msinger Posted at 2018-8-17 09:40
I linked you to a thread that included all of the rules you must follow by law (since you keep asking for them). There is no mention of a rule that states you should "never fly over groups of people, public events, or stadiums full of people". That is a great suggestion and something everyone should probably not be doing.

The FAA is super vague. There's no question about that. With the exception of the CBO rule, US law is pretty clear. If the AMA is your CBO of choice (for example), then you are not allowed to fly directly over unprotected people. Unless you took off from park property directly beside that ride (which you claim you did not), then I'm thinking you're going to have a tough time proving you did not fly over unprotected people. If you wanted to fly over that park when it is closed and completely empty, then I don't think you'd have a problem.

I'm actually already in discussions with the park at this time.
I'm getting everything in a row, I plan on my footage being public, and I know the park would find out, and I know certain people would want to inform the FAA of my actions.  So I'm just preparing.

Let us know how you make out. It'll be interesting to hear the outcome.

Hope it works out in a positive and friendly light.


It would be nice to see more pro action...


RedHotPoker

Thanks all, I'll keep you updated.

From the park perspective, they require written authorization to fly within the park.

But.... that can't be enforced if we launch and land outside of the park.  I'm trying to think of a nice and polite way of saying that without sounding like a little brat.

You guys keep referring to the very, very, short set of rules and law, but i bet your last $that the FAA has an Air Navigation Order (prob another name) that has a much more indepth book or rules/laws/regulations, i would be VERY surprised if its just the

Fly only for hobby or recreation
Follow the safety guidelines of a nationwide community-based organization
Fly a drone under 55 lbs (if not certified by a community-based organization)
Never fly near other manned aircraft
Notify airports within 5 miles before flying
Fly within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the person operating the drone
Register your drone with the FAA

Cause that is nothing really and it does not explain  anything, but, even if that is all, i think your park flight would come under flying the aircraft in a "careless or reckless manner" and that term is catchall.  You need to think about it this way, IF something had gone wrong, person/s got hurt etc and you ended up in court, you would need to convince the judge that your flight was 100% safe, now, we know that was the case cause something bad went wrong and you ended up in court (hypothetically), but it would be you that would need to convince the judge you was flying safely, now flying over an amusement park would not be classed as flying safe, flying as close as 30ft to a fast moving rollercoaster would not be classed as flyingsafely, that would certainly come under the catch all  "careless or reckless manner". This is the UK's
Drone Code its what everyone is pointed to when flying drones (please take a look how simple it is)  and now this is full expanded version unmanned aerial vehicles the links in the middle are very important too. Please note, on the Drone Code page or leaflets and other media, no where does it state to go and read the ANO on the CAA page, so you could say only the Drone Code applies, pretty much like what you are saying about your drone laws, but i bet you there is a fully expanded version somewhere in the FAA servers and thats for you to find out and learn about because it all applies to you if you want to fly your drone, im sure one of the lads on here will know what im on about and can guide you to ie i cant help as i aint clued up on the US FAA stuff,

Now then, i have seen your responses to some members replies, its not our place to be searching out your local rules and regs to be honest but some have found some lit for you and you pretty much chucked it back at them, we aint here to spoon feed you, if you cannot be asked to read the rules and regs concerning your hobby  thats up to you, take our advice, dont take it, again, thats up to you, but remember this, in that hypothetical court room, the judge will not accept, "but a guy on the DJI forum said it was ok",  just remember that its down to you to make sure you are in full compliance of the FAA rules, regs and laws

Bashy Posted at 2018-8-17 20:14
You guys keep referring to the very, very, short set of rules and law, but i bet your last $that the FAA has an Air Navigation Order (prob another name) that has a much more indepth book or rules/laws/regulations, i would be VERY surprised if its just the

Fly only for hobby or recreation

No problem, but if you tell me there's a rule out there, don't send me a link to a whole page.  You might as well send me a link to Google and I'll make my own interpretations.  

If you think this topic is not worth the discussion, being the fact that these rules are buried into oblivion, I'm just pointing it out that it could be clearer.  

For anybody else that wants to send me a link to a 2,000 word document for a one line question, no thanks.  

Cheers.

§107.19   Remote pilot in command. (c) The remote pilot in command must ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason. §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.

That should pretty much sum up why you should not fly as close as you did to the park, this was taken from your (Gov's) full list of does and donts, this list you should already know about, it took me a few seconds to find it, i searched google for unmanned aerial aircraft USA, in the list near the top was https://www.faa.gov/uas/, on there is said, hetting started, how to fly in a button at the bottom, on there is said

• Never fly over groups of people, public events, or stadiums full of people
  

below there i followed the link at the bottom of the Fly under the FAA's Small UAS Rule (Part 107) section  For more information, see: Fly under the Small UAS Rule

its taken me 30 minutes to find the info to spoon feed you with and write it twice cause i hit the back button by accident, i started it at 5:30am, i could have been looking at fluffy cats, dogs getting into trouble or porn but i did what you should have done, I read your regulations of drone flights, i read the nationwide, what your own state thats for yout or the state you fly in says is another matter, thats for you to look up.....

Bashy Posted at 2018-8-18 21:03
That should pretty much sum up why you should not fly as close as you did to the park, this was taken from your (Gov's) full list of does and donts, this list you should already know about, it took me a few seconds to find it, i searched google for unmanned aerial aircraft USA, in the list near the top was https://www.faa.gov/uas/, on there is said, hetting started, how to fly in a button at the bottom, on there is said

Never fly over groups of people, public events, or stadiums full of people
below there i followed the link at the bottom of the Fly under the FAA's Small UAS Rule (Part 107) section  For more information, see: Fly under the Small UAS Rule

I'll give you a pass this time, but just so you know, the very first line of my original post states that I didn't fly OVER any people.

I know this is one of the major rules.

Now, maybe we're all getting a little mixed up and we've lost the original point, but I didn't fly over any people.  In fact, I mapped out a path to fly where nobody would be below me.

You may ask what happens to the passengers as they descend, and that's an honest question because you can't see it, but they go into a tunnel below the drone, and there's also a net below.

So now that we've cleared that up, thank you for "spoon feeding" regarding flying OVER people, that is the first thing I checked off my list.

So it looks like I'm good.  There is absolutely no FAA rule that I broke.  Thanks everybody.

You missed 107.19, the 1st one, you know, the one you was asking about, property......

as for the people, 1st off, you have now removed the image that showed a lot more too, it looked like the coaster was heading back to, or near to your position,  to me it looked like you had to fly over the track to get to the position you was in and have the tracks down below to your left, thats why i pointed out about flying over people.

Now being 30ft away from the structure, with people, in a fast moving car to me, it would fall under the 107.19 , namely, pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason. No way could you redict what could have happened, surely it would come under ''reckless endangerment''.

okey dokey, if my drone lost control and smashed into the big metal structure, it wouldn't have damaged it.  

Thanks again!

OK, the point has been missed, what if it hit a person or debris got caught under a wheel and anything else we cannot think of, look, its all about mitigatiing risk, if you cannot see that that why did you even ask for advice, after all, you seem to know it all anyway. I have sought out the info on the regs for you in my own time, ya welcome by the way, where you go from here is up to you, you wanted it spelling out but when its been done for you, you try to dismiss it, its your choice bud, i will leave it with you.

Bashy Posted at 2018-8-18 21:25
You missed 107.19, the 1st one, you know, the one you was asking about, property......

as for the people, 1st off, you have now removed the image that showed a lot more too, it looked like the coaster was heading back to, or near to your position,  to me it looked like you had to fly over the track to get to the position you was in and have the tracks down below to your left, thats why i pointed out about flying over people.

Seems like a waste of time, clearly there is only one answer that he will accept, and since we are not USA citizens we could quite safely give him that answer.  However if he has any doubt, clearly the correct thing to do is for him to ask his "nationwide community-based organization", not to ask an international community with no legal authority.   Of course if this flight was a commercial flight, as appears to be the case even though he denies that, then the "nationwide community-based organization" is irrelevant.

I think you have about as much chance of convincing him that the flight was not safe and was thus illegal as you have of convincing the USA that guns are dangerous!

For the rest of the world, clearly this was an irresponsible flight and we don't want to see anyone using drones this close to uninvolved people, especially ones that have no chance of moving out of the way of a crashing drone.  Stick to your national safety limits, for example 50 meters from people for much of the world.

I think very, very few quadcopter pilots flying in the USA - something like one in 50, or maybe even less than that - fully understand the rules/laws for model piloting - which means those pilots are not model pilots even if they think they are.  

I think it's pretty clear this was a 107 flight due to the OP's refusal to answer this very simple and direct question asked by msinger quite a few posts back:  Which CBO safety guidelines were you following for your flight?

Since it is apparent the OP is not certified, the flight was not legal.

But so what?  There are thousands of flights on youtube  just like this one - most of which are illegal drone flights.  Nobody cares.  

You see, if it's such an easy answer, it shouldn't take hours of dedicated investigation of the rules just to come up with a vague answer.

I did my own research prior to the flight, I mapped out my route so I wouldn't fly over people, and I wasn't in danger of damaging any property.

I'm sorry that so many of you are getting offended that your vague answers are falling short of actual rules, it must be frustrating.  I appreciate your suggestions, and I will consider them.  The flight has been made.  I have no need to do it again, unless the amusement park hires me to do some shots in the future.

I had more chance of hitting a pedestrian with my car on the drive to work today, than causing any damage with my drone.  At some point you need to let go of some extreme hypothetical possibilities
.
Thanks for your input.  

If 30 feet is too close to the structure, then there MUST be a minimum distance stated somewhere in the rules.  Otherwise, the "safe distance" is very subjective.  

Maybe I missed it somewhere in these responses and various links, but if there is a minimum distance rule from structures or people, I will follow it in the future.  Is it 100 feet?  200 feet?  There has got to be a number, because opinions and suggestions don't matter against FAA rules.  Did I miss the minimum number somewhere?  Honest question.

Thanks

Here it NL it is not allowed to fly in such places.
But then again we are not allowed to fly in many places.

It's all fine to fly that close to people. Unless something goes wrong, then it's time for the courts to interpret the law.
There is a guy in Seattle (?)that was flying to film a parade, a gust of wind blew him into a building and crashed the drone onto two people. Jail time.
Google Paul Skinner.

Here in aus we would never get away with a flight that close to ppl were not allowed to fly within 30 meters horizontally of any person not directly involved in the flight.
But thats Australia for you.

Hellsgate Posted at 2018-8-20 16:56
Here in aus we would never get away with a flight that close to ppl were not allowed to fly within 30 meters horizontally of any person not directly involved in the flight.
But thats Australia for you.

See, you've got a rule of 30 meters. That's an easy rule to find and to follow.

So far, we are struggling to get a distance rule here with the FAA, unless it's buried under pages of hypothetical nightmares.

justin_mcvideo Posted at 2018-8-20 17:37
See, you've got a rule of 30 meters. That's an easy rule to find and to follow.

So far, we are struggling to get a distance rule here with the FAA, unless it's buried under pages of hypothetical nightmares.

You still haven't qualified your flight.  

justin_mcvideo Posted at 2018-8-20 17:37
See, you've got a rule of 30 meters. That's an easy rule to find and to follow.

So far, we are struggling to get a distance rule here with the FAA, unless it's buried under pages of hypothetical nightmares.

Im not really sure this discussion is about your flight any more but more likely people are questioning the distance horizontally from people not directly involved in the flight of the drone.
As mentioned im from aus and the rules are very clear and simple here......... Dont do stupid stuff.

Mark The Droner Posted at 2018-8-20 18:26
You still haven't qualified your flight.

So if I qualify my flight, you'll have the minimum distance rule for me?

Seriously, you are not helping yourself, i have given answers straight from the FAA's regs with links to take you direct to them, if you cannot be asked to read them then hey, thats your business, or how you interpret them is also your business, we are only trying to help yet you talk down to us,  let me make one thing perfectly clear, if there is one thing you take on board from this whole thread, your idea of reality and the courts idea of reality will be worlds apart.............

Bashy Posted at 2018-8-20 19:44
Seriously, you are not helping yourself, i have given answers straight from the FAA's regs with links to take you direct to them, if you cannot be asked to read them then hey, thats your business, or how you interpret them is also your business, we are only trying to help yet you talk down to us,  let me make one thing perfectly clear, if there is one thing you take on board from this whole thread, your idea of reality and the courts idea of reality will be worlds apart.............

Dude, if you don't know the minimum distance from bystanders, but pretend you do, you're wasting everybody's time.

If you know the minimum distance do everybody a favor and share it. Not a full page link, just say the number. Not a link to the number, just type in the number here. (The number, not the link)

PS

not the link, but the number.

on that note, i'm out.....

In Larpas (Its the advisory committee to Latvian Aviation Authority and to EU UAV groups) - we study various laws and regulations as well as recc'd to evaluate our recc'd to Lat CAA and EU.

Near all have a definite rule about how close to animals / people you may fly. How close to structures. The height you may fly. What areas and if public access areas with restrictions on activities etc.

Taking the shot in earlier post - I would suggest that breaks two fundamental rules :

Distance to people and structures.

Flight in a restricted area regardless of whether operating or not.

Interesting that in opening post you say :

First of all, there were no people under me, it was just concrete and asphalt, that's why I chose that position.  I did NOT launch or land within the amusement park property

Then we see a shot of you close to an amusement ride of serious type.

As to publicly displaying on Youtube ... lets be honest - I can say this for myself and I think it would apply to many - videos that cross the legal flight rules are manyfold on YT ... I know I have quite a lot there that as a LARPAS member - I should know better !!

I do know of a couple of people who have been approached by Authorities for drone videos posted online. But both cases were warnings not to do it again. Its been a while since I heard of a prosecution of drone video.

And its not only drone vids ... guy recently was in UK court for videoing his ~200mph motorbike ride :

https://www.independent.co.uk/ne ... mpion-a8456471.html

He was jailed !!  And I have to agree with that ...

Nigel

Hellsgate Posted at 2018-8-20 18:53
Im not really sure this discussion is about your flight any more but more likely people are questioning the distance horizontally from people not directly involved in the flight of the drone.
As mentioned im from aus and the rules are very clear and simple here......... Dont do stupid stuff.

In the UK, we are allowed to do stupid stuff, what we are not allowed to do is unsafe stuff.

justin_mcvideo Posted at 2018-8-20 08:34
If 30 feet is too close to the structure, then there MUST be a minimum distance stated somewhere in the rules.  Otherwise, the "safe distance" is very subjective.  

Maybe I missed it somewhere in these responses and various links, but if there is a minimum distance rule from structures or people, I will follow it in the future.  Is it 100 feet?  200 feet?  There has got to be a number, because opinions and suggestions don't matter against FAA rules.  Did I miss the minimum number somewhere?  Honest question.

I had a quick look at your rules, just out of interest, since from what has been posted they seem to be lacking in safety requirements.

However there are a couple of safety rules that you do need to comply with, they are not drone rules but do apply to all aircraft including drones and it doesn't matter if you consider your drone to be a model aircraft or not.  I believe from your first post photo that you would have a very hard time convincing a court that you have complied with them when you can't even convince other drone pilots!

I think this one is quite clear, but leaves the question of if those people where in danger or not, based on the response of other pilots I suggest that they were:

§91.13   Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.



This one gives you a limit of 500ft to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure, also requires that you can perform an emergency landing "without undue hazard to people...", and that you can't fly lower than 1000 feet above an open air assembly of persons, which I think you did:

§91.119   Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.


However there is an exception for helicopters and weight shift aircraft, presumably a drone is a "weight shift aircraft":

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.


This time, you are not just concerned about the peoples lives, but about any hazard to those people or property.   I don't see how you could claim that there was no hazard at all to those people in the photo and so I conclude that the flight was illegal, although I would count that area as a congested area so you were not allowed to fly lower than 1000 ft anyway.

Nigel_ Posted at 2018-8-21 01:27
In the UK, we are allowed to do stupid stuff, what we are not allowed to do is unsafe stuff.

Yeah ok i concede good point

justin_mcvideo Posted at 2018-8-17 06:16
And the result?

I as well planned and searched for the laws.  I would appreciate the feedback of what you found, directly related to my flight over the amusement park.  Keep in mind, I did not fly over people.

You do not have to fly OVER people to violate laws ... close proximity less than the stipulated horizontal distance will violate law. That photo shot clearly shows you in violation of that horizontal rule regardless of any other law you broke.

The laws take in account 3 dimensions ... not just one.

Nigel

Nigel_ Posted at 2018-8-21 01:27
I had a quick look at your rules, just out of interest, since from what has been posted they seem to be lacking in safety requirements.

However there are a couple of safety rules that you do need to comply with, they are not drone rules but do apply to all aircraft including drones and it doesn't matter if you consider your drone to be a model aircraft or not.  I believe from your first post photo that you would have a very hard time convincing a court that you have complied with them when you can't even convince other drone pilots!

Well that pretty much sums it up nicely!
Ok onto the next topic

justin_mcvideo Posted at 2018-8-20 08:17
You see, if it's such an easy answer, it shouldn't take hours of dedicated investigation of the rules just to come up with a vague answer.

I did my own research prior to the flight, I mapped out my route so I wouldn't fly over people, and I wasn't in danger of damaging any property.

Justin.

With great respect - I think already you have crossed too many lines.

1. It is increasingly obvious that flight was for gain .. that makes it Commercial and 107 in the USA.

2. Reckless is a suitable word for the example shot you give too close to the roller coaster ride.

3. It seems you have an opinion that your Phantom / Drone cannot or will not suffer fault or error. Sadly too many can correct that mis-conception after they and I have had 'incidents'.

4. People here wish flights to be safe and responsible, that often means flying more restricted than maybe the rules dictate. Especially when rules may be vague.

Here in EU there is a specific requirement to not fly closer horizontally than 50m to people / animals unless they are part of the 'piloting'. I seem to remember from reading that AMA being a CBO has similar guidelines in its UAV / Model flight recc'ds. But of course if its 107, as it appears it is and you without 107 Licence ... then I think you ought to pull up a chair, think carefully and go get your Part 107 before thinking about flights for gain or clients.

Overall - join the community here who do not wish to insult or antagonise because so far you seem to be getting upset unfairly.

Nigel

justin_mcvideo Posted at 2018-8-20 18:57
So if I qualify my flight, you'll have the minimum distance rule for me?

I don't understand this thread.  

You started it showing off a kid's face.  Then, when nobody commented on the legality of your flight, you, yourself, challenged the readers to comment on the legality of your flight.  70 posts later, you still haven't told us what rules you are flying under.  

This is an impossible problem to solve and you know it.  It has all the indications of a troll thread.  

Mark The Droner Posted at 2018-8-21 03:21
I don't understand this thread.  

You started it showing off a kid's face.  Then, when nobody commented on the legality of your flight, you, yourself, challenged the readers to comment on the legality of your flight.  70 posts later, you still haven't told us what rules you are flying under.  

Why does it matter what rules he was flying to?  

Whatever rules he uses, he still has to comply with §91 which requires that the flight "is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface", or that "the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.", or if it is a congested area that essentially he can't fly.

Nigel_ Posted at 2018-8-21 03:31
Why does it matter what rules he was flying to?  

Whatever rules he uses, he still has to comply with §91 which requires that the flight "is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface", or that "the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.", or if it is a congested area that essentially he can't fly.

I agree with you.  It doesn't matter.

My point is, the OP is a troll and this is a troll thread.  His intent from the beginning was to disrupt.  

It certainly seems to be argumentative stance on his part ... asks question - puts limitations on the style of answers.

Gets given links ... quotes ... and lets be honest ... the time he's taken to type the rebuttals - he could have read the links !!

I have to mention something that my membership and time in LARPAS has shown :

The number of UAV flyers particularly in the 'Drone' community who regard airspace as open and free to do whatever they want, thinking because the drone appears easy to fly that its fine to fly where no sane person would. We have so many examples debated in meetings it sickens to be honest.

Sorry to say it - but this thread is starting to fall into that sad category and does none of us any favours.

My advice Justin - is maybe go for the 107 and LEARN about what you can and cannot do. Second a bit of humility would not go amiss.

I will come back to view - but doubt I will post again ... unless a change of style - it appears futile.

Nigel

Hahaha very funny

jacksonnai Posted at 2018-8-21 04:48
Hahaha very funny

What is funny ? Peoples replies ? My post ? His question ?

Interested to know what's funny ... forgive me for taking a serious line with original posting and topic.

Nigel

solentlife Posted at 2018-8-21 06:11
What is funny ? Peoples replies ? My post ? His question ?

Interested to know what's funny ... forgive me for taking a serious line with original posting and topic.

Lol I mean the kid

Nigel_ Posted at 2018-8-21 03:31
Why does it matter what rules he was flying to?  

Whatever rules he uses, he still has to comply with §91 which requires that the flight "is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface", or that "the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.", or if it is a congested area that essentially he can't fly.

Been pretty much saying that (and then i was more specific once i read the regs) since post 8 but he wont listen, he also removed the other image that showed the track down below when i mentioned about flying over the track, i think this image i found  and him being within 30' of the coaster car pretty much shows he flew over the track ( and people) as the track was under or he had to go over it with the,  the image is pretty close to the angle the drone was at too

ac