USA flying over people

[owenpga]

I'm sure this question has been answered before....

I have an architect that would like me to shoot some aerial shots of a new shopping complex. I would basically be shooting at four corners of the property and would guess that I could have a car or a person under the drone at some point.

Do i need to get a waiver for this and what are the chances that i would be granted this waiver.

I need to let the architect know the whats going on with this.

Thanks
Owen

 

[DesertWindAero]

If you are a Part 107 pilot, yes...you would need to get a waiver.

 

[owenpga]

thanks. i am certified part 107. are you implying that if your not a part 107 pilot your wouldn't need a waiver?

 

[PB30X]

thanks. i am certified part 107. are you implying that if your not a part 107 pilot your wouldn't need a waiver?

Hobbyists/Recreational people are "Not Allowed" to fly over people period, but some do and have witnessed it at 4th of July fireworks etc.. Disclaimer: Please Read and study the Recreational and Commercial guides/Guidlines before assuming someone implied the allowance.. No Forum Member has the final Authority[emoji106]! Just a friendly tip, hit the books and stay updated with the latest updates via FAA and the AMA regarding Quadcopters and Drones.. You are the PILOT (PIC)[emoji6]

 

[PatrickP]

Hobbyists/Recreational people are "Not Allowed" to fly over people period, but some do and have witnessed it at 4th of July fireworks etc.. Disclaimer: Please Read and study the Recreational and Commercial guides/Guidlines before assuming someone implied the allowance.. No Forum Member has the final Authority[emoji106]! Just a friendly tip, hit the books and stay updated with the latest updates via FAA and the AMA regarding Quadcopters and Drones.. You are the PILOT (PIC)[emoji6]

The last i checked in the US, I called the FAA a year or so ago to clarify this very question. The rule is (was?) technically a 400ft bubble from non participating people. so if you're @ 200ft altitude you also have to maintain 200ft distance away to keep the 400ft bubble.

 

[ianwood]

First I've ever heard of a 400ft bubble for amateur use. I don't advise anyone fly over people but I don't think there is anything defined in section 336 on it.

And for the 107 waiver for operating directly over non-participants, you need to have a pretty special setup to get it. I think there are 3 companies who have gotten it so far.

 

[The Editor]

I'm sure this question has been answered before....

I have an architect that would like me to shoot some aerial shots of a new shopping complex. I would basically be shooting at four corners of the property and would guess that I could have a car or a person under the drone at some point.

Do i need to get a waiver for this and what are the chances that i would be granted this waiver.

I need to let the architect know the whats going on with this.

Thanks
Owen

You do not specify which country you are talking about.

 

[Scoobywrx05]

You do not specify which country you are talking about.

This and you would have much better luck talking with the owner of the mall and getting the area you need blocked off than waiting the 6 to 12 months for a waiver to have them say no we don't think that's a good idea.

 

[BigAl07]

Since you stated you are a Part 107 operator this means, at the least, you're operating in he US.

And for the 107 waiver for operating directly over non-participants, you need to have a pretty special setup to get it. I think there are 3 companies who have gotten it so far.

The above statement pretty much nails it. You can apply but don't hold your breath because the odds (at least right now) are pretty much very against it.

Ideally you'd have an area for each shot clearly marked off where no people or cars can pass/stop under your aircraft. Anything else is pretty much assuming all the risk and liability which might not be in your best interest long-term. If someone decides to "report you" you'll want to have documentation that you created the Safety Area under the aircraft.

 

[licensed pilot]

I'm sure this question has been answered before....

I have an architect that would like me to shoot some aerial shots of a new shopping complex. I would basically be shooting at four corners of the property and would guess that I could have a car or a person under the drone at some point.

Do i need to get a waiver for this and what are the chances that i would be granted this waiver.

I need to let the architect know the whats going on with this.

Thanks
Owen

Yes, and slim-to-none. Couldn't traffic, both peds and cars be blocked for a few minutes?

 

[licensed pilot]

The last i checked in the US, I called the FAA a year or so ago to clarify this very question. The rule is (was?) technically a 400ft bubble from non participating people. so if you're @ 200ft altitude you also have to maintain 200ft distance away to keep the 400ft bubble.

With all due respect, since an FAA person told you this, I am not questioning your veracity, only the advice.The feds cannot "makeup" rules on their own.

I have heard that repeated all over the web; however there is no such standard in Part 107, nor do the FARs definitions include "over." And I would love for someone to prove me wrong.

Performance-Based Standards for § 107.39 Operation over human beings.
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 Editor]

Since you stated you are a Part 107 operator this means, at the least, you're operating in he US.

In that case I have moved this thread to where it belongs and added the correct prefix.......

 

[PatrickP]

With all due respect, since an FAA person told you this, I am not questioning your veracity, only the advice.The feds cannot "makeup" rules on their own.

I have heard that repeated all over the web; however there is no such standard in Part 107, nor do the FARs definitions include "over." And I would love for someone to prove me wrong.

Performance-Based Standards for § 107.39 Operation over human beings.
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.

I hear you, that's why I called the local FDSO for some clarity I wanted a technical definition of what not flying over people actually constituted. clear as mud.......

 

[licensed pilot]

I hear you, that's why I called the local FDSO for some clarity I wanted a technical definition of what not flying over people actually constituted. clear as mud.......

LOL. that's why I never ask local FSDOs they know less than I do about UAS rules, they are manned aircraft pilots and experts at dealing with manned AC issues, not UAS. Whenever I've had something I couldn't answer I email the UAS wizards at the FAA Puzzle Palace in DC. I'm not home but I can give you their names and email addresses later. As a bonus, u get their answers in writing...which u can pull out of your holster if you need it against overzealous Fisdos.

 

[licensed pilot]

All three of these guys are vey helpful and knowledgeable on UAS regulations.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

 

[owenpga]

You do not specify which country you are talking about.

 

[churchboy]

I'm sure this question has been answered before....

I have an architect that would like me to shoot some aerial shots of a new shopping complex. I would basically be shooting at four corners of the property and would guess that I could have a car or a person under the drone at some point.

Do i need to get a waiver for this and what are the chances that i would be granted this waiver.

I need to let the architect know the whats going on with this.

Thanks
Owen

This is just a question for you: are you sure that you will be flying over people? Most property corners do not develop as locations for paving or sidewalk. Could you accomplish what your client desires with simply limiting your flight to a vertical rise, gather imagery, then vertical descent, from a safe, pedestrian free location on the ground?

 

[owenpga]

This is just a question for you: are you sure that you will be flying over people? Most property corners do not develop as locations for paving or sidewalk. Could you accomplish what your client desires with simply limiting your flight to a vertical rise, gather imagery, then vertical descent, from a safe, pedestrian free location on the ground?

That's what i was considering doing. Especially early in morning with low winds and nobody really around. My intent isn't to really be flying laterally. i just need to ascend and descend to get the shots

 

[Steve@AerialImagesPro]

Yes, and slim-to-none. Couldn't traffic, both peds and cars be blocked for a few minutes?

And would people in cars be considered as being in a suitably protected 'structure' (as stated in 107)? I don't think it states what makes up a 'structure'.

 

[churchboy]

And would people in cars be considered as being in a suitably protected 'structure' (as stated in 107)? I don't think it states what makes up a 'structure'.

Per 107.39(b) a stationary vehicle is a yes, a moving vehicle is a no.