Rules and being responsible

[Hegemone]

There is another rule to consider here and that is the 400' above ground level restriction. If you were at 200' and flew out over a cliff do you know how far above the ground you were? If the cliff drops more then 200' you may technically be above 400' AGL. I am guessing you checked for people down below the cliff (or it was inaccessible to people) but flying over ground that is dropping away from you changes your AGL figures so its something to think about if you are thinking about being a responsible recreational flyer. I am sure there are a lot of people that would consider the location and the risk of encountering aircraft or other risk flying that close to a cliff face but it is still a question a responsible flyer will consider.

This is just an observation in line with the title of the post. Not trying to be judgemental or critical. I was just thinking about what questions popped up in my head thinking about the described situation. Since I live in a mountainous region I have considered it a few times. Kind of like flying at a lookout on the Blue Ridge Parkway is a big no-no because it's managed from the National Park System. Not to mention the AGL rule becomes quite important quite quickly on steep slopes. Yet the interwebs are full of video clips of drones all over the Parkway and the various attractions and none of them mention taking any steps to do it within the rules.

 

[LenSavage]

Thank you all for the responses. I am in the US and currently working in Rhode Island. I live in Georgia so I’m not sure where NJ came from. Sometimes my computer thinks I’m somewhere that I am not. Kudos for technology lol. I failed to remember this forum was world wide when I asked the question.

This just reinforces to me to always plan flights thoroughly. When I left the hotel with the drone my intent was to go somewhere along the coastline and get some footage of the ocean and shoreline. I should have done a little more assessment of the actual site I picked before launching. Lesson learned and hopefully others will read and learn from this as well.

I’m thinking I will work on putting together a pre-flight checklist for myself that includes public safety as well as equipment checklist. I’m a safety professional so this shouldn’t be a huge effort and will definitely be helpful.

Regards,

Richard

 

[Aussie Oldtimer]

cant help with US laws but in Australia, not permitted to fly within 30m of anyone, anytime. very clear here.

 

[migmatite67]

Awesome checklist. Much appreciated Thomas B.

 

[Thomas B]

Awesome checklist. Much appreciated Thomas B.

Appreciate the mention but all credit goes to @LenSavage

 

[Lets Fly]

With all the videos we see flying over trees buildings and houses, it is impossible to know if you are over someone at all times. Just use common sense and remember you are responsible for anything that happens with the drone.

 

[migmatite67]

So true. I’m just trying to avoid issues with John Q Public too. Saw a drone related issue on Live PD. Seems AZ has different laws in addition to the FAA rules. Can’t fly lower than 250 ft above someone’s property without consent. Hopefully at least law enforcement is knowledgeable enough to eliminate issues. Need to make sure to check local laws before just assuming the FAA rules are the only rules

 

[ajkm]

The new rules in Canada ... and are certified for operations near people (within 5 meters...or 16.5 feet for my American friends horizontal distance).

I think it might be good to read the manufacturer RPAS safety assurance declaration again - "Near people, within 100ft (30m) *to* 16.4ft (5m)" (Emphasis added).

Unless the people are crew, it is never permissible to be within 5m of them.

See also the same wording in CARs 901.62 (b).

 

[kingsnake11]

Thank you for your comments but I beg to differ on the difference of what is permissible from a legal perspective and risk. Section of the CARs 901.62 specifically refers to advanced operations. You have to have your advanced certification, and your drone has to be certified as well for advanced operations. Most Mavic's are certified for a) operations in controlled airspace, and b) operations within 5 meters of people. Both of these are advanced operation certifications. The exact wording from the CARs901.62 which is specific in Division 5, Advanced Operations is

Division V — Advanced Operations

Application

901.62 This Division applies in respect of remotely piloted
aircraft systems that include small remotely piloted
aircraft and that are intended for operation

(a) in controlled airspace, in accordance with paragraph
901.69(1)(a) and sections 901.71 and 901.72;

(b) at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m) but not
less than 16.4 feet (5 m) from another person except
from a crew member or other person involved in the
operation, measured horizontally and at any altitude,
in accordance with paragraph 901.69(1)(b);

(c) at a distance of less than 16.4 feet (5 m) from another
person, measured horizontally and at any altitude,
in accordance with paragraph 901.69(1)(c); or

as you can see...if you meet the advanced operations requirements then according to b....it clearly states that you may proceed within 30 m, BUT not less than 5 m. You may get closer to crew or other people involved in the operation such as spotters. Section C just re-enforces this.
The third certification section for drones under the advanced certification is whether it can fly over people....very few drones have that certification. The wording in section 901.62 just emphasises the same from the manufacture's declaration. There is a misconception that any manufacture can simply declare their RPAS to be able to do advanced operations. Actually, they have to follow TC guidelines and there are stiff penalties if the declaration is not accurate.

While I do agree with you that flying near people has it's risks, and that is why under the basic certification the 30 meter rule is in force all the time...ie...you may not approach within 30 m of people not involved in your operation or crew. The intent of the advanced operations certifications are for those where it is necessary to get close to people to within 5 meters...such as wedding photography for example....and of course there is risk, that you are taking...but the point is...it's not illegal under the CARs IF and only IF you meet all the other requirements of personal certification and your RPAS(drone) is also properly certified. I have my full advanced certification (passed both advanced exam and flight review, and working on my flight reviewers certification ) and this is how this section was explained to us in the advanced course.
thanks

 

[ajkm]

I suggest you read the text on your Mavic registration certificate. Mavic drones are not certified for use within 5m of non-crew. They are certified for (a) and (b) but not (c) in the CARs definition you cite. And I also think you have misread my comment - which was made as a lawyer specializing in this area btw.

 

[kingsnake11]

Duh.... that is exactly what I said. I state clearly that they are not certified for part (c). You stated "Unless the people are crew, it is never permissible to be within 5m of them." and I am pointing out that I disagree with you as the regulations clearly state in
(b) at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m) but not less than 16.4 feet (5 m) from another person EXCEPT from a crew member or other person involved in the operation." emphasis mine. Let me graph it for you as the language seems to be misunderstood.

BASIC CERTIFICATION
drone<---------------------------------------------------> bystanders/people
NO CLOSER THEN 30 METERS EVER

ADVANCED CERTIFICATION with a drone CERRTIFIED FOR ADVANCED OPERATIONS 1) controlled airspace flight and 2) operations to within 5 meters of people.

Drone<---------------------------------------->XXXXX bystanders/people
CAN APPROACH WITHIN 30METERS UP TO BUT NO CLOSER THAN 5 METERS,(b)

Drone<-XXXXX bystanders/People
CAN NEVER APPROACH CLOSER THAN 5 METERS -EVER(c)

Drone-Pilot
-Crew
-observer/part of operations
CAN APPROACH WITHIN 5METERS A PART OF OPERATIONS.

the (c) section simply states that no matter what certification you or your drone has, you can't approach closer than 5 m, Mavic or any other to people/bystanders..... EXCEPT if they are part of the operation or crew.

I also pointed out that very few RPAS's are certified to fly OVER people AT ANY ALTITUDE.

While I respect you being a lawyer with specializing in this area....may I ask if you are fully certified for advanced operations by Transport Canada? ie. are you recognized by Transport Canada as a professional RPAS pilot? I ask not to be disrespectful, but I do disagree with your interpretation of the regulations and I am presenting how this is taught...and also explained by TC officers at public information seminars. I believe your reading of the language is in error. I say that with respect and while I am not a lawyer, I do believe that in this case I am presenting the correct interpretation. We both are agreeing that under the current regulations, there are no circumstances where an RPAS may be flown within 5 Meters of people/bystanders.

 

[ajkm]

I think you'll find that I said exactly the same thing. Yes, I hold an Advanced Ops pilot certificate and have also passed the flight reviewer exam. I'm done with this topic.

 

[Drgnfli]

So true. I’m just trying to avoid issues with John Q Public too. Saw a drone related issue on Live PD. Seems AZ has different laws in addition to the FAA rules. Can’t fly lower than 250 ft above someone’s property without consent. Hopefully at least law enforcement is knowledgeable enough to eliminate issues. Need to make sure to check local laws before just assuming the FAA rules are the only rules

Can you give me a reference for that 250' rule? I have researched the laws in Yavapai County, AZ & not seen that one...

 

[brett8883]

In the US ... yes

Only if you are a 107 pilot. As @sar104 pointed out above Rules and being responsible
there’s no language prohibiting flight over people for recreational pilots and AMA guidelines, though they advise to avoid flight over people, permit accidental flight over people which in this example would be the case.

 

[Thomas B]

Can you give me a reference for that 250' rule? I have researched the laws in Yavapai County, AZ & not seen that one...

There is a 250ft min in some areas and a 500 ft distance geographically in AZ law, quote:
Chapter 170 (SB1449) - Various Drone Regulations
Effective: Aug 8, 2016
Creates a wide range of drone-related laws and regulations:

• Operation of a drone in dangerous proximity to a person or property is now Disorderly Conduct
• Drones cannot interfere with manned aircraft, law enforcement, or firefighters
• Cities and towns in the state cannot create their own drone regulations or prohibitions
• Cities and towns with more than one park must allow drones in at least one
• Drones cannot fly within 500 feet horizontally or 250 feet vertically of a “critical facility”, including but not limited to: oil & gas facilities, water treatment facilities, power plants, courthouses, military installations, or hospitals.

Reference: Arizona State Legislature
Posted April 2016
Here that whole article:

Arizona – State Drone Law

statedronelaw.com

Here is the text of the applicable current law:

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/sb1449p.pdf

 

[Drgnfli]

There is a 250ft min in some areas and a 500 ft distance geographically in AZ law, quote:
Chapter 170 (SB1449) - Various Drone Regulations
Effective: Aug 8, 2016
Creates a wide range of drone-related laws and regulations:

• Operation of a drone in dangerous proximity to a person or property is now Disorderly Conduct
• Drones cannot interfere with manned aircraft, law enforcement, or firefighters
• Cities and towns in the state cannot create their own drone regulations or prohibitions
• Cities and towns with more than one park must allow drones in at least one
• Drones cannot fly within 500 feet horizontally or 250 feet vertically of a “critical facility”, including but not limited to: oil & gas facilities, water treatment facilities, power plants, courthouses, military installations, or hospitals.

Reference: Arizona State Legislature
Posted April 2016
Here that whole article:

Arizona – State Drone Law

statedronelaw.com

Here is the text of the applicable current law:

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/sb1449p.pdf

NOT TRUE! that is a rule for flying over "critical facility" stuff not over houses. Don't include every house in AZ under that because it isn't true. Like I stated earlier, I have searched for this stuff... (see highlighted bold line in your reply)

~

 

[Thomas B]

NOT TRUE! that is a rule for flying over "critical facility" stuff not over houses. Don't include every house in AZ under that because it isn't true. Like I stated earlier, I have searched for this stuff... (see highlighted bold line in your reply)

~

You need to read the post again. Especially the applicable laws. I think you misinterpreted. Fly on!