Can I fly over my own car?

[sar104]

I just posted that it is still a proposed clarification for you and as it has not been passed. You cannot "therefore" state fact on assumption.

The FAA proposal that you posted states that operations over people in moving vehicles is already not allowed, and simply proposes to add a section to state that explicitly rather than implicitly. It doesn't change anything.

 

[chascoadmin]

If there is a person anywhere on the ground including in a moving car you cannot fly over the person unless that person is inside a protected structure including a stationary car. You could get waiver to fly over the person but waiver will have this environmental provision.
View attachment 115910

I saw that, but it is a provision on a specific waiver and not a Part 107 regulation. This waiver specifically is very dependent on how you word it and where and what the operation was. The activity is also subject to local entities so you may run into other scenarios not even related to the FAA. For instance the State of Texas prohibits drone operations inside of the ROW. I talked to them, took off and landed outside of their ROW and they have nothing to say.

I think I made my point so I will leave you all alone now. If you operate your own business or fly for a larger corporation I would recommend that everyone sit down once in your career with an informed attorney and find those loopholes and protect yourselves.

 

[sar104]

I saw that, but it is a provision on a specific waiver and not a Part 107 regulation. This waiver specifically is very dependent on how you word it and where and what the operation was. The activity is also subject to local entities so you may run into other scenarios not even related to the FAA. For instance the State of Texas prohibits drone operations inside of the ROW. I talked to them, took off and landed outside of their ROW and they have nothing to say.

I think I made my point so I will leave you all alone now. If you operate your own business or fly for a larger corporation I would recommend that everyone sit down once in your career with an informed attorney and find those loopholes and protect yourselves.

You made your point but, to be clear, it was wrong. And since you studiously avoided answering how 107.39 could possibly be interpreted to mean that flying over people in moving vehicles is not prohibited, I think you know that.

 

[Adamborz]

Sure glad none of this applies to the military. Imagine.... don’t fly over the terrorist with your drone before you blow them to ***and make sure their vehicle is stopped too!

Ha just being a little facetious...

 

[BigAl07]

Just think how does Hollywood get all their shots flying over moving cars... not counting the CG stuff? Waivers?

I know I’m going to get flamed for this but I think people way over think some of this stuff.

If Hollywood needs THE shot, would it be safer with their drone or a full size helicopter getting the shot? And yes I realize they use closed course for the crazy action shots...

I’m not sure exactly what your end goal is, but you can always zoom in post to make the drone appear to fly close or over the moving car, and speed up the footage to appear to be moving faster than you are.

Certainly don’t turn any damage claims into your auto insurance company

107.39 says not to fly over people unless the are in a stationary vehicle.... use some creative editing to achieve what you want.

You do know that Section 333 Exemptions are still valid for operations that fall outside of Part 107? That's how many movies & commercials are shot with sUAS. It's a pain to get one but once you get it, it's valid and well worth the effort especially for Closed Set environments.

 

[Weston Ney]

That's right I forgot about the 333!

You do know that Section 333 Exemptions are still valid for operations that fall outside of Part 107? That's how many movies & commercials are shot with sUAS. It's a pain to get one but once you get it, it's valid and well worth the effort especially for Closed Set environments.

 

[Adamborz]

You do know that Section 333 Exemptions are still valid for operations that fall outside of Part 107? That's how many movies & commercials are shot with sUAS. It's a pain to get one but once you get it, it's valid and well worth the effort especially for Closed Set environments.

Why would their movies fall outside of part 107? Unless they’re using drones 55 lbs or heavier, then making movies is a commercial venture. (Maybe they shoot indoors?)

If you’re asking me if I know about the exemptions, yes I do.

 

[BigAl07]

Why would their movies fall outside of part 107? Unless they’re using drones 55 lbs or heavier, then making movies is a commercial venture. (Maybe they shoot indoors?)

If you’re asking me if I know about the exemptions, yes I do.

They operate on a Closed Set for movies etc so they operate outside of Part 107 and yes they do have rigs heavier than 55lbs.

 

[Weston Ney]

Why would their movies fall outside of part 107? Unless they’re using drones 55 lbs or heavier, then making movies is a commercial venture. (Maybe they shoot indoors?)

If you’re asking me if I know about the exemptions, yes I do.

An Alta Freefly drone with a Movi gimbal and an Arri Alexa cinema camera with a Cooke Anamorphic lens, wireless video and follow focus and everything else very well could weigh over 55 pounds! (Probably doesn't mean anything in this situation but I take online film school so I know a lot about the industry )

 

[Adamborz]

A closed set outside should still fall under 107 if for commercial purposes. But I’m just guessing...

 

[BigAl07]

A closed set outside should still fall under 107 if for commercial purposes. But I’m just guessing...

Section 333 Exemptions are for situations where Part 107 isn't possible or isn't practical. I'd say in some instances (many actually) Part 107 will suffice if only one aspect of your operation falls outside of the regs. But What if you're flying over people, flying aircraft heavier than 55lbs, etc etc. This is why Section 333 Exemptions can come into play.

 

[Weston Ney]

Yes for a film there are lots of the part 107 rules that would be broken so it's just not practical. How hard is it to get a 333 exemption, and does it last for a few years or is it job specific?

Section 333 Exemptions are for situations where Part 107 isn't possible or isn't practical. I'd say in some instances (many actually) Part 107 will suffice if only one aspect of your operation falls outside of the regs. But What if you're flying over people, flying aircraft heavier than 55lbs, etc etc. This is why Section 333 Exemptions can come into play.

 

[BigAl07]

Yes for a film there are lots of the part 107 rules that would be broken so it's just not practical. How hard is it to get a 333 exemption, and does it last for a few years or is it job specific?

It's insanely hard because it's so detailed and it requires the person who it's issued to, to also hold a Pilots License. I'm not sure if a RPIC would suffice because when I got mine Part 107 wasn't created yet. I could see where a 333 could be issued to a Part 107 operator but I haven't verified that yet. The regs merely state must hold a valid (and current) pilot's license.

I think my 333 submssion was something like 48 pages long and took 10 months to get approved. It was approved for all Class - G airspace and I have a LOA (Letter of Agreement) to where I could also operate in Class C airspace here in my local area. It was good for 36 months IIRC.

Some people, back in the day, were paying upwards of $10K to get help writing and submitting their 333 Requests. I just took my time, did the research, and typed for days and days. Got approved on the first try. I was lucky to say the least.

 

[Weston Ney]

It's insanely hard because it's so detailed and it requires the person who it's issued to, to also hold a Pilots License. I'm not sure if a RPIC would suffice because when I got mine Part 107 wasn't created yet. I could see where a 333 could be issued to a Part 107 operator but I haven't verified that yet. The regs merely state must hold a valid (and current) pilot's license.

I think my 333 submssion was something like 48 pages long and took 10 months to get approved. It was approved for all Class - G airspace and I have a LOA (Letter of Agreement) to where I could also operate in Class C airspace here in my local area. It was good for 36 months IIRC.

Some people, back in the day, were paying upwards of $10K to get help writing and submitting their 333 Requests. I just took my time, did the research, and typed for days and days. Got approved on the first try. I was lucky to say the least.

Whew! That's crazy! Hopefully they make it easier in the future! (I guess I need to figure out how to mount a gimbal to my truck somehow in the mean time... )

 

[BigAl07]

Ok I got the needed "Clarification" directly from our FAA Legal Department:

In regards to hobby or Part 107 being allowed to fly directly over a moving car with a person inside:

FAA: Part 107 does not allow operations over a moving vehicle. When we say “over”, we are speaking about operating directly over the person or vehicle. Generally speaking, recreational flyers may not operate over people as I do not believe any safety guidelines by existing aeromodelling organizations allow it.

"Film Crew" is NOT exempt from the "not flying over people" portion because they are not part of your "Flight Crew".

FAA: Your interpretation is correct. AC 107-2 specifically addresses this concept by stating that a UAS may not be flown over people who are not “…directly participating in the operation of the sUAS, such as the remote PIC, other person manipulating the controls, a VO, or crewmembers necessary for the safety of the sUAS operation, as assigned and briefed by the remote PIC.” People involved in the “production of footage” would not be considered necessary for the safety of the sUAS operation, or directly participating in the operation of the UAS.

Hope this helps shed some light on how and why it's illegal to fly over a car (your car or someone else's car) with a sUAS in the US.

Allen

 

[Weston Ney]

Great thanks so much!

Ok I got the needed "Clarification" directly from our FAA Legal Department:

In regards to hobby or Part 107 being allowed to fly directly over a moving car with a person inside:

FAA: Part 107 does not allow operations over a moving vehicle. When we say “over”, we are speaking about operating directly over the person or vehicle. Generally speaking, recreational flyers may not operate over people as I do not believe any safety guidelines by existing aeromodelling organizations allow it.

"Film Crew" is NOT exempt from the "not flying over people" portion because they are not part of your "Flight Crew".

FAA: Your interpretation is correct. AC 107-2 specifically addresses this concept by stating that a UAS may not be flown over people who are not “…directly participating in the operation of the sUAS, such as the remote PIC, other person manipulating the controls, a VO, or crewmembers necessary for the safety of the sUAS operation, as assigned and briefed by the remote PIC.” People involved in the “production of footage” would not be considered necessary for the safety of the sUAS operation, or directly participating in the operation of the UAS.

Hope this helps shed some light on how and why it's illegal to fly over a car (your car or someone else's car) with a sUAS in the US.

Allen

 

[Adamborz]

Just don’t fly “directly” over the moving car... doesn’t say you can’t fly close...semantics I know

It’s all how you articulate what you are doing... . Directly over and very close aren’t the same thing...

I honestly don’t think the FAA places as much weight on you flying around YOUR moving vehicle as they would on you flying around moving vehicles on the freeway.

It’s the intent of the law... but if something happens they have to enforce equally.

 

[Propsontop]

Big thank you to Allen for taking this up the chain.

 

[BigAl07]

Big thank you to Allen for taking this up the chain.

My pleasure. We're all deeply invested in this and it's definitely a confusing patchwork of rules & regulations. I just happen to be "doing this" day in and day out so it starts to make some degree of sense eventually LOL.