Looking for feedback on this drone related conversation about amusement parks

[DiscoverSpain]

First, I want to clarify that I am not judging you, but rather offering a different perspective from what other pilots may have already provided.

I am a European pilot, and while I may not be familiar with your country’s FAA and local regulations, I can provide feedback on your flight and the discussions you had with the park managers, drawing from European standard, specifically in Spain, where I usually fly and am familiar with all the regulations.

In Spain, for a flight like yours using a Mavic 3, you would be required to (I've omitted certain details to avoid making the post too lengthy):

1. Approved Parachute Device: The drone must be equipped with an approved safety device, such as a parachute system, that activates in case of sudden acceleration, or can be manually deployed. This is important because your assumption that the drone would fall straight down onto trees or rooftops in case of failure is incorrect.
2. Flight Plan Submission: You would need to submit a flight plan, including:
   • Flight schedule(s)
   • Planned flight trajectory
   • Designated normal and emergency landing zones
   • Other relevant details
3. Risk analysis and risk mitigation plan
4. Drone maintenance plan and register

Even if AESA (Spain's equivalent of the FAA) authorized your flight, you'd still need permission from the Ministry of the Interior (State Security Corps, e.g., police). If authorized (which is unlikely), a NOTAM would be issued, and the local police would contact you to coordinate the flight, ensuring zones were secured on the flight day.

Would I have flown in your situation?
No, I wouldn’t have. I think you’re underestimating the possibility of a drone malfunction, whether it’s a motor, arm, propeller failure, drone stops responding to commands from the controller, ...etc. which could cause it to fall almost uncontrollably. You might argue that the odds are low, but I’ve experienced this firsthand. My drone likely lost part of a propeller, though I’ll never know for sure. When it crashed, it destroyed several propellers, and due to where it fell, I couldn’t find all the pieces. Fortunately, the incident happened in an empty field, 20 meters directly above me.

When weighing the benefits of capturing the images versus the the low, but not impossible risk of this happening, of your drone crashing into a crowded park attraction at 100 km/h, my answer is clear: No

By the way, I really liked your video.

 

[Vic Moss]

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

100% no.

In order to be considered to be compliant under §107.39, Subpart D Category 2 (§107.115), the drone must be "listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance as eligible for Category 2 operations".

There are no DJI aircraft listed as OOP categorized compliant. The only DJI's listed under OOP on the FAA DOC acceptance page are the ones that use the AVSS Parachute Recovery System (PRS). And they are all Enterprise models. And in that case, it's the PRS that has the OOP DOC, not the drone.

I'm not going to read through the entire thread here, but as long as you weren't over anyone, or anyone in moving vehicles, you were perfectly legal. I don't know if the park is asking you to remove the video, or taking it further, but unless you didn't fly over anyone, you're fine.

You can fly your Mavic 3 series drone over people with a waiver. And that waiver requires an ASTM PRS. The waiver itself is easy to get, but the PRS you need it made by ParaZero. They are the only ones with an ASTM PRS for the entire Mavic 3 series drones at the moment.

You can read more about that waiver at the Newsroom on my website: FAA's New Ops Over People Waiver Approval Process (Final Update) - Drone Service Providers Alliance

We also just completed some flights in Las Vegas for ParaZero (no, I didn't get paid for that). You can see that video here:

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

• 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.

Make sure you read all of those "performance-based eligibility and operating requirements" under Subpart D here: Federal Register :: Request Access

I hope this post clears up some of the confusion about Ops Over People. If not, let me know.

To check FAA DOCs, go here and choose "OOP" from the Filter By drop down menu: UAS Declaration of Compliance

 

[AeroJ]

Yeah, I too am in the group of people who very much admired your spirited defence, but wouldn't have done it myself, and I've only got a Mini 4 Pro, which is of considerably less danger falling from the sky than a bigger Mavic is, though no less dangerous if you encounter it while you're on coaster that is moving at 70 mph.

I did spot some points in the video (5:35 most notably where it suspiciously cuts where I thought you definitely were over an area both the park and the FAA would call 'a crowd'. And I think you were close enough to that ride that if there had been a motor fail, bird strike or sudden IMU error (which DJIs are slightly notorious for) there would be no predicting where that drone was gonna go, and it might be reasonable to presume there would be some not negligible chance of it going off at some unpredictable angle and twatting a rider in the face, or hitting a kid in a pram. It could even conceivably lodge in a track somewhere and derail a coaster, if we are thinking worst case scenario !

Nobody on the ground there is ready for something to be falling from the skies at them. Open Amusement parks SHOULD be no drone zones IMO, and I suspect most experienced pilots here would have instincts that tell them that.

In answer to your specific question I would say it is possible to be both flying as safely as you could have done (bar not flying at all of course) yet still be in breach of rules, which I think you technically were, though only for brief occasions. However, the decision to move the drone inside the park perimeter at any point is likely to be considered 'reckless' by the sort of people who might end up judging if that was the case, and it is that bit I most criticize, which is not to say I didn't also appreciate the effort you did put into trying to do it safely; just a bit worrying that having done that, you still decided that flying over the park would be fine, and then poked the bear afterwards by showing them directly !

 

[WobblingWillie]

Don't know which drone you were using but if I were to make that flight, I would use my Air 3, use the telephoto lens and stay outside of the park perimeter for all the aerial shots. Someone earlier mentioned something about the park personnel not being able to differentiate between the drone footage and handheld camera footage. I think any normal person would be able to tell which parts were shot with the drone and which parts were shot with a handheld camera.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

We also just completed some flights in Las Vegas for ParaZero (no, I didn't get paid for that). You can see that video here:

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

mpliance

I am surprised you were allowed to block a traffic lane in order to use it as a launch site, is that common in the USA ? Or was the lane already blocked off ?

 

[GrayWaterOps]

100% no.

In order to be considered to be compliant under §107.39, Subpart D Category 2 (§107.115), the drone must be "listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance as eligible for Category 2 operations".

There are no DJI aircraft listed as OOP categorized compliant. The only DJI's listed under OOP on the FAA DOC acceptance page are the ones that use the AVSS Parachute Recovery System (PRS). And they are all Enterprise models. And in that case, it's the PRS that has the OOP DOC, not the drone.

I'm not going to read through the entire thread here, but as long as you weren't over anyone, or anyone in moving vehicles, you were perfectly legal. I don't know if the park is asking you to remove the video, or taking it further, but unless you didn't fly over anyone, you're fine.

You can fly your Mavic 3 series drone over people with a waiver. And that waiver requires an ASTM PRS. The waiver itself is easy to get, but the PRS you need it made by ParaZero. They are the only ones with an ASTM PRS for the entire Mavic 3 series drones at the moment.

You can read more about that waiver at the Newsroom on my website: FAA's New Ops Over People Waiver Approval Process (Final Update) - Drone Service Providers Alliance

We also just completed some flights in Las Vegas for ParaZero (no, I didn't get paid for that). You can see that video here:

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

Make sure you read all of those "performance-based eligibility and operating requirements" under Subpart D here: Federal Register :: Request Access

I hope this post clears up some of the confusion about Ops Over People. If not, let me know.

To check FAA DOCs, go here and choose "OOP" from the Filter By drop down menu: UAS Declaration of Compliance

Thank you for the detailed info. That's why I'm asking. I WANT to be compliant with evertything but I feel like I go down a rabbit hole looking through the https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/operations_over_people section with all the hyperlinks referring to other things outside that page!

 

[GrayWaterOps]

Yeah, I too am in the group of people who very much admired your spirited defence, but wouldn't have done it myself, and I've only got a Mini 4 Pro, which is of considerably less danger falling from the sky than a bigger Mavic is, though no less dangerous if you encounter it while you're on coaster that is moving at 70 mph.

I did spot some points in the video (5:35 most notably where it suspiciously cuts where I thought you definitely were over an area both the park and the FAA would call 'a crowd'. And I think you were close enough to that ride that if there had been a motor fail, bird strike or sudden IMU error (which DJIs are slightly notorious for) there would be no predicting where that drone was gonna go, and it might be reasonable to presume there would be some not negligible chance of it going off at some unpredictable angle and twatting a rider in the face, or hitting a kid in a pram. It could even conceivably lodge in a track somewhere and derail a coaster, if we are thinking worst case scenario !

Nobody on the ground there is ready for something to be falling from the skies at them. Open Amusement parks SHOULD be no drone zones IMO, and I suspect most experienced pilots here would have instincts that tell them that.

In answer to your specific question I would say it is possible to be both flying as safely as you could have done (bar not flying at all of course) yet still be in breach of rules, which I think you technically were, though only for brief occasions. However, the decision to move the drone inside the park perimeter at any point is likely to be considered 'reckless' by the sort of people who might end up judging if that was the case, and it is that bit I most criticize, which is not to say I didn't also appreciate the effort you did put into trying to do it safely; just a bit worrying that having done that, you still decided that flying over the park would be fine, and then poked the bear afterwards by showing them directly !

I did post the flight log on one of the responses! Thanks for your input. I appreciate your insight.

 

[Prop Wash]

The only thing the park could stand on would be if they have posted anywhere that you can not take off from or land on Amusement Park property. True, the FAA does regulate airspace, but the park can regulate use of its land.

 

[mavic3usa]

...but the park can regulate use of its land.

I believe the better statement is "the park *will* regulate use of its land." This was true before drones came along.

 

[MS Coast]

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'm not comfortable with statistics, figures, and odds without some indication that they're real and accurate.

Is there a factual source of these figures? Per year? US only? Entire US population?

I'm particularly interested in the how the figure for drones was developed. How severe an injury is considered "hurting someone?" Are injuries by drones during controlled flight included?

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

I did post the flight log on one of the responses!

I think you posted images of a map of the flight and but unless I missed it I don't see actual flight log.

You can either upload, to here, the .txt flight log, via the "Attach files" button below the reply text window.
Or upload the .txt flight log to DJI Flight Log Viewer | Phantom Help and post the resulting URL here or upload the .txt flight log to Airdata, make the page public and post the URL here.