Drone footage from recent disaster areas seems to break rules

[trwalp]

TV news reports (e.g., BBC, CBS, PBS) about the recent natural disasters, whether from Mexico, Florida or Texas, include aerial footage that appears to have been shot from a UAV. It's not unusual for the shots to be over crowds of people, traffic, etc..

Every time I see such a such a shot I think about all the posts and articles saying UAVs should never be flown near unconsenting people, must less over a crowd (unless it's prearranged and staged, like for film or TV commercial shoot). Are the pilots in these cases likely FAA 107 pros, and does this give them special clearance to take such risks (assuming that the general consensus is that it's risky)?

I should think UAV hobbyists see this footage and get the impression that maybe it's okay for them to shoot likewise.

Just wonderin'.

 

[tcope]

You don't give any examples to the flights you mention.... so it's a little difficult to comment on something with no reference. You say it _appears_ to be from a UAV... do it might not even involve one. How do we know a UAV was flown over people? Who said UAV's can't be flown over "unconsenting" people? How would _anyone_ know if the unreferenced flights you are speaking of (via UAV or perhaps not) flown by people under Part 107.

 

[trwalp]

You don't give any examples to the flights you mention.... so it's a little difficult to comment on something with no reference. You say it _appears_ to be from a UAV... do it might not even involve one. How do we know a UAV was flown over people? Who said UAV's can't be flown over "unconsenting" people? How would _anyone_ know if the unreferenced flights you are speaking of (via UAV or perhaps not) flown by people under Part 107.

I thought this section is for friendly discussion, not a deposition. I presumed some readers here have recently watched TV news reports from the natural disaster areas, given the 24/7 coverage, and any UAV pilot can recognize UAV footage.

If I were seeking help troubleshooting a problem the questions you pose would be reasonable, but not in this case.

 

[trwalp]

Here's a good article about flying over people, when under FAA jurisdiction.

 

[anotherlab]

TV news reports (e.g., BBC, CBS, PBS) about the recent natural disasters, whether from Mexico, Florida or Texas, include aerial footage that appears to have been shot from a UAV. It's not unusual for the shots to be over crowds of people, traffic, etc..

Every time I see such a such a shot I think about all the posts and articles saying UAVs should never be flown near unconsenting people, must less over a crowd (unless it's prearranged and staged, like for film or TV commercial shoot). Are the pilots in these cases likely FAA 107 pros, and does this give them special clearance to take such risks (assuming that the general consensus is that it's risky)?

I should think UAV hobbyists see this footage and get the impression that maybe it's okay for them to shoot likewise.

Just wonderin'.

News organizations can get a permanent waiver for 107.39, flying over people. The article that you posted about flying over people includes a link to CNN's permanent 107.39.

 

[QuadKid]

Here's a good article about flying over people, when under FAA jurisdiction.

Quite funny if you ask me, take a look at their home page, the video starts making you think it is drone footage, look closely at the video going up and down, this was obviously shot with a OSMO or even a OSMO Mobile.

 

[Drestin Black]

I thought this section is for friendly discussion, not a deposition.

Lol not if you buck the opinions of the rule lovers (more rules=better)

Right now there are only four part 107 holders with .39 exemptions total, two of them currently work for CNN. One of the other is testing the delivery of packages via drone and the exception ONLY applies to transient travel over persons, no hovering. The last is a large exception of almost everything, the specific purpose is vague.

I don’t expect to see this change much and can only hope the FAA changes the rule, they are reviewing it now.

To further enhance: These two are only exempted when flying on behalf of CNN news gathering and only while using the Fotokite Pro UAS - this is a tethered drone! It is NO Phantom lol! You’ll laugh when you read about it.

To understand a little better; this isn’t just about hovering over people, this covers even briefly flying over people when traveling from one empty location to another. It’s too strict as written and needs to be relaxed. The good news is that the FAA appears to be too busy to investigate any but the most public and gross of violations. Our boy Casey is still flying after all lol

Given all that, news folks are gonna get their aerial footage even if it means they buy it from some naive or uncaring private pilot they spot in the area and recruit briefly. There is no law against airing footage that was taken from an illegal platform. (I don’t know, your honor, some kids were flying nearby and we paid them $50 for a copy of their MP4. No, sorry, didn’t get their name.)

 

[With The Birds]

If sticking to the rules is important to you great- that’s cool. Don’t let what others do spoil your enjoyment, ultimately they may spoil it for all but in the meantime you won’t change the behaviour.

 

[Meta4]

TV news reports (e.g., BBC, CBS, PBS) about the recent natural disasters, whether from Mexico, Florida or Texas, include aerial footage that appears to have been shot from a UAV. It's not unusual for the shots to be over crowds of people, traffic, etc.

It might be common to see crowds of people, traffic etc but that doesn't mean the drone was flown directly over them.people and many other subjects aren't terribly useful
In fact straight down vertical shots of people etc would not be very good for showing the subject.
Can you point to any examples?

 

[SteveT777]

Did you read CNN's requirements? The sUAS can not exceed 1.37lbs. That is much smaller then a phantom

 

[Drestin Black]

Did you read CNN's requirements? The sUAS can not exceed 1.37lbs. That is much smaller then a phantom

CNN can only fly one very specific drone over people. Google it; terrible website and silly drone (if you ask me)

 

[Providian623]

Sometimes the video is from a drone. However, most TV stations lease, or own, their own helicopters. The have the latest camera stabilization technology so the video is very smooth. They also have the capability to stand-off from the scene, they are shooting, up to 3 miles with negligible effects to the picture. So don't assume it's drone video you are seeing on your local network affiliate which is actually where CBS, NBC, ABC, and the cable news networks get their video's from. Most authorities look to the sky and see a drone and freak out. They look up and see a helicopter with "News 4" on the side & bottom, then not so much. As far as CNN goes, it is "CNN". Nuff said ....

 

[magicj23]

TV news reports (e.g., BBC, CBS, PBS) about the recent natural disasters, whether from Mexico, Florida or Texas, include aerial footage that appears to have been shot from a UAV. It's not unusual for the shots to be over crowds of people, traffic, etc..

Every time I see such a such a shot I think about all the posts and articles saying UAVs should never be flown near unconsenting people, must less over a crowd (unless it's prearranged and staged, like for film or TV commercial shoot). Are the pilots in these cases likely FAA 107 pros, and does this give them special clearance to take such risks (assuming that the general consensus is that it's risky)?

I should think UAV hobbyists see this footage and get the impression that maybe it's okay for them to shoot likewise.

Just wonderin'.

Somebody is jealous lol

 

[Uncle Stumpy]

I have no idea why questions like this ALWAYS bring out the "stickler for the rules" crowd. They are relentless in their feelings that every rule must be followed to the letter. No gray area. I feel that EVERYTHING has a gray area. Just the fact that you are even asking this question means that you have a brain, so follow you gut feeling. No helicopters or small planes or other rescue or news media that you would interfere with? Then go for it.
I have a neice who lives in a suburb of Houston and during the aftermath of the hurricane the local authorities were GRATEFUL to have all of the footage that several drone hobbyists took of homes with people stuck on the roof, flooded roadways etc. as it helped the authorities plan on where to send their relief assets.

 

[VegasFlyer]

TV news reports (e.g., BBC, CBS, PBS) about the recent natural disasters, whether from Mexico, Florida or Texas, include aerial footage that appears to have been shot from a UAV. It's not unusual for the shots to be over crowds of people, traffic, etc..

Every time I see such a such a shot I think about all the posts and articles saying UAVs should never be flown near unconsenting people, must less over a crowd (unless it's prearranged and staged, like for film or TV commercial shoot). Are the pilots in these cases likely FAA 107 pros, and does this give them special clearance to take such risks (assuming that the general consensus is that it's risky)?

I should think UAV hobbyists see this footage and get the impression that maybe it's okay for them to shoot likewise.

Just wonderin'.

Given that news helicopters don't require consent I doubt you would be. Most copyright laws say people do not have a reasonable right to privacy if they're in a crowd. (Including paid events such as a concert) Shooting an individual, however, is a far different issue that shooting a crowd. That definitely requires consent.

It would be next to impossible to shoot a news report if everyone's consent was required. Shooting over or near a natural disaster when first responders are active is not advised and maybe illegal according to FAA 107. (I haven't taken mine yet.)

 

[QuadKid]

Shooting over or near a natural disaster when first responders are active is not advised and maybe illegal according to FAA 107. (I haven't taken mine yet.)

This is true, ( Part 107 Question ) whenever there is a declared state of emergency, disaster or mobilization of military active and/or reserve a blanket TFR ( Temporary Flight Restriction)
is mandated until the area becomes "Undeclared" you require a COA ( Certificate of Authorization ) to fly UAV within the area, this applies to first responders as well ( Though they get theres very quickly) it can be up to a $10,000 fine depending on the circumstance. Other than the declared state FAA rules & guidelines take precedence.

As far as privacy this has been discussed many times here, people have a reasonable expectation to privacy when they have "secluded" themselves from the public eye, other than that your fair game.

 

[Macfawlty]

Ya know, I think there are a thousand more likely risks on the ground post-hurricane than a drone dropping out of the sky. In this case, a TFR seems counterproductive when the drone footage could be of use for the recovery/relief effort. FEMA and/or military command should deploy fleets of them post-hurricane.

 

[QuadKid]

Ya know, I think there are a thousand more likely risks on the ground post-hurricane than a drone dropping out of the sky. In this case, a TFR seems counterproductive when the drone footage could be of use for the recovery/relief effort. FEMA and/or military command should deploy fleets of them post-hurricane.

They do and they did for Harvey in Texas, I got a solicitation from FAA as I am subscribed to their Part 107 news letter. 3 days after the hurricane passed they were looking for 1200 Part 107 certified drone operators to assist 1st responders and you could fly under their blanket COA, they were offering $500 p/day 12 hour days, $50 p/day per diem & $125 p/day lodging allowance. If I wasn't married, old, lazy & tired I would have jumped on the chance, BTW they filled the positions in 36 hours.

 

[Macfawlty]

They do and they did for Harvey in Texas, I got a solicitation from FAA as I am subscribed to their Part 107 news letter. 3 days after the hurricane passed they were looking for 1200 Part 107 certified drone operators to assist 1st responders and you could fly under their blanket COA, they were offering $500 p/day 12 hour days, $50 p/day per diem & $125 p/day lodging allowance. If I wasn't married, old, lazy & tired I would have jumped on the chance, BTW they filled the positions in 36 hours.

Cool, thanks for the reporting on the cooperation between authorities and operators. Pretty fascinating how instrumental drones can be in these rescue/reconnaissance operations.

 

[jayson.48]

Sometimes the video is from a drone. However, most TV stations lease, or own, their own helicopters. The have the latest camera stabilization technology so the video is very smooth. They also have the capability to stand-off from the scene, they are shooting, up to 3 miles with negligible effects to the picture. So don't assume it's drone video you are seeing on your local network affiliate which is actually where CBS, NBC, ABC, and the cable news networks get their video's from. Most authorities look to the sky and see a drone and freak out. They look up and see a helicopter with "News 4" on the side & bottom, then not so much. As far as CNN goes, it is "CNN". Nuff said ....

I live in the Dallas, Tx area and all our local news stations have drones that they use to gather footage for their broadcast. They even refer to the drone on their news casts. I’m pretty sure that is the kind of stuff the OP was asking about.