Hi,

can somebody help me define "flying over people"?
Here is what the part 107 says:
"
§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."

What I need is a clarification about what "operating a small unmanned aircraft over a human being" means exactly.

Is it flying directly over somebody's head, or in some proximity? If so, what distance from a human being is safe?

Also, if flying directly overhead, which altitude is considered safe?

All of us know that in many instances we may not be able to check if the aircraft is flying over somebody's head, especially if operating in an urban environment because we physically can't see through the structures, trees, etc. to make sure that nobody is there at the time of the operation. Keeping LOS on the aircraft doesn't mean that we can control everything, which is going on on the ground at the same time.

So, how should this rule be interpreted exactly?

Part b: Specifies that unless the person is Located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft." So that pretty well sums it up. As long as you are not directly over people who apply to the rule you are ok according to the rule. However common sense should also prevail. You should not fly over traffic though the people are protected by their cars if the drone falls it could cause quite any accident. Even though you may not be flying directly over an individual flying in an area where people are rather near by especially large groups is not a good idea. Like I said Rules are Rules and are often wishy washy in their interpretation. This is where common sense comes into play.

If there is a strong wind and you are flying at 100m altitude then flying directly over them and suffering a power failure would be safe, flying 20m upwind would put them in danger - you need to do a risk assessment and ensure that the flight is safe, literally complying with the rules is not enough.

50 metres is considered safe in most countries, that should not invade their privacy as you cannot make out any faces at that distance

I interpret that as you should not be flying if people may be walking around.  Altitude has nothing to do with it because if it falls out of the sky for any reason, it could cause serious harm or death.  If flying in a possible urban area, you should have a spotter or block area where people cannot walk out where you will be flying.  The FAA has fairly restrictive rules which makes flying in urban areas difficult, but with some planning and focused applications, many uses should still be possible.  

500 ft  distance

The link below measure the force of "1 brick falling from a height of only 11 feet" hitting you on your back or the head. Look at the Force of Impact "3,168" (lbs-force) and that is only from 11 feet.

Please read it and let me know if it is worth flying over people and taking the chance that the drone might loose power and fall on someone's head or body from a height of 100+ feet.

I am not willing to take that 0.000001% chance, is anyone else willing to gamble in killing or paralyzing someone for life???

Click on this link and skip to page 4.

http://www.hazardcontrol.com/fac ... ts-calculations.pdf

We can have fun and enjoy our hobby, profession etc. but we can also be responsible human being too. Believe me it won't hurt and it will never hurt...  

SAFETY FIRST - FUN SECOND

dronist Posted at 2017-5-3 10:18
The link below measure the force of "1 brick falling from a height of only 11 feet" hitting you on your back or the head. Look at the Force of Impact "3,168" (lbs-force) and that is only from 11 feet.

Please read it and let me know if it is worth flying over people and taking the chance that the drone might loose power and fall on someone's head or body from a height of 100+ feet.

Knowing the forces involved is pretty meaningless unless you know what those forces do to the human skull. You've also got to take into account the make up of the object, a brick is solid and unforgiving, a phantom has quite a lot of crumple zones.

I have never flown in zero wind, so the people directly below are probably the safest, in fact it's rarely hovering, so the target / danger zone would be somewhere in front of me, not below me.

Anyway, I think the question was about the legality of flying over people, not the moral or ethical choices we face everyday that may put others in danger. Such as flying our drones, speeding down the road in our fast cars ..... doh!

{:4_177:}

dronist Posted at 2017-5-3 10:18
The link below measure the force of "1 brick falling from a height of only 11 feet" hitting you on your back or the head. Look at the Force of Impact "3,168" (lbs-force) and that is only from 11 feet.

Please read it and let me know if it is worth flying over people and taking the chance that the drone might loose power and fall on someone's head or body from a height of 100+ feet.

Well, that is not an accurate comparison, phantoms are weightless.

Matt-and-Riley Posted at 2017-5-3 11:38
Knowing the forces involved is pretty meaningless unless you know what those forces do to the human skull. You've also got to take into account the make up of the object, a brick is solid and unforgiving, a phantom has quite a lot of crumple zones.

I have never flown in zero wind, so the people directly below are probably the safest, in fact it's rarely hovering, so the target / danger zone would be somewhere in front of me, not below me.

Mattttt, Rileyyyyy,... I love you man...

This the law, at least in the US, and it is, CRYSTAL CLEAR, No If or Butttt and 'Imagine It' sums it up &aposERFECTLY' so that is why I did not tried to explained it again.

I was responding to the other people talking about distance, height etc.

* So your assumption that the wind will carry your phantom somehow to a 'SAFE LANDING' away from people in 'Cotton Candy Land' where it won't hurt anyone... for that alone you need few of these {:4_177:}

Second in regards to you assumption that the phantom is different than a brick...

* How about the battery??? I am pretty sure it weighs as much as a brick or little bit less.

* How about when the DRONE WITH THE BATTERY in falling down from let's say 50', we are NOT saying 200' to 400', where most people fly, do you think it is going to fall with the legs down or the weight is going to take over and flip it up side down, going down like a mortar shell???  

Again, for alonet you would need several of these {:4_177:}

I am NOT saying I personally speed...   but and it is A BIG BUTTTT, if I speed, I would never speed unless I have no cars around me so I don't endanger other people. Same thing with flying, I don't fly over people because I don't wan to take that chance either.

I have seen the P4P fall to the ground with only ONE second of warning and did not even tried to auto land, because the battery malfunctioned. I was lucky, 2 feet of snow and was up 8'. It terrified me thinking if I was hundred of feet high flying and people were below me. So yes moral and ethical should be used in everyday situation. Maybe, It is just me...

Again... I love you man...

fans5ba4c294 Posted at 2017-5-3 13:17
Well, that is not an accurate comparison, phantoms are weightless.

Actually, it IS accurate.

P4P with a battery weighs in at 1lbs. and 15 ounces. One ounce shy of 2lbs. Maybe you should try to drop the weightless phantom from 200' on top of your head and then you can prove me wrong.

dronist Posted at 2017-5-3 15:25
Actually, it IS accurate.

P4P with a battery weighs in at 1lbs. and 15 ounces. One ounce shy of 2lbs. Maybe you should try to drop the weightless phantom from 200' on top of your head and then you can prove me wrong.

In the UK, we are allowed to fly directly over people, but we have to have at least 50 meters altitude which means that if it looses power, it has time for the propellers to spin up in reverse creating drag and lift to slow the decent to the point where it will not cause fatal injury if it hits someone.   

They don't fall like a brick when they loose power, except for a short period while the propellers are actually stopped.

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-5-3 15:36
In the UK, we are allowed to fly directly over people, but we have to have at least 50 meters altitude which means that if it looses power, it has time for the propellers to spin up in reverse creating drag and lift to slow the decent to the point where it will not cause fatal injury if it hits someone.   

They don't fall like a brick when they loose power, except for a short period while the propellers are actually stopped.

Nigel,

Surely then your government has conducted tests showing that the drone will flip back and fall down in a slow mention and then will surely land on it legs or the human will then catch it and give the drone back.

Please provide us with those videos and I will surely give you NOT ONE, NOT TWO but  


  

Use common sense. The workforce and general population of people have grown way too soft and can't even think for themselves. Its sad.

dronist Posted at 2017-5-3 15:25
Actually, it IS accurate.

P4P with a battery weighs in at 1lbs. and 15 ounces. One ounce shy of 2lbs. Maybe you should try to drop the weightless phantom from 200' on top of your head and then you can prove me wrong.

Definition of phantom
1
a :  something apparent to sense but with no substantial existence :  apparition
b :  something elusive or visionary
c :  an object of continual dread or abhorrence the phantom of disease and want
2
:  something existing in appearance only
3
:  a representation of something abstract, ideal, or incorporeal

pretty sure phantoms still don't weigh anything
I'm okay with dropping nothing on my head, unless its like a double negative!
If I drop nothing from 200' up and it weights nothing then am I dropping a brick on my head!

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-5-3 15:36
In the UK, we are allowed to fly directly over people, but we have to have at least 50 meters altitude which means that if it looses power, it has time for the propellers to spin up in reverse creating drag and lift to slow the decent to the point where it will not cause fatal injury if it hits someone.   

They don't fall like a brick when they loose power, except for a short period while the propellers are actually stopped.

Nice theory except it doesn't happen that way.
If you want to see the telemetry from a falling Phantom, look at this:
Jump to 1:25 and you'll see that a falling Phantom is still accelerating after falling 150 metres.

In the RePL course I have recently completed we went through this.

In Australia we have to remain 30m away from people. That is actually a half hemisphere of 30m from the person. So for that part you could be 30m directly overhead. The other part is that the UAV must not endanger people in case of a failure and be able to clear the area. A quadcopter does not have any redundancy so in case of a failure it will fall. It may not fall straight down and there can be quite a few factors to consider but there will be a cone of risk below the aircraft, the base of which will increase with altitude. We were advised that at 30m the base should be at least 10m in diameter.

fans5ba4c294 Posted at 2017-5-3 17:44
Definition of phantom
1
a :  something apparent to sense but with no substantial existence :  apparition

So now we want to discuss your imaginary friend/s AKA (Phantom/s)  

You missed the real definition of Phantom:
phan·tom
ˈfan(t)əm/
noun
noun: phantom; plural noun: phantoms

        a figment of the imagination.
        "he tried to clear the phantoms from his head and grasp reality" OR "he thought he can drop the phantom on his head and NOTHING will happen to his head"

        synonyms:        delusion, figment of the imagination, hallucination, illusion, chimera, vision, mirage...
   

So I know slamming you with the BITTER reality that the phantom is real and weight 1.15 lbs may have messed up your HUSH PROTECTED world, and for that, please forgive me and

YOU ARE 100% RIGHT, {:4_181:}

Nothing will happen to your  {:4_177:}  if your friend the phantom fell on your {:4_177:},

and again, I am wrong and REALLY SORRY for my mistake...  

dronist Posted at 2017-5-3 18:50
So now we want to discuss your imaginary friend/s AKA (Phantom/s)  

You missed the real definition of Phantom:

Well, I'd agree with you but are you only calculating the weight of the battery. You said " P4P with battery weighs in at 1lbs and 15 ounces" blah blah blah. I tend to think that is just the battery weight? SoOOO what happened to the rest of the Phantom! Is it a figment of your imagination!! WOOOO spooky action at a distance!

Not that any of this matters because with my original post I firmly had my tongue placed on my cheek.

Cabansail Posted at 2017-5-3 18:26
In the RePL course I have recently completed we went through this.

In Australia we have to remain 30m away from people. That is actually a half hemisphere of 30m from the person. So for that part you could be 30m directly overhead. The other part is that the UAV must not endanger people in case of a failure and be able to clear the area. A quadcopter does not have any redundancy so in case of a failure it will fall. It may not fall straight down and there can be quite a few factors to consider but there will be a cone of risk below the aircraft, the base of which will increase with altitude. We were advised that at 30m the base should be at least 10m in diameter.

10m doesn't sound right, unless you are hovering in light winds.  If you are doing 50mph at 100m altitude when the power fails it is going to travel a lot more than 10m before hitting the ground.

I think for a Phantom sized aircraft the UK 50m dome is far more sensible.

dronist Posted at 2017-5-3 15:14
Mattttt, Rileyyyyy,... I love you man...

This the law, at least in the US, and it is, CRYSTAL CLEAR, No If or Butttt and 'Imagine It' sums it up &aposERFECTLY' so that is why I did not tried to explained it again.

I've got an experiment lined up, wondering if you could help me .... Got a brick, got a 50' drop, just need someones head to drop it on. Reading your posts I suspect someone has already dropped something on your head

I'm not buying your claims of only speeding when no other cars around. Your car is not a toy to play with pretending to be a racing driver. Getting upset about being hit by a falling Phantom, nothing compared to the huge lump of impeding death you drive around at high speed. Blatantly breaking the road laws and boasting about it online will ruin the hobby for everyone. A wise man once said to me 'Safety first - fun second'

If you promise to stick to all the speed limits from now on, I'll promise not fly over peoples heads

Uk stipulates only that you must not overfly crowds of a 1000 or more, that you should fly 50 metres from any person and 30 metres from a person on takeoff. Overflying a person or persons, is not disallowed under CAA regs as stated. Think about it, passenger jets overfly city centres and over many peoples heads. They can and do fall out of the sky and sometimes cause hundreds of casaulties and or deaths, certainly those on board, and some on the ground. The FAA or CAA could regulate the flight paths and relocate airports so no large town is over flown, but they dont. Health and Safety is about likelyhood X risk, divided by what is reasonably practicable. Saying you cant overfly a person/s when just about all civilian and non civilian aircraft do , when they have the capacity to cause much greater harm, is the pot calling the kettle black. The FAA and the CAA need to seriously revamp the rules regarding small drones under 20kg, and split them down into small categories.

Like a driving license, drones should be registered, inspected yearly like motor vehicles, and people should show they are competent to fly them.

SPIKE_151 Posted at 2017-5-4 00:54
Uk stipulates only that you must not overfly crowds of a 1000 or more, that you should fly 50 metres from any person and 30 metres from a person on takeoff. Overflying a person or persons, is not disallowed under CAA regs as stated. Think about it, passenger jets overfly city centres and over many peoples heads. They can and do fall out of the sky and sometimes cause hundreds of casaulties and or deaths, certainly those on board, and some on the ground. The FAA or CAA could regulate the flight paths and relocate airports so no large town is over flown, but they dont. Health and Safety is about likelyhood X risk, divided by what is reasonably practicable. Saying you cant overfly a person/s when just about all civilian and non civilian aircraft do , when they have the capacity to cause much greater harm, is the pot calling the kettle black. The FAA and the CAA need to seriously revamp the rules regarding small drones under 20kg, and split them down into small categories.

Like a driving license, drones should be registered, inspected yearly like motor vehicles, and people should show they are competent to fly them.

The CAA do have a requirement that any aircraft flying over a town/city etc is high enough to be able to glide away from the town/city in the event of engine failure.  There is also a minimum height requirement of 1000ft for towns/cities and 500ft for people.  Presumably drones are excluded from those rules!

I don't think a yearly drone inspection is going to save many lives!

Cabansail Posted at 2017-5-3 18:26
In the RePL course I have recently completed we went through this.

In Australia we have to remain 30m away from people. That is actually a half hemisphere of 30m from the person. So for that part you could be 30m directly overhead. The other part is that the UAV must not endanger people in case of a failure and be able to clear the area. A quadcopter does not have any redundancy so in case of a failure it will fall. It may not fall straight down and there can be quite a few factors to consider but there will be a cone of risk below the aircraft, the base of which will increase with altitude. We were advised that at 30m the base should be at least 10m in diameter.

This actually makes a lot of sense to me. At least the rules are clear, not like in FAA's regulations.

Cabansail Posted at 2017-5-3 18:26
In the RePL course I have recently completed we went through this.

In Australia we have to remain 30m away from people. That is actually a half hemisphere of 30m from the person. So for that part you could be 30m directly overhead. The other part is that the UAV must not endanger people in case of a failure and be able to clear the area. A quadcopter does not have any redundancy so in case of a failure it will fall. It may not fall straight down and there can be quite a few factors to consider but there will be a cone of risk below the aircraft, the base of which will increase with altitude. We were advised that at 30m the base should be at least 10m in diameter.

UH?  How would a quarter of a sphere be safe?

Matt-and-Riley Posted at 2017-5-4 00:32
I've got an experiment lined up, wondering if you could help me .... Got a brick, got a 50' drop, just need someones head to drop it on. Reading your posts I suspect someone has already dropped something on your head

I'm not buying your claims of only speeding when no other cars around. Your car is not a toy to play with pretending to be a racing driver. Getting upset about being hit by a falling Phantom, nothing compared to the huge lump of impeding death you drive around at high speed. Blatantly breaking the road laws and boasting about it online will ruin the hobby for everyone. A wise man once said to me 'Safety first - fun second'

MATTTTT,,, Reilllllly, again I would start with, I do love you My Britt man...

First,  I'll admit, you are getting better at drawing and I bet in few years you will be on to 1st grade, guarantee.

Second, it seems that your 'queen' has already did the test on your {:4_177:}  and with ALL the BRITTS, on this forum, concurring to each others that only 50' drop of the P4 would only scratch their skull and it is NOT a danger to a human being.

With that said, the conclusion that everyone else on this forum, beside you BRITTS, and 'fans5ba4C294', (which by the way, I suspect he is an undercover BRITT living among us in the US)   

would come to is, that  'ALL  BRITTS'  have THICK

and the P4 dropping from below 50' would only scratch the surface of their    and would NOT hurt them but  it would just make them do...

Wowww, what just happened? Is that the wind? Is that a mosquito? No, It feels like a P4 falling on my head?  

One more time, I really do love you man and nooooo hard feelings!!!  

P.S. The OP was asking about US law and NOT everywhere else. That is why everyone should check each country's law before flying!

Labroides Posted at 2017-5-3 18:03
Nice theory except it doesn't happen that way.
If you want to see the telemetry from a falling Phantom, look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P20jEzQ5eU0
Jump to 1:25 and you'll see that a falling Phantom is still accelerating after falling 150 metres.

Good catch!  but they are still arguing about it???

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-5-4 03:14
The CAA do have a requirement that any aircraft flying over a town/city etc is high enough to be able to glide away from the town/city in the event of engine failure.  There is also a minimum height requirement of 1000ft for towns/cities and 500ft for people.  Presumably drones are excluded from those rules!

I don't think a yearly drone inspection is going to save many lives!

Do you know of a single person that has been killed by a drone falling from the sky? or any injured and the ratio of flights to injuries? that may be more pertinent to this discussion and helicopters certainly dont glide away from cities if the fall from the sky.

Found this too which makes interesting reading.

Drones falling from the sky pose little danger to humans, according to a new study from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The report found that if a DJI Phantom 3 drone falls on a person's head, it has just a 0.3% chance of causing a serious injury like a concussion.
On the other hand, a falling block of wood with the same mass carries a 99% chance of causing a head injury.
This bodes well for businesses hoping to more extensively use drones in the coming years. Drone regulations, which are mandated by the FAA, are due for an update next year, thanks to a reauthorization act passed by Congress in March 2016. Currently, these regulations are very stringent, largely because of safety concerns and fears that they could be dangerous to humans and other aircraft. But next year's update could make them looser, particularly as companies innovating in the space hit roadblocks as a result of the current regulations. This new report could help their case.
And if the FAA crafts more lenient regulations, that could benefit a myriad of companies innovating in the space, including firms like Amazon and Walmart that are angling to launch a commercial drone delivery service.

Seems the FAA don't agree with dronist.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/do ... 017-5?r=US&IR=T

Simple, they don't want you flying over people that are not involved in the operation unless they are under cover. Are you a Licensed RPIC?

SPIKE_151 Posted at 2017-5-4 11:45
Do you know of a single person that has been killed by a drone falling from the sky? or any injured and the ratio of flights to injuries? that may be more pertinent to this discussion and helicopters certainly dont glide away from cities if the fall from the sky.

"helicopters certainly dont glide away from cities if the fall from the sky"
True, that is why they are banned from flying over cities unless they have twin engines, although the ambulance and police seem to be exempt from that rule.

I don't know that anyone collects statistics on drone injuries so it is hard to even guess at numbers. However we seem to hear of more deaths from model helicopters than drones and model helicopters are very rare compared to drones which suggests drones are not very dangerous.

Commercial aircraft have redundancy and have the ability to glide if they have no power. Helicopters can auto rotate and have some control. They ar both aeronautically stable.

A quadcopter has no redundancy and is an unstable. If it loses one motor/propeller it will fall.

The cone I referred to above is not fixed, you have to assess the risk for the operation in which you are involved. The onus is to fly in a manner where the risk is minimised.

Cabansail Posted at 2017-5-4 13:55
Commercial aircraft have redundancy and have the ability to glide if they have no power. Helicopters can auto rotate and have some control. They ar both aeronautically stable.

A quadcopter has no redundancy and is an unstable. If it loses one motor/propeller it will fall.

I think that if a helicopter looses one propeller it will also fall

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-5-4 14:10
I think that if a helicopter looses one propeller it will also fall

True. Hence the very expensive testing and verification on those critical components. We do not have those systems in place.

It is all about risk minimisation as you cannot have zero risk.
We had a RPT flight over Sydney drop a propeller a few weeks ago. Almost a tonne of metal falling from the sky. It took a couple of days to find it as it had fallen in just about the only reserve under it's flight path. It could have been so much worse. We accept those risks as the advantage is having airports close to cities and we can travel by air. There are risks flying quadcopters but the advantage is mainly for the operator.

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-5-4 14:10
I think that if a helicopter looses one propeller it will also fall

You are correct, helicopter has no redundancy for loss of propeller. However autorotation for engine failure or tail prop failure, but broken or lost main propeller it gone.

SPIKE_151 Posted at 2017-5-4 12:08
Found this too which makes interesting reading.

Drones falling from the sky pose little danger to humans, according to a new study from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The report found that if a DJI Phantom 3 drone falls on a person's head, it has just a 0.3% chance of causing a serious injury like a concussion.

What is this story about?

http://www.independent.co.uk/new ... afety-a7180576.html

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-4 14:53
What is this story about?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/drones-fatal-road-accident-first-non-military-drone-death-accident-car-crash-surveillance-safety-a7180576.html

Seems to have been a car accident after a police chase. The fact that they may have been using a UAV illegally is not a direct cause of death. It does show how the media will be all over it when something does happen.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-4 14:53
What is this story about?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/drones-fatal-road-accident-first-non-military-drone-death-accident-car-crash-surveillance-safety-a7180576.html

Dirty scumbag media, they are just out of control now and no one seems to give a sh*t. Are there meant to be some sort of regulators making sure these evil little corporations behave.

The drone is probably to least important part of the whole story and had nothing to do with the crash.

I like the stock Phantom photo used again. They really don't like DJI

Matt-and-Riley Posted at 2017-5-4 15:47
Dirty scumbag media, they are just out of control now and no one seems to give a sh*t. Are there meant to be some sort of regulators making sure these evil little corporations behave.

The drone is probably to least important part of the whole story and had nothing to do with the crash.

The writer went out of their way to make the most use of the word drone including a reference to BA727 hitting a drone back in April 2016.
Despite widespread coverage of this "incident" it turned out that the plane hit nothing and no drone was involved.

http://www.independent.co.uk/new ... plane-a6988666.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ ... ight-may-have-been/

Those earlier posts may be suspect reporting, but I'm afraid this one is real and a wake up call to all of us..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/healt ... d-eyeball-half.html