having done five real world autorotations and plenty of recovered autorotations i can tell you you are not "Falling" from the sky you can pick your landing spot and put it there. for your "If" comment. every accident is a chain, break one link and the accident wont happen. Risk mitigation is limiting the bad actions in your risk chain
USA Flying over people COA
- Thread starter SeekToInspire
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coa flying over people waiver
having done five real world autorotations and plenty of recovered autorotations i can tell you you are not "Falling" from the sky you can pick your landing spot and put it there. for your "If" comment. every accident is a chain, break one link and the accident wont happen. Risk mitigation is limiting the bad actions in your risk chain
What about using a ballistic parachute? This would in theory, increase safety. Opale Parachutes - Kit for DJI Inspire 2 - Safetech ST60X
DELETED POSTS ??
Why have some posts been deleted with NO notification??
Is this the DJI inspire forum, or Inspire Pilots?? (hard to tell)
Why have some posts been deleted with NO notification??
Is this the DJI inspire forum, or Inspire Pilots?? (hard to tell)
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
Because they had no place on this thread/forum - end of.DELETED POSTS ??
Why have some posts been deleted with NO notification??
Is this the DJI inspire forum, or Inspire Pilots?? (hard to tell)
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
- Reaction score
- 522
Being insured does not make you a safe operator. It only means you are covered if/when you have a mishap. I seriously doubt the FAA will grant a waiver based upon the fact that you are insured. Just saying....
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 298
- Reaction score
- 64
- Location
- Ransomville NY
- Website
- kdactionphoto.smugmug.com
Anyone expand on the flying over people. According to our local FSDO, flying over people also means flying at an angle away from people, even if you are flying directly over a structure and the people are a 45 degree angle away from your flight line you are flying over people. Waiver required. This is under 107.
Thanks
Kevin
Thanks
Kevin
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,904
- Reaction score
- 801
- Location
- CASA GRANDE, AZ
- Website
- www.martinezaerial.com
What? Me thinks your FSDO is very wrong, unless they are referring to aiming the UAS at the people directly so that in case of malfunction momentum will carry the bird straight at them (that would be poor piloting skill, a PIC should never "aim" the UAS at any person but plan to fly parallel)). How far is "an angle away from people?" 500 feet? A mile? That is subjective FAA BS.
The burden is on the PIC to operate so that a "malfunction of the UAS will not cause injuries to non-participating persons on the ground." If you hurt someone then you are in deep kimshi, but if you give yourself a reasonable distance from the persons and a malfunction brings the UAS down safely away from the persons you violated no FAR. Keep in mind most FSDO staff is very good at manned aircraft issues. sUAS is new to them. My 2 cents
These are my go-to guys at the FAA for rules interpretation:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Try asking any of them and let us know what their answer is.
§ 107.39 Operation over human beings. No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless that human being is:
(a) Directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft; or
(b) Located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft.
In order to obtain a waiver, the applicant must meet this:
Performance-Based Standards
1. Applicant must provide a method such that any malfunction of the sUAS will not cause injuries to non-participating persons on the ground.
2. Applicant must mitigate risk to non-participants through an operational risk assessment, testing, and data, addressing design features, operational limitations, or a combination thereof specific to
the operation.
3. Applicant must address the risk from exposure to rotating parts and sharp edges which could injure a non-participating person.
4. Applicant must show the pilot in command, or person manipulating the controls, have adequate knowledge, experience, and ability to safely operate an unmanned aircraft over non-participating
persons including recent flight experience within last 30 days.
The burden is on the PIC to operate so that a "malfunction of the UAS will not cause injuries to non-participating persons on the ground." If you hurt someone then you are in deep kimshi, but if you give yourself a reasonable distance from the persons and a malfunction brings the UAS down safely away from the persons you violated no FAR. Keep in mind most FSDO staff is very good at manned aircraft issues. sUAS is new to them. My 2 cents
These are my go-to guys at the FAA for rules interpretation:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Try asking any of them and let us know what their answer is.
§ 107.39 Operation over human beings. No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless that human being is:
(a) Directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft; or
(b) Located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft.
In order to obtain a waiver, the applicant must meet this:
Performance-Based Standards
1. Applicant must provide a method such that any malfunction of the sUAS will not cause injuries to non-participating persons on the ground.
2. Applicant must mitigate risk to non-participants through an operational risk assessment, testing, and data, addressing design features, operational limitations, or a combination thereof specific to
the operation.
3. Applicant must address the risk from exposure to rotating parts and sharp edges which could injure a non-participating person.
4. Applicant must show the pilot in command, or person manipulating the controls, have adequate knowledge, experience, and ability to safely operate an unmanned aircraft over non-participating
persons including recent flight experience within last 30 days.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 298
- Reaction score
- 64
- Location
- Ransomville NY
- Website
- kdactionphoto.smugmug.com
I didn't want to test the FDSO officials knowledge. I am learning to as we go even though I am experienced. I agree with your info. My opinion would be the glide path. Unless you are in windy conditions, flying at an angle towards the people I would think your rig would drop. That's why I thought angled away from spectators and using the top of buildings as a safety net would be ok.
I really am getting worried on flying anywhere even when we do a risk assessment and preflight checks. I don't know. We will continue on.
Thanks for your help
Kevin
I really am getting worried on flying anywhere even when we do a risk assessment and preflight checks. I don't know. We will continue on.
Thanks for your help
Kevin
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,904
- Reaction score
- 801
- Location
- CASA GRANDE, AZ
- Website
- www.martinezaerial.com
The regulation is very clear. The definitions FAR 107.3 does not include a definition of "over," therefore the FSDOs do not get to re-interpret the regulation nor create definitions. As PIC, it's my duty to operate within the FARs, isn't that why we took an exam? I have flown near people but never over them and never laterally closer than a couple of hundred feet, and never directly at them. I follow the "airshow rule," the energy vector is either away from people or parallel to them. FAR 107.39 was not applicable at any time.
I do not advocate challenging the feds but their answer does not pass the smell test. I'm sure there will be a test case sooner or later. I am, in no way suggesting you should be that case.
I do not advocate challenging the feds but their answer does not pass the smell test. I'm sure there will be a test case sooner or later. I am, in no way suggesting you should be that case.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 298
- Reaction score
- 64
- Location
- Ransomville NY
- Website
- kdactionphoto.smugmug.com
Thanks licensed pilot.The regulation is very clear. The definitions FAR 107.3 does not include a definition of "over," therefore the FSDOs do not get to re-interpret the regulation nor create definitions. As PIC, it's my duty to operate within the FARs, isn't that why we took an exam? I have flown near people but never over them and never laterally closer than a couple of hundred feet, and never directly at them. I follow the "airshow rule," the energy vector is either away from people or parallel to them. FAR 107.39 was not applicable at any time.
I do not advocate challenging the feds but their answer does not pass the smell test. I'm sure there will be a test case sooner or later. I am, in no way suggesting you should be that case.
Don't get worried; be confident. Make sure there is absolutely no chance that your flight could negatively impact the general public and you will be fine. Some places just can not be flown on the time and date that you need to get it done. At that point, where it is obvious that a safety risk is evident, then you have to make the call and so no, can't fly this today. It happens to us frequently. You just have to learn how to artfully say no without uttering the word to some of your VPs.
PBS 2 & 4 will be the most difficult to write and will be scrutinized by the Feds. Like LP said air show rules and waivers are a great way to see how waivers are approved. The correct verbage is "directed energy" at persons and property. CNN, FLIR the big companies that have gotten approval all have complex Flight Ops Manuals (FOM) that very specifically define how they train, plan, and conduct flight operations. Unfortunately those FOM's are proprietary and most likely cost them big bucks. I've yet to see any of them shared with the public. Best of luck, I hope you can get some good feedback and an approval.
Similar threads
