B4UFLY "Good to go!" vs FAA rule 14 C.F.R. § 107.41

Joined
Jun 2, 2018
Messages
290
Reaction score
105
Location
Western Connecticut
That’s interesting, what Drestin Black’s friend might not realize is that the $1437 fine for violating 107.39 would be imposed on every head he flew over.
Just something for all who fly over people to think about.
My advice to them is Don’t fly over people, and if you do, brush up on your editing skills before you post a video.
Interestingly, that is not as bad as the COPPA violations the FTC is starting to hand out to Youtube creators whom they feel have not properly marked there videos as 'for kids' or 'not for kids'. $42,500 for EACH video FTC determines not in compliance. For some creators, that can amount to millions of dollars in fines. Makes those FAA violations seem paltry by comparison.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
4
Age
41
Very interesting conversation, although I know it has digressed from the original topic. I have to be very careful with flying my P4 RTK while performing aerial surveys, especially given the swath pattern to properly cover an area. A couple questions this brings to mind (and I will also search the forum for some answers as well) is exactly how the FAA defines “flying over people” and traffic. In fact I’m going to make this a separate post.
 

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,769
Reaction score
5,444
Age
49
Location
Western North Carolina
A couple questions this brings to mind (and I will also search the forum for some answers as well) is exactly how the FAA defines “flying over people” and traffic. In fact I’m going to make this a separate post.
It's defined as "over any part of a person". No grey area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARMeyer
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
4
Age
41
It's defined as "over any part of a person". No grey area.
Yeah, I understand that and I’m not looking to see how close I can get to someone. But rather I just want to make sure that if I’m flying a site (which are near impossible to completely secure) and a person walks near my flight line (say within 10’), but not under it, that I wouldn’t be in violation as a photo from 100 or 200’ might look like the person was under it.

I looked through the forums, but couldn’t find anything really relating to my question. I’ll make a new post.
 

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,769
Reaction score
5,444
Age
49
Location
Western North Carolina
Yeah, I understand that and I’m not looking to see how close I can get to someone. But rather I just want to make sure that if I’m flying a site (which are near impossible to completely secure) and a person walks near my flight line (say within 10’), but not under it, that I wouldn’t be in violation as a photo from 100 or 200’ might look like the person was under it.
Close isn’t in question (not yet). You can’t fly over a person. If there is a failure and the aircraft hits a person you’re in violation.

Risk mitigation is a huge part of Comm Ops. If you can’t secure the area then you are assuming that risk on your shoulders squarely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARMeyer
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
4
Age
41
Close isn’t in question (not yet). You can’t fly over a person. If there is a failure and the aircraft hits a person you’re in violation.

Risk mitigation is a huge part of Comm Ops. If you can’t secure the area then you are assuming that risk on your shoulders squarely.
Thank you for your replies. Safety for others is extremely important to me, so I do make sure that it it falls it won’t hit someone. It’s finding myself in violation with FAA that I’m mostly concerned about from my question.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
644
Reaction score
449
Location
Miami-Dade
Very interesting conversation, although I know it has digressed from the original topic. I have to be very careful with flying my P4 RTK while performing aerial surveys, especially given the swath pattern to properly cover an area. A couple questions this brings to mind (and I will also search the forum for some answers as well) is exactly how the FAA defines “flying over people” and traffic. In fact I’m going to make this a separate post.
You can go to 3:45 on video for explanation.

 
  • Like
Reactions: ARMeyer and BigAl07

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
6,769
Reaction score
5,444
Age
49
Location
Western North Carolina
You can go to 3:45 on video for explanation.

That's an excellent video. I should save it and go through it to make notes for future references as well.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
776
Age
56
Location
Sterling Heights, MI
That’s interesting, what Drestin Black’s friend might not realize is that the $1437 fine for violating 107.39 would be imposed on every head he flew over.
Just something for all who fly over people to think about.
My advice to them is Don’t fly over people, and if you do, brush up on your editing skills before you post a video.
Well. He was only fined that amount per violation per flight. So it was 1437x2x6, just over $17k.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
776
Age
56
Location
Sterling Heights, MI
I've been wrong before (and will be again) but if everything is as stated above (I'm not doubting you at all DiB) then I do believe the FAA is mistaken. The ~107.41 will probably be dropped but ~107.39 is gonna leave a mark.

Suggest your friend get an AVIATION attorney today and don't try to battle this one alone. Anything he says can and WILL BE used against him.

With the right representation this could be "pleaded" down to much less than it is at the moment. Make sure he stays on top of it because it won't go away and ultimately they will garnish his wages for the fines.
Agreed. He has hired an aviation attorney who specializes in UAS law. They expect the .41 will be dismissed as outright error and the .39 negotiated to a lower total fine.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2018
Messages
37
Reaction score
15
Age
72
ALL OF YOU CAN DEBATE THE ESTHETICS OF MAPPING, CHINESE PROGRAMMING, FAA, WHO WAS WHERE AND DOING WHAT WITH THEIR BIRD.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, KEEP YOUR BUSINESS OFF YOUTUBE AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES. STAY WITH SELECT CLIENTEL, CONSIDER YOU PERSONAL DRONE WORK PROPRIETARY AND PROTECT IT AS SUCH, AND NEVER - EVER PUT ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET YOU DON'T WANT 8 BILLION OTHERS TO KNOW ---- ESPECIALLY THE **** FEDS. AT THE LOW PAY GRADE THEY ARE HIRING, IT'S A WONDER THEY GET ANYONE THAT CAN EVEN READ AND WRITE, MUCH LESS INTERPRET ALL THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS.
IF YOU'RE NOT SURE -- THEN DON'T TAKE THE CHANCES.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
644
Reaction score
449
Location
Miami-Dade
That's an excellent video. I should save it and go through it to make notes for future references as well.
It is, it has explanations to recently asked questions by members.
Here is a link to FAA webinar video series you might also want to save.


 
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
776
Age
56
Location
Sterling Heights, MI
ALL OF YOU CAN DEBATE THE ESTHETICS OF MAPPING, CHINESE PROGRAMMING, FAA, WHO WAS WHERE AND DOING WHAT WITH THEIR BIRD.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, KEEP YOUR BUSINESS OFF YOUTUBE AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES. STAY WITH SELECT CLIENTEL, CONSIDER YOU PERSONAL DRONE WORK PROPRIETARY AND PROTECT IT AS SUCH, AND NEVER - EVER PUT ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET YOU DON'T WANT 8 BILLION OTHERS TO KNOW ---- ESPECIALLY THE **** FEDS. AT THE LOW PAY GRADE THEY ARE HIRING, IT'S A WONDER THEY GET ANYONE THAT CAN EVEN READ AND WRITE, MUCH LESS INTERPRET ALL THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS.
IF YOU'RE NOT SURE -- THEN DON'T TAKE THE CHANCES.
Please don’t yell, it’s unnecessary.

And, actually, what you are basically saying is: if you are doing something that could get you in trouble: hide it. I’m sure you would rather advise: don’t Neel the rules. But no one get that message when you blare something IN ALL CAPS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhantomFandom
Joined
Apr 29, 2018
Messages
37
Reaction score
15
Age
72
You are so very correct. I apologize for my cap's. I didn't know it was considered as a yell. Just emphasizing some points. Thank you for the advice.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
4
Age
41
You can go to 3:45 on video for explanation.

I realized I never responded to your post. Thank you for posting the video. It is very helpful to have that explanation, which makes complete sense.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
12
Reaction score
4
Age
41
Thanks! I came across those when I was studying and watched a couple (even watched one live) but haven’t had the chance. They are very helpful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skymonkey
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
281
Reaction score
156
Age
49
He said the people in the boats were his friends, so if they agreed to being part of the operation then that would put him in the clear.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
1,347
Reaction score
720
Location
Adirondacks, NY, USA
He said the people in the boats were his friends, so if they agreed to being part of the operation then that would put him in the clear.
Not true. They would have do be a direct part of the flight operations. Such as VO is somesuch.
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
137,154
Messages
1,417,742
Members
99,623
Latest member
Valron