Mavic Air 2 FAA Classification?

[Deleted member 93449]

Thanks. And to further clarify, flying over people means the drone can not fly above any human at any altitude for any period of time? I'm studying for the part 107 exam currently and this is still a grey area for me.

For example, if I took my Mavic Air 2 to the park and was shooting some footage of the surrounding area, could I pass over the park at an altitude of 200' if there are people at the park? Or the park must be empty in order for me to legally fly over?

My understanding is you can fly IN the park but not over people. I don't believe the U.S. regulations are as specific as they are in other countries. In some place you have to remain a specific distance from people.

 

[brett8883]

But did the FAA employee understand the rule for NO EXPOSED MOVING PARTS? The DJI prop guard is useless for this.

No exposed moving parts that could lacerate skin. You forgot that last part. It can have exposed moving parts just so long as you don’t think they will lacerate skin.

Who determines this? The remote pilot in command. It’s subjective and the FAA is giving us the power to determine for ourselves for category 1. Having said that the mini 2 prop guards are basically a cage, there’s no exposed moving parts at all.

 

[brett8883]

Thanks. And to further clarify, flying over people means the drone can not fly above any human at any altitude for any period of time? I'm studying for the part 107 exam currently and this is still a grey area for me.

For example, if I took my Mavic Air 2 to the park and was shooting some footage of the surrounding area, could I pass over the park at an altitude of 200' if there are people at the park? Or the park must be empty in order for me to legally fly over?

If your drone doesn’t qualify for any of the categories for flying over people, which the Air 2 does not, then you can’t fly directly over people or moving vehicles. No need to make it any more complicated.

 

[BigAl07]

Thanks. And to further clarify, flying over people means the drone can not fly above any human at any altitude for any period of time? I'm studying for the part 107 exam currently and this is still a grey area for me.

For example, if I took my Mavic Air 2 to the park and was shooting some footage of the surrounding area, could I pass over the park at an altitude of 200' if there are people at the park? Or the park must be empty in order for me to legally fly over?

Grey area? If your aircraft physically flies over ANY part of a human being, even their pinky fingernail, it is OVER PEOPLE. If you never fly directly OVER a single bit of a person's body you are not OVER people. It's pretty clear that.

Now let's have fun and MUDDY the water..... if you're flying "towards" a group of people (or a single individual) but absolutely not OVER people and you have some type of failure (propulsion, mechanical, electronic etc) and the aircraft tumbles out of control and strikes a human being, you are BUSTED. Even though you never "flow over people" you didn't do enough to ensure the SAFETY of the people on the ground. You were flying in a reckless and dangerous manner.

With Aviation we are always thinking WHAT IF..... This is true for Manned and carries over directly into UAS as well. When flying a manned aircraft we are constantly thinking "What if the engine quits right now? What is my emergency landing area?" Then we look around scanning the sky for traffic and thinking ,WHAT IF?. Same goes for UAS. What happens IF . . . .

 

[BigAl07]

But did the FAA employee understand the rule for NO EXPOSED MOVING PARTS? The DJI prop guard is useless for this.

As @brett8883 said in post #22, you left out a very important part of the rule. With Aviation Rules you have to take the ENTIRE rule into account as often times there are many interconnected components that must be included. We can't pick and chose which portions to quote and which to leave out.

The FAA will give us just enough rope to hang ourselves if we aren't very careful. While prop guards "MIGHT" meet the requirement in many applications there are instances where they still may "allow" laceration in some instances. In those instances, IF there is an incident and IF a prop can be proven to lacerate skin, then you were NOT IN COMPLIANCE of the rules as written.

Prop guards are going to be effective at meeting the requirements in the vast majority of scenarios but if your incident falls outside of those and someone is "lacerated" then you could get the full ticket and all the potential goodies that come with it.

 

[eEridani]

As @brett8883 said in post #22, you left out a very important part of the rule. With Aviation Rules you have to take the ENTIRE rule into account as often times there are many interconnected components that must be included. We can't pick and chose which portions to quote and which to leave out.

The FAA will give us just enough rope to hang ourselves if we aren't very careful. While prop guards "MIGHT" meet the requirement in many applications there are instances where they still may "allow" laceration in some instances. In those instances, IF there is an incident and IF a prop can be proven to lacerate skin, then you were NOT IN COMPLIANCE of the rules as written.

Prop guards are going to be effective at meeting the requirements in the vast majority of scenarios but if your incident falls outside of those and someone is "lacerated" then you could get the full ticket and all the potential goodies that come with it.

Jeesh ... I was paraphrasing. I am NOT defending poorly designed prop guards. Go back and read the thread in context.

I am saying the DJI Mini 2 prop guard is insufficient to meet the FOP rule.

 

[brett8883]

Jeesh ... I was paraphrasing. I am NOT defending poorly designed prop guards. Go back and read the thread in context.

I am saying the DJI Mini 2 prop guard is insufficient to meet the FOP rule.

Are you talking about these prop guards?
I don’t really understand how much more protection you could have, it’s a cage, even a full shroud doesn’t have this much protection.

It’s a fully subjective rule so you can feel the way you want to about it but i don’t see how anyone could say these don’t meet the Category 1 requirements for preventing lacerations. You’d literally have to stick a finger in there to even be hit by the props and the mini 2 props are borderline not able to lacerate skin even without guards. A small nick or scratch is not a laceration.

 

[eEridani]

Are you talking about these prop guards?
View attachment 145817 I don’t really understand how much more protection you could have, it’s a cage, even a full shroud doesn’t have this much protection.

It’s a fully subjective rule so you can feel the way you want to about it but i don’t see how anyone could say these don’t meet the Category 1 requirements for preventing lacerations. You’d literally have to stick a finger in there to even be hit by the props and the mini 2 props are borderline not able to lacerate skin even without guards. A small nick or scratch is not a laceration.

Now place yourself in the middle of a parking lot, have a friend fly the drone up to 50 feet, then dive the drone at you. If you are a normal person, you'll defend yourself with your hands. How well will those guards protect you as you are reaching up and out with your hands and fingers to stop the maniac drone attacking your head?

And where does DJI specify the Mini 2 blades can't lacerate skin? I've also never seen any science based tests for that sort of thing - only a MythBusters or similar episode that wasn't really conclusive because all the tests were idle speeds, not max'd ESC drive.

 

[brett8883]

Now place yourself in the middle of a parking lot, have a friend fly the drone up to 50 feet, then dive the drone at you. If you are a normal person, you'll defend yourself with your hands. How well will those guards protect you as you are reaching up and out with your hands and fingers to stop the maniac drone attacking your head?

The props are no longer exposed, they are inside a protective cage.

 

[eEridani]

Nearly finger proof top and bottom.

 

[alexf415]

Thanks. And to further clarify, flying over people means the drone can not fly above any human at any altitude for any period of time? I'm studying for the part 107 exam currently and this is still a grey area for me.

For example, if I took my Mavic Air 2 to the park and was shooting some footage of the surrounding area, could I pass over the park at an altitude of 200' if there are people at the park? Or the park must be empty in order for me to legally fly over?

As long as you are NOT flying back and forth over people and moving vehicles the answer is yes.

 

[Dmcvey]

Grey area? If your aircraft physically flies over ANY part of a human being, even their pinky fingernail, it is OVER PEOPLE. If you never fly directly OVER a single bit of a person's body you are not OVER people. It's pretty clear that.

Now let's have fun and MUDDY the water..... if you're flying "towards" a group of people (or a single individual) but absolutely not OVER people and you have some type of failure (propulsion, mechanical, electronic etc) and the aircraft tumbles out of control and strikes a human being, you are BUSTED. Even though you never "flow over people" you didn't do enough to ensure the SAFETY of the people on the ground. You were flying in a reckless and dangerous manner.

With Aviation we are always thinking WHAT IF..... This is true for Manned and carries over directly into UAS as well. When flying a manned aircraft we are constantly thinking "What if the engine quits right now? What is my emergency landing area?" Then we look around scanning the sky for traffic and thinking ,WHAT IF?. Same goes for UAS. What happens IF . . . .

The rule states "sustained fight", traveling from point A to point B that passes over people/person is not flight over people.

If you made multiple passes, hovered over people that would be sustained. Otherwise, how would you prevent someone from walking under the drone.

 

[BigAl07]

The rule states "sustained fight", traveling from point A to point B that passes over people/person is not flight over people.

If you made multiple passes, hovered over people that would be sustained. Otherwise, how would you prevent someone from walking under the drone.

LOL! If you're willing to risk an incident and then the outcome of that by all means go ahead and knock yourself out. But giving that type of advice on an open Internet Forum is reckless and wrong unless you're also willing to help support the people who take your advice and it comes back to bite them.