Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

Why you don't fly over other people's homes...

Came across this video today on YT.

It's only a matter of time that a serious drone collision with an airplane or helicopter is going to happen.
In the early days of aviation there were those that opposed it, of course there were foolish people doing foolish things, then there were horseless carriages, motorcycles, electricity, computers, cell phones, Hoverboards and numerous others I have missed. Have there been mishaps? Obviously, will new technology march forward? Definitely! In drones I see the future of transportation and aviation not just little toys hovering in the sky.
Does anyone want to see a sUAV hit a home, person or anything else, I would say no. Will forcing everyone to get a pilots license decrease that definitely not. Aircraft crash into neighborhoods causing loss of life and property damage frequently, shall all civil aviation be routed away from people and infrastructure? Pretty sure that's not going to happen, drone vs. home or aircraft will there be some damage? More likely to the drone. This debate is kind of like the gun debate many are sold few are used stupidly where is the attention going? To the few isolated overblown incidents such as the drone falling on the house but not causing any damage, or this video which clearly shows some silly me individual but fortunately no damage. This change is coming whether you choose to accept it or not, there will be numbskulls and there will be chicken little screaming "the sky is falling " but the tech is here to stay and more than likely be our next mode of transportation.
 
Last edited:
Like I mentioned in another thread. It's not the technologie but the social media and the attitude nowadays that everybody is a star.
 
In the early days of aviation there were those that opposed it, of course there were foolish people doing foolish things, then there were horseless carriages, motorcycles, electricity, computers, cell phones, Hoverboards and numerous others I have missed. Have there been mishaps? Obviously, will new technology march forward? Definitely! In drones I see the future of transportation and aviation not just little toys hovering in the sky.
Does anyone want to see a sUAV hit a home, person or anything else, I would say no. Will forcing everyone to get a pilots license decrease that definitely not. Aircraft crash into neighborhoods causing loss of life and property damage frequently, shall all civil aviation be routed away from people and infrastructure? Pretty sure that's not going to happen, drone vs. home or aircraft will there be some damage? More likely to the drone. This debate is kind of like the gun debate many are sold few are used stupidly where is the attention going? To the few isolated overblown incidents such as the drone falling on the house but not causing any damage, or this video which clearly shows some silly me individual but fortunately no damage. This change is coming whether you choose to accept it or not, there will be numbskulls and there will be chicken little screaming "the sky is falling " but the tech is here to stay and more than likely be our next mode of transportation.

I apologize for my earlier narrow minded posting, Macdyver. My ignorance and lack of vision prevented me from realizing the dolt who launched his drone 400+ meters into the national airspace, soaring among the clouds and risking civil aviation was just another Orville Wright or Charles Lindbergh demonstrating he has the "right stuff." This type of stupidity should not be stifled but encouraged. Maybe the govmn't can give out federal grants. I get it now. Sorry.:rolleyes:
 
I apologize for my earlier narrow minded posting, Macdyver. My ignorance and lack of vision prevented me from realizing the dolt who launched his drone 400+ meters into the national airspace, soaring among the clouds and risking civil aviation was just another Orville Wright or Charles Lindbergh demonstrating he has the "right stuff." This type of stupidity should not be stifled but encouraged. Maybe the govmn't can give out federal grants. I get it now. Sorry.:rolleyes:
Then also accept my apology, I used to think you were stuck on stupid, pedantic and simply had difficulty reading and or understanding, then it was gently suggested by another that you may have a touch of senility, but now I'm pretty sure you simply have myopic views and no other opinions matter but your own. In either case sir as one gentleman to another how about we simply agree to disagree. May your life be long and prosperous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryan Van Scotter
In a little over one month we will have Part 107. As a remote pilot you will be able to fly directly over people and homes and still be legal. The only requirement on directly overflying people is that they are under safe cover such as a structure or stationary vehicle. If you have an accident that results in serious injury and/or more than $500 damage (other than the UAS) you will need to report it to the FAA within 10 days. Serious injury is Level 3 or higher, such as hospitalization, broken bones or lacerations requiring suturing.

I am not sure that either of these incidents discussed here would even be considered serious enough to even have to report it. The drone fire, certainly not. The drone hitting a woman on the head probably based on the injuries reported in the story but it looks like those reports might not be a accurate. In the video the woman does not fall down and does not appear to be knocked unconscious as reported. You can clearly see that she has put her hand to her head and has remained on her feet.

In both cases I believe the operations would have been legal if operating under Part 107.

In fact the new regulations require that you stay within 400' of a structure or the ground, your choice.

The FAA is not expecting us to operate UAS with zero risk. What they do expect us to do is ADM and Risk Management. This means identifying the risks, recognize the severity of the risk, and taking steps to mitigate the risk (not eliminate them).

In the more serious incident regarding the Canadian woman it did not appear that he was directly overflying individuals, instead it looked like he lost control of the Phantom 3 and it descended at an angle to hit a woman on the edge of the populated area. He did not know why he lost control. It does look like the flight was illegal as he did not have the proper permits.

Jason Sitz, Jacksonville, FL phone number 904-514-0188, flight was clearly illegal under today's model aircraft, 333 waiver and Part 107 regulations, but clearly posting his real name and the exact location means he is totally clueless! BTW, he is looking for some help on how to break the 500 meter altitude limit, he states "I would rather go higher than farther".
 
Last edited:
Came across this video today on YT.

It's only a matter of time that a serious drone collision with an airplane or helicopter is going to happen.
I didn't see ant planes or helicopters at risk in this video, but I didn't watch the whole 5 minutes of nothing, please point out the time maker where you saw at risk aircraft, thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Frank
The FAA doesn't regulate fireworks, but does regulate UAVs. Flying over private homes is wrong. Drones drop from the sky, unannounced and injure people. Thus the rules.
Drone filming 5k in Quebec falls out of the sky and hits woman in head

Then I HIGHLY suggest the FAA regulate news helicopters. You know...I hear they fly over homes, too. The difference being, that when THEY crash, people die. The other difference is they crash pretty consistently.

It cracks me up - the double standard between 4 lb. plastic drones and 2-ton killing machines. The former with an almost perfect safety record with nothing buy hearsay reports and anecdotes (not a single video). The latter, the Internet is literally loaded with helicopter crashes and the ensuing carnage.


Quite literally, ONE YEAR of helicopter crashes completely trumps the entire history of model aviation. But hey...by all means, worry about those 4 lb. plastic toys.

Hilarious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacDyver
Then I HIGHLY suggest the FAA regulate news helicopters. You know...I hear they fly over homes, too. The difference being, that when THEY crash, people die. The other difference is they crash pretty consistently.

It cracks me up - the double standard between 4 lb. plastic drones and 2-ton killing machines. The former with an almost perfect safety record with nothing buy hearsay reports and anecdotes (not a single video). The latter, the Internet is literally loaded with helicopter crashes and the ensuing carnage.


Quite literally, ONE YEAR of helicopter crashes completely trumps the entire history of model aviation. But hey...by all means, worry about those 4 lb. plastic toys.

Hilarious.
You are so right! And helicopters are flown by highly trained individuals, not by half-wits...
 
:( The problem with beating a dead horse is the horse doesn't know it and it simply exhausts you!
Us uneducated, undisciplined dronies obviously pose a threat to those high flying pilots who have spent years in their respective fields to watch as they slowly become replaced by tech.
Any kid with an XBox can do what these guys only dreamed of, look no further than our modern Air Force as proof.o_O
 
:( The problem with beating a dead horse is the horse doesn't know it and it simply exhausts you!
Us uneducated, undisciplined dronies obviously pose a threat to those high flying pilots who have spent years in their respective fields to watch as they slowly become replaced by tech.
Any kid with an XBox can do what these guys only dreamed of, look no further than our modern Air Force as proof.o_O
dead-horse.gif
 
What do u want me to do? Unfriend him? :D

b77fd2d1d92edccbdbd6a529fa32244b.jpg
 
You are so right! And helicopters are flown by highly trained individuals, not by half-wits...

And these "highly trained individuals" still manage to crash into people, homes, businesses, and KILL lots of people EVERY year, without fail. Meanwhile, in "half-wit land," they are a nuisance. And nothing more. Nothing but "what if" arguments, anecdotes and "sightings"....yawn.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacDyver
I apologize for my earlier narrow minded posting, Macdyver. My ignorance and lack of vision prevented me from realizing the dolt who launched his drone 400+ meters into the national airspace, soaring among the clouds and risking civil aviation was just another Orville Wright or Charles Lindbergh demonstrating he has the "right stuff." This type of stupidity should not be stifled but encouraged. Maybe the govmn't can give out federal grants. I get it now. Sorry.:rolleyes:

Well...in the entire history of model aviation, there HAS been ALMOST ONE collision with a full scale aircraft (that means "zero" for those mathematically challenged folks). But.....you DO have one helluva "what if" argument that COULD hold up in a court of law. LMAO...okay...I was lying. "What if" arguments NEVER hold up in a court of law.

Personally, I think the video is "pretty"....LOL.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacDyver

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
22,277
Messages
210,655
Members
34,334
Latest member
unitedconveyormktg