Be safe, be legal - and be clever

[Drestin Black]

So, way too long a story but, I had to explain how I got this shot to one of those legal eagle rule hounds. “Surely,” I was told, “you flew over people and cars and occupied buildings! I’m gonna sic the FAA on you!”

I pulled the flight record and showed it to him. Straight up, turning in a circle to get shots in various directions, straight back down.

Over a building filled with people?

Nope. Took off, hovered over, and landed in my buddies, family owned and currently unused/empty, parking lot. Clever.

 

[AerialPaolo5286]

People who don't know a thing about drone or how they work are blind to the drone's abilities and what actually happens throughout a flight. You don't need to justify your flights to anyone, other than law enforcement. If you have your Part 107... you, for the most part, only answer to the FAA. Always know where you can and cannot fly. I use www.knowbeforeyoufly.com but there are a bunch of Apps out there that can help with that.

 

[BigAl07]

My first question would be "WTH does an occupied building have to do with anything?" Nothing in the regs mention an "occupied building".

Unless there were people (other than yourself) on top of the building (say a dance party etc) the building has no relevance to the flight.

 

[BigAl07]

People who don't know a thing about drone or how they work are blind to the drone's abilities and what actually happens throughout a flight. You don't need to justify your flights to anyone, other than law enforcement. If you have your Part 107... you, for the most part, only answer to the FAA. Always know where you can and cannot fly. I use www.knowbeforeyoufly.com but there are a bunch of Apps out there that can help with that.

I understand your point but you also have to follow local and state laws (if there are any applicable) and must answer to local, state, and Fed LEO across the board. The FAA is the only ones who will "enforce" airspace safety regs but locals still have full jurisdiction over land use, privacy, and safe operation laws and ordinances.

 

[AerialPaolo5286]

Whoever spoke to you does not have any idea of what they are talking about. The usual rules are to not fly over people or traffic. But more specifically, I believe its 100 feet over people or 150 feet over cars... I could be wrong but that's a rule of thumb. Just to be safe... I try to not fly over people.
An occupied building or unoccupied building... sounds like that person has something to hide lol

 

[Drestin Black]

I don’t want to be too specific because it would be be like blood in the water to Internet justice warriors — so let me put it like this: I didn’t want to tell the cop, look, you are wrong it doesn’t work that way, the FAA says I can do this.
It was easier to simply show I stayed on property I had authorization (owner standing next to me) to be on and I didn’t “stray”

 

[Drestin Black]

Let me give a different example of how you be right and still “wrong” (in “trouble”).

The USS Detroit was moored & ready for commissioning in the morning. To be safe, I notified the navy (via the shipbuilder) I wanted to photograph her there and at night. I got it. I went down at midnight and, in prep, spoke to the guy and gal that were at the fence guarding the ramp. They already had notification and knew my name. I showed ID and told them where I’d be (stop a parking structure) flying from. All good. Up I went, up the drone went and I got some cool photos. Dilly dallied around a bit and decided to run battery Two. 10 min later three DETROIT cop cars came flying up to the roof and paid me a visit.

Of course I told them my story and said, “Ask the guy and girl down there!” They replied, “We didn’t have to, the two guys down there called us!”

Ahha! The original two went off duty and my permission to fly memo went in one of theirs pocket and wasn’t passed on.

Very fortunately the Sargent on duty knew me, precious exploits, and was willing to verify my story on the spot instead at the station. THANKFULLY someone actually found the prior guards and memo and it was all ok.
You can be legal and all that / but sometimes you still have to jump hoops.

 

[BigAl07]

Great example and thank goodness someone in authority was able to speak on your behalf. You got lucky there as it would have been a total PITA to have to prove yourself otherwise. The "responsibility" still falls on us as sUAS operators to carry any and all credentials on our person.

 

[BigAl07]

Whoever spoke to you does not have any idea of what they are talking about. The usual rules are to not fly over people or traffic. But more specifically, I believe its 100 feet over people or 150 feet over cars... I could be wrong but that's a rule of thumb. Just to be safe... I try to not fly over people.
An occupied building or unoccupied building... sounds like that person has something to hide lol

The FAA gives no specific distance as to over cars or people. This is intentional as to allow them to go forward against someone if there is an incident. In most basic of terms... if you have an incident and a car or person are impacted you did not "Remain Clear".

This is from the FAA Fact Sheet:

"You currently cannot fly a small UAS over anyone not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, or not inside a covered stationary vehicle. No operations from a moving vehicle are allowed unless you are flying over a sparsely populated area. "

When asked directly about flying over a vehicle the FAA clarified with the following response:

“The FAA believes that a person should be allowed to fly over a person who is inside a stationary covered vehicle that can provided reasonable protection from a falling unmanned aircraft. The FAA has modified this rule accordingly. This rule will not, however, allow operation of a small unmanned aircraft over a moving vehicle because the moving vehicle-operating environment is dynamic and the potential impact forces when an unmanned aircraft impacts a moving vehicle pose unacceptable risks due to head-on closure speeds. Additionally, impact of a small unmanned aircraft may distract the driver of a moving vehicle and result in an accident.”

Here is a quote directly from the FAR's from the Govt Publishing Office:
§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.

 

[Deleted member 62848]

@Drestin Black just got to say great pictures,very vibrant in colour

 

[BigAl07]

@Drestin Black just got to say great pictures,very vibrant in colour

I gotta agree. You've posted some amazing pics in this and the Night Flying thread.

 

[Drestin Black]

Thank you very much. Casper (my Phantom 4) and I are both old so sometimes we like to turn the vibrance up a little.

 

[PhantomWetSuits]

Let me give a different example of how you be right and still “wrong” (in “trouble”).

The USS Detroit was moored & ready for commissioning in the morning. To be safe, I notified the navy (via the shipbuilder) I wanted to photograph her there and at night. I got it. I went down at midnight and, in prep, spoke to the guy and gal that were at the fence guarding the ramp. They already had notification and knew my name. I showed ID and told them where I’d be (stop a parking structure) flying from. All good. Up I went, up the drone went and I got some cool photos. Dilly dallied around a bit and decided to run battery Two. 10 min later three DETROIT cop cars came flying up to the roof and paid me a visit.

Of course I told them my story and said, “Ask the guy and girl down there!” They replied, “We didn’t have to, the two guys down there called us!”

Ahha! The original two went off duty and my permission to fly memo went in one of theirs pocket and wasn’t passed on.

Very fortunately the Sargent on duty knew me, precious exploits, and was willing to verify my story on the spot instead at the station. THANKFULLY someone actually found the prior guards and memo and it was all ok.
You can be legal and all that / but sometimes you still have to jump hoops.

View attachment 106718
View attachment 106719

Bar none the best night pictures I have ever seen, and we know all about the legal eagles on this sight, as they poop on everything assuming you are guilty first and foremost. Its one of the reasons why people are afraid to post on forums as it can be a hassle. Pictures like these are so inspiring to the thousands that will view this thread. Nice

 

[flyboy73]

Thank you very much. Casper (my Phantom 4) and I are both old so sometimes we like to turn the vibrance up a little.

Nothing wrong with a little extra vibrance or saturation. I choose to record scenes as I remember them. Sometimes nature just can't keep up. Great photos.

 

[Drestin Black]

Thank you so very much.

Frankly, from a legal standpoint, I don’t think I was at risk. I flew as a hobbyist so flying at night was fine. Literally no one on the ground below me. I flew, VLOS, from the rooftop to the open river. Took photos and video of the ship in plain view. It wasn’t even commissioned yet so could hardly be a combat vessel (in case there are some special rules covering that). Instead it was a general freak out on their part: “OMG you are spying on a navy ship with one of them there dronez! Who said you could?” “But I don’t need permission, the FAA says I can,” I just didn’t feel would cover it (accurate though it was). I didn’t count on my special permission slip being lost between guard shift change.

 

[Drestin Black]

Full disclosure: The shipyard DID purchase a photo from the day’s affair covering its travel down the river.

Busted! You so-called hobbyist?!

Don’t bet your panties in a bunch legal eagles, this is the photo (in metallic) hanging in the Captains stateroom:

Shot with my Nikon from the ground, obviously.
I prefer this one:

 

[Drestin Black]

Sometimes nature just can't keep up. Great photos.

I LOVE that! And, thank you.

 

[Drestin Black]

My first question would be "WTH does an occupied building have to do with anything?" Nothing in the regs mention an "occupied building".

Unless there were people (other than yourself) on top of the building (say a dance party etc) the building has no relevance to the flight.

I believe he's referring to the AMA Safety Code, the language of which was changed slightly on Jan 1, 2018. It used to be hobbyists could not fly over "people, vehicles, vessels, and structures" but it was changed to "unprotected people, moving vehicles, and occupied structures." The word vessels was removed.

https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/105.pdf

Since a building is a structure, the phrase "occupied building" is relevant.

 

[Andy9]

Regardless of all this the pictures are beautiful! Congratulations.

 

[Timus]

Kind of like don't drink and drive or text or speed