Looking for feedback on this drone related conversation about amusement parks

[GrayWaterOps]

I recently shot video over Knoebel's Amusement park and shared the footage with the park through Facebook, thanking them for the fun day. When I arrived, I shot the drone footage and then went into the park to ride all of the roller coasters. I used a combination of my smartphone and Rayban Meta AI glasses to record the footage inside the park.

I'm a fairly new drone pilot and I'm looking for feedback if I'm in the wrong or if I'm flying safely in this situation.

Requested and received LAANC approval to fly over Knoebel's Amusement park last Sunday and I have a million dollar liability policy in the event of property damage or injury to a person.
While flying, I orbited around the outer perimeter of the park and tried to stay over trees, buildings or areas where there were little to no people below. I kept the drone in line of sight as I orbited around the park for the drone shots. Here's the video, then I'll post the conversation between Knoebel's Facebook page ane myself

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

Had a great time at your park yesterday. Feel free to use any of this footage!
Hi Keith - Drones are not permitted at Knoebels.
The flight was cleared by the FAA.
Drones are not permitted at Knoebels due to moving rides and crowds of unprotected individuals.
Not trying to be difficult or argue, but Knoebels doesn't control the air space. The FAA does. I requested permission to fly from the FAA and was told I was clear to fly.
Plus I have a million dollar liability policy and my drone is registered with the FAA
Hersheypark said I couldn't fly also, but I went into Derry Twp. Police and asked just to verify I was right, and an officer there told me all air space is controlled by the FAA, and I was good to go if I had FAA approval.
We do not own the airspace, correct. However, FAA states: The remote pilot needs to take into account the small unmanned aircraft’s course, speed, and trajectory, including the possibility of a catastrophic failure, to determine if the small unmanned aircraft would go over or strike a person not directly involved in the flight operation (non-participant). In addition, the remote pilot must take steps using a safety risk-based approach to ensure that: the small unmanned aircraft does not operate over non-participants who are not under a covered structure or in a stationary covered vehicle; the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (§ 107.19); and the small UAS is not operated in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another (§ 107.23). If the remote pilot cannot comply with these requirements, then the flight must not take place or the flight must be immediately and safely terminated.
With this being the case, a catastrophic failure would, without a doubt, create danger to uncovered non-participants in our crowded park, and it would create an even greater danger in terms of our rides and guests on uncovered rides traveling up to 55MPH such as an Impulse.

It says take into account. And I took the required precautions and assessed the risk. I flew over tree covered areas or buildings along the perimeter, looking in and zoomed in with a high-quality camera and lens from 400 feet. Had there been a catastrophic accident that dropped my drone out of the sky, it would have landed in a wooded area or on a rooftop.

More facts and research to help educate you on this topic: The odds of an amusement park ride hurting a guest are generally higher than the odds of a drone falling from the sky and injuring someone. Here’s why: Frequency of Operation: Amusement park rides operate continuously, sometimes for many hours each day, with thousands of riders. This increases the probability of accidents, even though they are rare. Mechanical failures, operator errors, and rider misuse are potential risks.

Accidents and Safety: While amusement parks have safety protocols, there are still documented cases of ride-related injuries, typically due to mechanical failures or human error. According to statistics from the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA), the risk of serious injury on a ride is around 1 in 15.5 million rides. While this is still a very low chance, it’s higher than drone-related incidents.
Drone Incidents: Drones falling from the sky and causing injury are much rarer. Most drone accidents occur due to operator error, battery failure, or technical malfunction, but injuries are significantly less common compared to those caused by amusement park rides. In summary, while both scenarios are rare, the odds of a guest being injured by an amusement park ride are generally higher than the chances of a drone falling from the sky and causing harm.

What the Data Shows: Research on Drone Risk: A study conducted by researchers at George Mason University in 2017 calculated that the risk of a small drone (weighing less than 2 kg) falling and killing someone is about 1 in 20 million. This estimate is based on accident data and assumptions about the likelihood of drone failures, the density of people in areas where drones are flown, and the potential for drones to cause harm when they fall.

Drone Impact Studies: The FAA and other agencies have conducted tests on drone impacts to assess potential risks. These studies show that the energy generated by a falling drone could theoretically cause injury, but most commercial and recreational drones are small and light enough that the chance of severe injury is low. Larger drones pose a higher risk, but even in those cases, documented incidents of falling drones causing serious harm are virtually nonexistent.

Documented Cases: While drones have caused minor injuries, there are very few documented cases of drones falling from the sky and seriously injuring someone:Minor Incidents: There have been isolated incidents where drones have crashed into people, mostly resulting in minor injuries such as cuts or bruises. For example, during the 2015 US Open, a small drone crashed into empty seating, and no one was injured.

No Known Fatalities: As of now, there are no widely reported cases of a drone falling from the sky and killing someone, and only a few documented cases of drones causing moderate injuries.

The majority of drone-related incidents involve collisions with buildings or other objects rather than people.

Conclusion: While there is always some risk when flying objects are involved, the odds of a drone falling out of the sky and injuring someone are exceedingly low, and there have been very few documented cases of this actually happening. The overall risk to individuals from drone-related incidents remains minimal.
Over the past 50 years, there have been approximately 50 to 100 documented deaths at amusement parks in the U.S.
1 in 15 million chance of injury from a ride and 1 in 20 million chance of a drone falling from the sky and hurting someone.


I would appreciate your feedback!

 

[Cafguy]

Amusement parks are considered "public Gatherings" and the rules for flights over crowds or events apply.
I would have to say that the Park is SPOT ON and you should have really thought carefully about your Drone operations around an amusement park.
An unknowing person riding on a coaster getting hit in the face by a Drone of any size could actually be fatal!
If there is a one in a million chance of it happening That only means it CAN happen.
While the odds are low, I invite you to go to your local emergency room and ask some of them what their "odds" are. If you got FAA clearance yes that is one thing BUT YOU should be aware that this is contingent on you NOT breaking any laws OR Local rules with regard to your Aircrafts operation . Because of the Danger to their customers That park has every right to tell you not to fly there. The FAA controls the Skies that's for sure BUT the FAA grants LOCAL governments the right to create no fly zones for Public safety. Owners of properties such as these parks can also have the government place drone restrictions above their parks. Flying in or around that park is ALSO in violation of many FAA rules some of those were given by the park rep in their statement below.
the remote pilot must take steps using a safety risk-based approach to ensure that: the small unmanned aircraft does not operate over non-participants who are not under a covered structure or in a stationary covered vehicle; the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (§ 107.19); and the small UAS is not operated in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another (§ 107.23). If the remote pilot cannot comply with these requirements, then the flight must not take place or the flight must.

You may not think you have busted any rules but what you did was careless.....MY 2 CENTS. sorry

 

[AMann]

Whether it was a recreational or commercial flight, the best way to answer your question is to first consider the following questions, review the OOPs rules (linked below) and then decide if it was a legal flight or not under which category:

-What kind of drone were you flying and does it have prop guards and RID?​

​

-What is its flight weight and if over .55lbs, does it have a certificate of compliance?​

​

-Were all people and moving cars flown over in a sustained way (including being hovered over) directly involved with the operation, and if not did you need or have a FAA waiver to fly (and hover) in a sustained way over them?​

Operations Over People General Overview | Federal Aviation Administration

The Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People final rule is the next incremental step towards further integration of unmanned aircraft (UA) in the National Airspace System. The final rule allows routine operations over people and routine operations at night under certain circumstances...

www.faa.gov

 

[mavic3usa]

@GrayWaterOps IMO you did fine, you didn't break any laws; as a recreational pilot I didn't see anything egregious or illegal about your flight. Don't worry about it, you aren't the first one to go thru this and you won't be the last. Just push thru it and keep your head up and one of these days, people will get over the nonsense; might take a decade or two but soon. Trust me, the endless hypothetical situations will all come out and that's expected when you post on FB or Reddit; you'll get all types. It's just more cases of some people trying to tell other people where they can fly their drone.

{standing by for the usual incoming to nitpick my opinions}

 

[GrayWaterOps]

Amusement parks are considered "public Gatherings" and the rules for flights over crowds or events apply.
I would have to say that the Park is SPOT ON and you should have really thought carefully about your Drone operations around an amusement park.
An unknowing person riding on a coaster getting hit in the face by a Drone of any size could actually be fatal!
If there is a one in a million chance of it happening That only means it CAN happen.
While the odds are low, I invite you to go to your local emergency room and ask some of them what their "odds" where. If you got FAA clearance yes that is one thing BUT YOU should be aware that this is contingent on you NOT breaking any laws OR Local rules with regard to your Aircrafts operation . Because of the Danger to their customers That park has every right to tell you not to fly there. The FAA controls the Skies that's for sure BUT the FAA grants LOCAL governments the right to create no fly zones for Public safety. Owners of properties such as these parks can also have the government place drone restrictions above their parks. Flying in or around that park is ALSO in violation of many FAA rules some of those were given by the park rep in their statement below.
the remote pilot must take steps using a safety risk-based approach to ensure that: the small unmanned aircraft does not operate over non-participants who are not under a covered structure or in a stationary covered vehicle; the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (§ 107.19); and the small UAS is not operated in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another (§ 107.23). If the remote pilot cannot comply with these requirements, then the flight must not take place or the flight must.

You may not think you have busted any rules but what you did was careless.....MY 2 CENTS. sorry

I respectfully disagree. I wasn't careless. I didn't fly over crowds of people. I took steps using a safety risk based approach by flying around the perimeter of the park or only flying over areas where there was tree cover or buildings or open areas without people. I was at 400 feet zoomed in and aware of where people were and where a safe path to fly was. I did't pose any undue hazard to other aircraft, people or property and was aware of what was around or below my Mavic 3 pro. The drone has anti collision sensors and weighs less than 3lbs. If the battery is low, it returns to home position and lands. If I lose communication with it, it returns and lands where I took off. I didn't operate the drone in a carelss or reckless manor so I complied with the requirements. There are no local government restrictions above the amusement park.

"An unknowing person riding on a coaster getting hit in the face by a Drone of any size could actually be fatal!"

That's a great sound bite but there's no way my drone would have hit someone in the face because I wasn't close enough for that to happen.

"If there is a one in a million chance of it happening That only means it CAN happen."

The chance of a drone killing someone is over 1 in 20 million not one in a million. That's LOW risk. Again, this is where the safety risk based approach comes in. I assessed the area and where I was flying and assumed the risk for my actions, should anything have gone wrong. I felt the risk was low based on my flight path and mainly trees, buildings or open areas below. Nothing went wrong. You could say the same thing about the rides. If 1 in 15 million people are hurt on an amusement ride, they shouldn't let ANYONE ride because there's a CHANCE somepne may get hurt. Risk analysis....

 

[AMann]

As a critical review of the reasons why it should be OK, I wouldn’t use risk analysis as a defense for potentially breaking any of the FAA rules, they are rather concise on what is allowed or not.

We don’t know or drone type, what was directly below as it hovered or what else the flight consisted of, but if you know you were following the rules and the conditions they describe, then more power to you- it was a nice video.

 

[GrayWaterOps]

Whether it was a recreational or commercial flight, the best way to answer your question is to first consider the following questions, review the OOPs rules (linked below) and then decide if it was a legal flight or not under which category:

-What kind of drone were you flying and does it have prop guards and RID?​

​

-What is its flight weight and if over .55lbs, does it have a certificate of compliance?​

​

-Were all people and moving cars flown over in a sustained way (including being hovered over) directly involved with the operation, and if not did you need or have a FAA waiver to fly (and hover) in a sustained way over them?​

Operations Over People General Overview | Federal Aviation Administration

The Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People final rule is the next incremental step towards further integration of unmanned aircraft (UA) in the National Airspace System. The final rule allows routine operations over people and routine operations at night under certain circumstances...

www.faa.gov

I would fall under Category 2. My Mavic 3 Pro has Remote ID. It weighs less than 3lbs and is registered with the FAA. I didn't hover over people, I hovered or moved over trees and buildings around the outer perimeter of the park from 300-400 feet
Category 2 and Category 3 provide performance-based eligibility and operating requirements when conducting operations over people using unmanned aircraft that weigh more than .55 pounds but do not have an airworthiness certificate under part 21.
In addition, for Category 2 operations, no remote pilot in command may operate a small unmanned aircraft in sustained flight over open-air assemblies unless the operation is compliant with Remote ID.
I didn't have any sustained flight over open-air assemblies and I have remote ID. I did have brief, incidental flights where the drone merely passes over an area as part of a point-to-point operation, which is not considered sustained flight. The majority of my air time was over thick full tree coverage or building rooftops.

 

[GrayWaterOps]

As a critical review of the reasons why it should be OK, I wouldn’t use risk analysis as a defense for potentially breaking any of the FAA rules, they are rather concise on what is allowed or not.

I don't believe I broke ANY FAA rules. I was pointing out the risk analysis based on the park's over the top comment about "a catastrophic failure would, without a doubt, create danger to uncovered non-participants in our crowded park, and it would create an even greater danger in terms of our rides and guests on uncovered rides traveling up to 55MPH such as an Impulse."

Let's be real, if my drone crashed it would be in the trees or a building from where I was flying. "What if" scenarios about it flying into someone's face seems dramatic.

 

[FLDave]

Perhaps you could post your flight log to show exactly where you were flying.
In my opinion you biggest mistake was the brag to the park about your escapade.
With all the trees in and around the park I would question how you could precisely determine the done location by VLOS unless you followed the drone.

 

[AMann]

I would fall under Category 2. My Mavic 3 Pro has Remote ID. It weighs less than 3lbs and is registered with the FAA. I didn't hover over people, I hovered or moved over trees and buildings around the outer perimeter of the park from 300-400 feet
Category 2 and Category 3 provide performance-based eligibility and operating requirements when conducting operations over people using unmanned aircraft that weigh more than .55 pounds but do not have an airworthiness certificate under part 21.
In addition, for Category 2 operations, no remote pilot in command may operate a small unmanned aircraft in sustained flight over open-air assemblies unless the operation is compliant with Remote ID.
I didn't have any sustained flight over open-air assemblies and I have remote ID. I did have brief, incidental flights where the drone merely passes over an area as part of a point-to-point operation, which is not considered sustained flight. The majority of my air time was over thick full tree coverage or building rooftops.

Copy and keep what you just wrote, but not the risk analysis part. Personally, I wouldn’t have done it, but I think you covered it pretty well.

As for the park itself, they can ask you to leave and not do it if you were controlling it while standing or landing/taking off on their property, but that’s a whole other thing.

 

[AMann]

Sorry I shouldn’t edit my stuff (post 6) after you read it, I did add more to what I wrote above.

 

[Cafguy]

Accidents can happen thats all im sayin. I see that you most likely didnt fly directly over the attractions and I'll give you that I would say that Drone operations around the park is something the park People would probably like to know about beforehand.

Let's be real, if my drone crashed it would be in the trees or a building from where I was flying. "What if" scenarios about it flying into someone's face seems dramatic.

I commend you on your skills to profisize the future However the Government and physics might have a different view. YES it would be Dramatic indeed.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I recently shot video over Knoebel's Amusement park and shared the footage with the park through Facebook, thanking them for the fun day. When I arrived, I shot the drone footage and then went into the park to ride all of the roller coasters. I used a combination of my smartphone and Rayban Meta AI glasses to record the footage inside the park.

I'm a fairly new drone pilot and I'm looking for feedback if I'm in the wrong or if I'm flying safely in this situation.

Requested and received LAANC approval to fly over Knoebel's Amusement park last Sunday and I have a million dollar liability policy in the event of property damage or injury to a person.
While flying, I orbited around the outer perimeter of the park and tried to stay over trees, buildings or areas where there were little to no people below. I kept the drone in line of sight as I orbited around the park for the drone shots. Here's the video, then I'll post the conversation between Knoebel's Facebook page ane myself

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

Had a great time at your park yesterday. Feel free to use any of this footage!
Hi Keith - Drones are not permitted at Knoebels.
The flight was cleared by the FAA.
Drones are not permitted at Knoebels due to moving rides and crowds of unprotected individuals.
Not trying to be difficult or argue, but Knoebels doesn't control the air space. The FAA does. I requested permission to fly from the FAA and was told I was clear to fly.
Plus I have a million dollar liability policy and my drone is registered with the FAA
Hersheypark said I couldn't fly also, but I went into Derry Twp. Police and asked just to verify I was right, and an officer there told me all air space is controlled by the FAA, and I was good to go if I had FAA approval.
We do not own the airspace, correct. However, FAA states: The remote pilot needs to take into account the small unmanned aircraft’s course, speed, and trajectory, including the possibility of a catastrophic failure, to determine if the small unmanned aircraft would go over or strike a person not directly involved in the flight operation (non-participant). In addition, the remote pilot must take steps using a safety risk-based approach to ensure that: the small unmanned aircraft does not operate over non-participants who are not under a covered structure or in a stationary covered vehicle; the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (§ 107.19); and the small UAS is not operated in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another (§ 107.23). If the remote pilot cannot comply with these requirements, then the flight must not take place or the flight must be immediately and safely terminated.
With this being the case, a catastrophic failure would, without a doubt, create danger to uncovered non-participants in our crowded park, and it would create an even greater danger in terms of our rides and guests on uncovered rides traveling up to 55MPH such as an Impulse.

It says take into account. And I took the required precautions and assessed the risk. I flew over tree covered areas or buildings along the perimeter, looking in and zoomed in with a high-quality camera and lens from 400 feet. Had there been a catastrophic accident that dropped my drone out of the sky, it would have landed in a wooded area or on a rooftop.

More facts and research to help educate you on this topic: The odds of an amusement park ride hurting a guest are generally higher than the odds of a drone falling from the sky and injuring someone. Here’s why: Frequency of Operation: Amusement park rides operate continuously, sometimes for many hours each day, with thousands of riders. This increases the probability of accidents, even though they are rare. Mechanical failures, operator errors, and rider misuse are potential risks.

Accidents and Safety: While amusement parks have safety protocols, there are still documented cases of ride-related injuries, typically due to mechanical failures or human error. According to statistics from the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA), the risk of serious injury on a ride is around 1 in 15.5 million rides. While this is still a very low chance, it’s higher than drone-related incidents.
Drone Incidents: Drones falling from the sky and causing injury are much rarer. Most drone accidents occur due to operator error, battery failure, or technical malfunction, but injuries are significantly less common compared to those caused by amusement park rides. In summary, while both scenarios are rare, the odds of a guest being injured by an amusement park ride are generally higher than the chances of a drone falling from the sky and causing harm.

What the Data Shows: Research on Drone Risk: A study conducted by researchers at George Mason University in 2017 calculated that the risk of a small drone (weighing less than 2 kg) falling and killing someone is about 1 in 20 million. This estimate is based on accident data and assumptions about the likelihood of drone failures, the density of people in areas where drones are flown, and the potential for drones to cause harm when they fall.

Drone Impact Studies: The FAA and other agencies have conducted tests on drone impacts to assess potential risks. These studies show that the energy generated by a falling drone could theoretically cause injury, but most commercial and recreational drones are small and light enough that the chance of severe injury is low. Larger drones pose a higher risk, but even in those cases, documented incidents of falling drones causing serious harm are virtually nonexistent.

Documented Cases: While drones have caused minor injuries, there are very few documented cases of drones falling from the sky and seriously injuring someone:Minor Incidents: There have been isolated incidents where drones have crashed into people, mostly resulting in minor injuries such as cuts or bruises. For example, during the 2015 US Open, a small drone crashed into empty seating, and no one was injured.

No Known Fatalities: As of now, there are no widely reported cases of a drone falling from the sky and killing someone, and only a few documented cases of drones causing moderate injuries.

The majority of drone-related incidents involve collisions with buildings or other objects rather than people.

Conclusion: While there is always some risk when flying objects are involved, the odds of a drone falling out of the sky and injuring someone are exceedingly low, and there have been very few documented cases of this actually happening. The overall risk to individuals from drone-related incidents remains minimal.
Over the past 50 years, there have been approximately 50 to 100 documented deaths at amusement parks in the U.S.
1 in 15 million chance of injury from a ride and 1 in 20 million chance of a drone falling from the sky and hurting someone.


I would appreciate your feedback!

You clearly remote scouted the location before the visit, otherwise how would you have known that LAANC approval was required. I take it that at the same time you trawled the on-line park website to get a good idea of what you might be looking at on the day. On that web resource, did they have a clearly stated policy concerning park visitors and drones?

After the visit, you communicated with a park representative giving them access to drone footage shot on the day.

Do you class yourself as an 'auditor'? That Facebook exchange was a textbook example of someone poking a stick through the bars to elicit a response, basically saying the equivalent to... "...here's what I did... and there's nothing you can do about it."

I'm sure the big amusement parks (which provide large amounts of employment at a local level) have quite a powerful lobby with local level officials and law enforcement and the pretty strong possibility that you will have royally pissed them off means the likelihood of very specific local level ordinances being enacted sooner rather than later.

I'm sure the locals who own and fly drones will be queuing up to send you a 'thank you'.

I can't see anything wrong with staying well outside the park perimeter to shoot drone video, but I'll warrant the videos made available via FB were edited from mixed media, leading to the casual viewer (and park management) assuming that all clips were shot with one camera.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

One for @Vic Moss perhaps.

I may be mistaken but a quick skim suggests that you are arguing against points raised by others.
Why then did you ask for feed back?

My take, I would never have flown that flight irrespective of whether or not it was legal or not. The thought paramount in my mind is "What would happen if ....... ?"

If something went wrong you don't know how the drone will behave and you do not know with certainty WHERE the drone will land.

I recollect a mini 3 thread where the landed a significant distance from the 'problem point' , the drone lost a blade in flight and was, from memory, all over the place.
Before you suggest a Mavic 3 ? can't lose a single blade there are at least two threads where two different Air drones each lost half a prop and prop-hub in flight.
I also 6 other 'Mavic xyz' logs where the listed reason for the crash is a lost prop.

 

[GrayWaterOps]

Accidents can happen thats all im sayin. I see that you most likely didnt fly directly over the attractions and I'll give you that I would say that Drone operations around the park is something the park People would probably like to know about beforehand.

I commend you on your skills to profisize the future However the Government and physics might have a different view. YES it would be Dramatic indeed.

I'll give you it was from my perspective. Point I was trying to make was that I believe I took appropriate cautions when trying to orbit around tree or building covered areas. The only sustained flight I would say was around the one coaster at the edge of the park, where I circled over trees and the buildings

 

[GrayWaterOps]

One for @Vic Moss perhaps.

I may be mistaken but a quick skim suggests that you are arguing against points raised by others.
Why then did you ask for feed back?

My take, I would never have flown that flight irrespective of whether or not it was legal or not. The thought paramount in my mind is "What would happen if ....... ?"

If something went wrong you don't know how the drone will behave and you do not know with certainty WHERE the drone will land.

I recollect a mini 3 thread where the landed a significant distance from the 'problem point' , the drone lost a blade in flight and was, from memory, all over the place.
Before you suggest a Mavic 3 ? can't lose a single blade there are at least two threads where two different Air drones each lost half a prop and prop-hub in flight.
I also 6 other 'Mavic xyz' logs where the listed reason for the crash is a lost prop.

What would happen if..... Tough perspective to live by. You could put the words "What would happen if..." in front of anything and fear the worst. Don't get in your car, what would happen if a child runs out in front of you and you couldn't stop? I'm looking for advice and feedback as a new pilot so not arguing as much as giving you my perspective on the steps I took to fly safely.

 

[AMann]

What would happen if..... Tough perspective to live by. You could put the words "What would happen if..." in front of anything and fear the worst. Don't get in your car, what would happen if a child runs out in front of you and you couldn't stop? I'm looking for advice and feedback as a new pilot so not arguing as much as giving you my perspective on the steps I took to fly safely.

They have all those other contingencies covered in Category 2: “the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard… for any reason”. So really, having no accident may mean no calls from the FAA about it, but if someone did happen to get injured they probably would go ballistic. And if that happened the insurance policy would not cover any damages if the FAA found the pilot in violation. It’s a risk not a lot of us would have taken.

 

[GrayWaterOps]

Perhaps you could post your flight log to show exactly where you were flying.
In my opinion you biggest mistake was the brag to the park about your escapade.
With all the trees in and around the park I would question how you could precisely determine the done location by VLOS unless you followed the drone.

Point taken on poking.

My disconnect is the FAA saying it's "Clear to Fly" and the park saying no flying. I did check with Derry Township Police before I flew Hersheypark and they told me hersheypark doesn't controll the airspace, the FAA controls all air space. The park can't set restrictions beyond what the FAA rules are. He told me I was good to fly.

I've requested LAANC approval for every flight I've made. (thinking that's my legal proof showing I have permission to fly, if anyone gives me a hard time ) You'll see my path was from the edge of their property and was over trees or covered buildings for the 4 or 5 orbits looking across the park or around the steel roller coaster. I made two wider orbits, over trees and covered buildings with no sustained hovering over groups of people. My flight was about 13 minutes.

 

[GrayWaterOps]

They have all those other contingencies covered in Category 2: “the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard… for any reason”. So really, having no accident may mean no calls from the FAA about it, but if someone did happen to get injured they probably would go ballistic. And if that happened the insurance policy would not cover any damages if the FAA found the pilot in violation. It’s a risk not a lot of us would have taken.

I respect that. That's why I'm asking in here openly. Someone requested the flight log and I posted it. I believe I fall under category 2 with my Mavic 3 Pro and it has Remote ID

• Category 2 and Category 3 provide performance-based eligibility and operating requirements when conducting operations over people using unmanned aircraft that weigh more than .55 pounds but do not have an airworthiness certificate under part 21.
• In addition, for Category 2 operations, no remote pilot in command may operate a small unmanned aircraft in sustained flight over open-air assemblies unless the operation is compliant with Remote ID.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Tough perspective to live by

Nope it isn't, I would NOT fly a drone over or near crowds, full stop.
In this thread we are not talking about life in general, this thread relates to a specfic subject, the flying of drones and my "What if ....." relates to that and that alone.