 

[Hands Down]

You can't fly over the people in the moving vehicles. You can fly over the people themselves. 107.145 is about people, not the vehicles. The title is misleading.

You would still need to meet the Category 1 requirements to fly over people, though, right? In other words, you can't do this with a stock Mini 3 or 4 Pro, for example, due to the exposed props that could lacerate skin.

Very interesting that you got an approved waiver. Thanks for sharing! And, oh my, that waiver comes with a lot of additional terms and conditions! I'm assuming you were organizing some kind of event? This seems like it would be more hassle than it's worth for a solo flight.

 

[mavic3usa]

I don't think we can discuss USC 44809 without discussing CBOs, since one of the requirements of the recreational exception is that you follow the rules of an FAA-recognized CBO.

One of the reasons I got my part 107 certification is that, at that time, there were no FAA-recognized CBOs, and I'm not a big fan of ambiguity when it comes to activities that could potentially get me in big trouble.

But today, there are some FAA-recognized CBOs. I looked at the AMA's guidelines, and they seem more restrictive than Part 107. They stipulate that you can't fly over people, moving vehicles, and also occupied structures. Unlike Part 107, there are no exceptions in there for people that are part of your operation, or drones with prop guards weighing under 0.55 lbs.

My interpretation of sustained flight over people under Part 107 is that you'd first need to meet the requirements to fly over people in the first place. Which, as we already discussed, you won't meet with a stock Mavic or Mini. But assuming you modified it to meet those requirements, then you'd also have to make sure your UAV is registered with the FAA and broadcasting RID.

What's your interpretation?

Sounds correct and I don't mean to omit the importance of CBOs, my point was when discussing what a recreational flyer can and cannot do, it's not entirely accurate to post and quote part 107 restrictions. Are CBO rules more or less restrictive? Probably so.

As for sustained flight, an in-depth discussion will invariable sound like an legal opinion regardless the disclaimer so while I agree with your interpretation in general, all I can say is most recreational flyers believe over people/cars mean sustained flight and not transversing. Whether it is intended that way or not, that is what it has seemed to have become and I'll just leave it at that because it's not my legal advice but only what I've noticed.

 

[Hands Down]

Sounds correct and I don't mean to omit the importance of CBOs, my point was when discussing what a recreational flyer can and cannot do, it's not entirely accurate to post and quote part 107 restrictions. Are CBO rules more or less restrictive? Probably so.

As for sustained flight, an in-depth discussion will invariable sound like an legal opinion regardless the disclaimer so while I agree with your interpretation in general, all I can say is most recreational flyers believe over people/cars mean sustained flight and not transversing. Whether it is intended that way or not, that is what it has seemed to have become and I'll just leave it at that because it's not my legal advice but only what I've noticed.

Makes sense. Although all the CBO documents I've read say you can't fly over people or moving vehicles. One of them goes so far as to say you can't fly within 25 lateral feet of another pilot and 50 lateral feet of anyone else. The original topic was about a YouTuber who is definitely doing part 107 flights for a monetized channel, thus focusing my comments on Part 107.

Let me ask your opinion on this. Do you think the props of a Mini 3 or 4 pro could lacerate the skin without a prop guard? Personally I don't know. I watched a pretty elaborate simulation from the Pilot Institute where they concluded that they indeed could. But they didn't use actual humans or skin - only materials they felt approximated skin. I've also seen Youtube videos of people sticking their fingers directly into the moving props. and it didn't cut them. So far I've been unwilling to stick my own fingers into them to find out.

 

[mavic3usa]

Let me ask your opinion on this. Do you think the props of a Mini 3 or 4 pro could lacerate the skin without a prop guard? Personally I don't know. I watched a pretty elaborate simulation from the Pilot Institute where they concluded that they indeed could. But they didn't use actual humans or skin - only materials they felt approximated skin. I've also seen Youtube videos of people sticking their fingers directly into the moving props. and it didn't cut them. So far I've been unwilling to stick my own fingers into them to find out.

Absolutely the Mini 3/4 could lacerate the skin without a prop guard, the stock drone is not a true category 1 drone mostly because it has not been certified as such.

 

[Vic Moss]

You would still need to meet the Category 1 requirements to fly over people, though, right? In other words, you can't do this with a stock Mini 3 or 4 Pro, for example, due to the exposed props that could lacerate skin.

Very interesting that you got an approved waiver. Thanks for sharing! And, oh my, that waiver comes with a lot of additional terms and conditions! I'm assuming you were organizing some kind of event? This seems like it would be more hassle than it's worth for a solo flight.

You need an FAA Approved OOP drone or a waiver to fly over any persons. For the vehicles only, you don't need one.

And we'll be sharing our waiver process with the general 107 community at the end of the month.

 

[Dbez1]

Vic, given that there is a difference between flying over people and traversing over people. Could you make it very clear for us here, are we or are we not allowed to traverse over people and/or moving vehicles (with or without a 107) when the quad has not yet been categorized? Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Vic Moss]

Vic, given that there is a difference between flying over people and traversing over people. Could you make it very clear for us here, are we or are we not allowed to traverse over people and/or moving vehicles (with or without a 107) when the quad has not yet been categorized? Thanks for your feedback.

Over is over. Transiting or not, over is over.

No one can fly over people w/o a OOP compliant drone or a waiver.

Does that help?

 

[Hands Down]

Over is over. Transiting or not, over is over.

No one can fly over people w/o a OOP compliant drone or a waiver.

Does that help?

It helps me.

It's probably also noteworthy that as of October 2023, the only FAA OOP approved drones are made by AgEagle. No DJI drones are approved as far as I can tell.

Source: UAS Declaration of Compliance
Filter by OOP.

For the vehicles only, you don't need one.

I'm confused about moving vehicles at this point.

 

[pilotinstitute]

I think the distinction here is that Ken is a well-known YouTuber, so in a pretty real way he's an ambassador to our hobby and business. The issue is that he continually violates rules--and proudly, I might add, and people watching may conclude that if Ken does it, it has to be legal. That, to my mind, is the harm--it may cause others to copy Ken and hurt all of us in the process. He is NOT setting a good example.

As for the link to pilotinstitute, above, it's dated 2020, and I think the rules have changed since then. Last I looked it up, you CAN fly over a moving vehicle, but you can't do it continuously, and the drone has to weigh under a certain amount, but again, I'm pretty sure that even a 249g drone is too heavy.

The article linked IS up to date, it was updated with the latest rules changes.
While you COULD do sustained flight over people in moving vehicles with a Category 1 drone (prop guards and less than 250 grams) it must be done in a close/restricted access site and everyone must be on notice. If you can't do that, then you cannot do sustained flights over moving vehicles (and of course, you always need a categorized drone).