Flying Over Wedding Guests?

[LarBear360]

Attended a wedding last week with no fewer than 3 fly-overs (and hovering) by the video crew during the ceremony and then a few more during the reception.

Part 107 or not, what's the deal here? Isn't that sort of frowned upon by the FAA?

 

[PhantomFandom]

Hi,

First of all, since they were commercial photographers they are required to be flying under Part 107.

Yes it is illegal to fly over groups of people. Certainly hovering over people is not only illegal but also dangerous and stupid. The only way they could have been legally flying and hovering over people would be with a waiver from the FAA. Those are very hard to come by. Did the drones have any safety equipment like fully enclosed props and/or a parachute?

 

[skymonkey]

I would of approached them and identify myself as a drone pilot and ask if they can give me advice on how to obtain my part 107.39 waiver. Maybe have wife behind me with phone to take pic of their facial expressions.

 

[WV. Rootman]

I think as long as everyone is in agreement with it, it is OK. Everyone has to asked and everyone has to agree.

 

[Calsun]

The bride hired the video people so it started with her. Flying over the people to give a bird's eye view is stupid even from the perspective of the resulting footage showing the tops of people's heads or those flashing the bird at the drones. Wedding videographers as a group are not the most enlightened and with the drop in the price of video gear a lot of weekend warriors are shooting video.

 

[DavidGnew]

Hi,

First of all, since they were commercial photographers they are required to be flying under Part 107.

Yes it is illegal to fly over groups of people. Certainly hovering over people is not only illegal but also dangerous and stupid. The only way they could have been legally flying and hovering over people would be with a waiver from the FAA. Those are very hard to come by. Did the drones have any safety equipment like fully enclosed props and/or a parachute?

New Canadian advanced certificate allows for flying over people!

 

[N017RW]

The bride hired the video people so it started with her. Flying over the people to give a bird's eye view is stupid even from the perspective of the resulting footage showing the tops of people's heads or those flashing the bird at the drones. Wedding videographers as a group are not the most enlightened and with the drop in the price of video gear a lot of weekend warriors are shooting video.

Please consider the condescending nature of your last sentence.

What is your point?

 

[LarBear360]

Hi,

First of all, since they were commercial photographers they are required to be flying under Part 107.

Yes it is illegal to fly over groups of people. Certainly hovering over people is not only illegal but also dangerous and stupid. The only way they could have been legally flying and hovering over people would be with a waiver from the FAA. Those are very hard to come by. Did the drones have any safety equipment like fully enclosed props and/or a parachute?

A Mavick from what I could tell from my seat. I was going to say something but decided it was best not to stir up any drama.

Another friend said she saw a sign advising people there may be a drone. I guess that's their legal "loophole" to obtaining consent to fly over head.

I can only imagine the legal fees the resort would face (not the photographer. He's got no money) if someone were injured. Yikes!

 

[skymonkey]

 

[LarBear360]

Well there you have it boys & girls. Right from the FAA along with detailed explanations of the language. There has been so much misinterpretation I've seen in the past. Thank you, Mr. Monkey.

Sadly, only 968 views since September 24, 2018. My 6 year old niece doing a make-up tutorial has more than that.

 

[2edgesword]

It has nothing to do with everyone agreeing with it but what the FAA says is allowed. That said you’re not allowed to fly over people unless there is a covering structure or they are in a vehicle.

 

[skymonkey]

Black and white Ladies and Gentlemen.

 

[bsartist]

I think as long as everyone is in agreement with it, it is OK. Everyone has to asked and everyone has to agree.

I’ve never seen this documented ever.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

I always find the differences in legislation and positions on what's safe according to regulatory bodies between the various countries interesting.

Here you need engine redundancy (octocopter) and battery redundancy to even fly within 15m of people. ReOC endorsement for "overflight of populous areas" is possible but the requirements are so high as to be almost prohibitive except for mega companies with bottomless check books..

This is why my company doesn't offer "events videography" and "residential area real estate" services. It's beyond just the laws to me, regardless of the legality you always just always get the the Bride, Realtor or client pushing for that "one magic shot" and even if you have an endorsement you're caught between your obligation to the customer and your discomfort as the person ultimately responsible with the ever shrinking safety margins.

Although the vast majority of "I lost control of my aircraft" reports come down to pilot error there's no denying stuff DOES happen. Equipment fails, drunken idiot guests will think it's a lark to throw a beer at your aircraft. I don't know if I could sleep after my R.P.A. went shredding into the bridal party.

Maybe I'm just too old and worry too much, there are people out there who specialise in it and are very good at it. All I know is I am just more comfortable not doing that stuff, I make far more out of site and structure inspections and photogrammetry/mapping and my insurance is way cheaper when I tell them I don't do public overflights.

Regards
Ari

 

[LarBear360]

View attachment 107778
Black and white Ladies and Gentlemen.

And if you watch the video, the FAA is explicit in that "directly participating in the operation" is crew members only. On-screen talent or people you have notified of your drone operation are not included. They knew better. These guys were not weekend warriors as someone described earlier. They had some serious camera gear, stabilizers, even a camera crane.

 

[skymonkey]

And if you watch the video, the FAA is explicit in that "directly participating in the operation" is crew members only. On-screen talent or people you have notified of your drone operation are not included. They knew better. These guys were not weekend warriors as someone described earlier. They had some serious camera gear, stabilizers, even a camera crane.

Doesn’t surprise me in the least. 99% of the time people act in their best interest. I would also say there are many part 107 pilots that fly at night commercially without a waiver. We don’t live in a perfect world.
In my younger years I took some risk but today I can’t turn my neck as far back as I used to, so I just follow the rules.

 

[Drestin Black]

And if you watch the video, the FAA is explicit in that "directly participating in the operation" is crew members only. On-screen talent or people you have notified of your drone operation are not included. They knew better. These guys were not weekend warriors as someone described earlier. They had some serious camera gear, stabilizers, even a camera crane.

Hang on, so every Hollywood movie that’s ever overflown paid actors and extras, paid to willingly participate (likely signing a legal document stating such participation), with a drone is in violation of FAA rules?

 

[LarBear360]

Hang on, so every Hollywood movie that’s ever overflown paid actors and extras, paid to willingly participate (likely signing a legal document stating such participation), with a drone is in violation of FAA rules?

If you watch the video, you will learn exactly how Hollywood does it legally!

 

[BigAl07]

A Mavick from what I could tell from my seat. I was going to say something but decided it was best not to stir up any drama.

Another friend said she saw a sign advising people there may be a drone. I guess that's their legal "loophole" to obtaining consent to fly over head.

I can only imagine the legal fees the resort would face (not the photographer. He's got no money) if someone were injured. Yikes!

There are NO legal loopholes. The federal regulations (as of right this moment) mandate NO flying over people not part of the safe operation of the aircraft unless they are inside a structure (not moving car if car) that gives protection in case of an aircraft failureor who have been granted ~107.39.

You can have signs up, have each person sign a release and even have each person give a blood/urine sample but unless they have ~107.39 it's an illegal light.

If I were in your shoes I would have:

A) Made video of the violations and be sure to capture the company name etc in the video.
B) Walk up and strike up a conversation asking them how they obtained 107.39
C) I would immediately file a complaint with the local FSDO and be sure to give them the video you captured.

That's just how I would do it and I can tell you this much... I would NOT appreciate them flying directly over me or my family/friends... good way to ruin a wonderful day for the Bride/Groom and whoever gets hit.

 

[Drestin Black]

If you watch the video, you will learn exactly how Hollywood does it legally!

I’m don’t have 25 minutes to watch it. Could you tell me so that we can share this with everyone? TIA