Flying Over Wedding Guests?

[BigAl07]

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?

In Hollywood they still utilize Section 333 Exemptions which allow a Closed Set situation. It's a pain in the tail to get it done but it's done every day. Remember that Part 107 is not the ONLY path to flying commercially. If you have something that falls outside of the "easy" stuff Section 333 is still a viable (and legal) option.

 

[BigAl07]

That's an excellent link. The presenter there, Kevin Morris, is a huge asset to sUAS operations in the US. He is a wealth of knowledge and someone I consider a good friend to myself and our community as a whole.

 

[skymonkey]

That's an excellent link. The presenter there, Kevin Morris, is a huge asset to sUAS operations in the US. He is a wealth of knowledge and someone I consider a good friend to myself and our community as a whole.

That is a great link and it was first posted by LUISMARTINEZ on the ParaZero Parachute for Phantoms thread.

 

[Drestin Black]

Thanks BigAl. Just the answer I was looking for.

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

Section 333 is still a viable (and legal) option.

I'm sure Vic Morrow felt better knowing that

 

[BigAl07]

I'm sure Vic Morrow felt better knowing that

And him being decapitated by a full size HELO has what relevance to this conversation in any way?

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

And him being decapitated by a full size HELO has what relevance to this conversation in any way?

Well, the previous point was that movie production companies had other avenues (such as 333) through which to gain clearance for proposed operations. I'm assuming one of those avenues was used in that case so I feel it has some reasonable relevance. If for nothing else to show no matter what avenue a flight is authorised under it doesn't guarantee safety.

You can be assured, I don't live under a bridge and courting controversy is not my hobby. If I say something it's not to try and get a "rise".

Edit. I'm not above trying to get a laugh but some humour might be a bit dark, sorry if so.

Regards
Ari

 

[BigAl07]

Well, the previous point was that movie production companies had other avenues (such as 333) through which to gain clearance for proposed operations. I'm assuming one of those avenues was used in that case so I feel it has some reasonable relevance. If for nothing else to show no matter what avenue a flight is authorised under it doesn't guarantee safety.

You can be assured, I don't live under a bridge and courting controversy is not my hobby. If I say something it's not to try and get a "rise".

Edit. I'm not above trying to get a laugh but some humour might be a bit dark, sorry if so.

Regards
Ari

Well said!! And VERY true

 

[Dwilliams35]

Just as an aside here, a couple of things that have me wondering here:

1. The FAA’s main purview is regulation of and protecting the integrity and safety of the NAS: protecting people and property on the ground from a device that, if that threat exists, no longer occupies the NAS seems to be a bit of a reach? Seems like that just simply enters terrestrial law enforcement and liability laws’ ballpark, not anything to do with anything that the FAA would traditionally be tasked with..
2. Given that, why is this threat only recognized for drones? A falling plane or helicopter presents the same threat: a different scale and possibly probability of occurrence, but the threat is identical. Where’s the prohibition against flying over people there? Historically, there’s been a lot more people on the ground killed by falling manned aircraft then falling drones..

 

[WV. Rootman]

My 2 cents worth. Percentage of drones falling is very high in comparison to other aircraft.

 

[BigAl07]

Night and DAY difference:

Manned Pilots - tested to make sure they can fly and re-tested every 2 years (or less depending on type of credential)
Manned Aircraft - certified components with redundancy built in. Certified and inspected maintenenace and inspection schedules

UAS Pilots - if you can read you can fly. Even licensed operators do not demonstrate any flying skills or proficiency
UAS - Rarely ANY level of reduncy and actually many critical systems are a single failure point. No certifications, maintenance/inspection schedules.

 

[Phill2]

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?

I don't know how it works in your part of the world but several wedding photogs have been fined for it down here.

 

[Dwilliams35]

Night and DAY difference:

Manned Pilots - tested to make sure they can fly and re-tested every 2 years (or less depending on type of credential)
Manned Aircraft - certified components with redundancy built in. Certified and inspected maintenenace and inspection schedules

UAS Pilots - if you can read you can fly. Even licensed operators do not demonstrate any flying skills or proficiency
UAS - Rarely ANY level of reduncy and actually many critical systems are a single failure point. No certifications, maintenance/inspection schedules.

And yet the ”killed folks on the ground” comparative tally just keeps on growing...

 

[Remote Pilots Australia]

The only pilots who would be allowed to fly an R.P.A. over any event here in Australia are RePL flying for a company which holds a ReOC. C.A.S.A. models the R.P.A. regime on the manned aviation closely for standardisation.

Manned Pilots - tested to make sure they can fly and re-tested every 2 years (or less depending on type of credential)

True in the U.S. The incomming scheme here has even recreational and Excluded class Recreational pilots required to re examine every 3 years, RePL are subject to demonstration of competency at any time of C.A.S.A.'s chosing

Manned Aircraft - certified components with redundancy built in. Certified and inspected maintenenace and inspection schedules

While not required for recreational and excluded pilots here, RePLs with a ReOC granted company are required to have a nominated maintenance officer and all maintenance schedules for all aircraft must be specified in the company's procedures and operations manuals which must be submitted to, inspected and approved by C.A.S.A. and maintenance logs eqivilent to manned avaition must be kept by that officer and submitted.

UAS Pilots - if you can read you can fly. Even licensed operators do not demonstrate any flying skills or proficiency

Possibly true in the U.S. Not so here. You can obtain 100% pass mark in the theory but if you do not meet the required practical flight standards during your practical you will not be issued an RePL.

UAS - Rarely ANY level of reduncy and actually many critical systems are a single failure point. No certifications, maintenance/inspection schedules.

Predominately true. To overfly people here is a deviation from the "Standard operating Conditions", only a RePL and ReOC certified Chief Pilot can grant those dispensations and you are required to provide Full engine and Battery redundancy to even be allowed to fly within 15m of people. As my company's chief pilot it is my task to do final Job Safety Assessments and put in place any threat and error management steps and risk mitigation before allowing an exemption, there is an actual formalised risk assessment and rating scheme in place I must follow.

So, I know what you're about to say, "who cares what the Australian rules are they are not the same here?" and that's true but I wanted to mention the above before I say the following.

Even though I am an RePL and have a ReOC company and can get the necessary exemptions required to do most anything for wedding parties or other events I simply do not offer these services from my company. I will not issue an authorisation to an RePL working for me for overflight of people regardless of whether the risk can be brought down to an "officially accepted level" (4 or less out of 10) or not. I have no interest in flying anything that I am not seated in with a fixed wing over populous area's.

I'm with BigAL07, as technology currently stands there are just not enough redundancies and fail safes with Multi Rotor R.P.A.'s for regular overflight of crowds (In my opinion, you can disagree of course). Yes, a falling or out of control R.P.A. is unlikely to kill someone but more cases than we would like to admit of blinding and facial disfigurement have already taken place.

drone face injury - Google Search

If I'm flying a 172 and the engine quits I at least get to choose where I am putting it down and I have a reasonable time frame to think it through from x thousand feet. Even with a OctoCopter R.P.A. with 8 batteries if an engine quits I have little time to react and I need to rely too heavily on technology over my own input to put it down safely to be comfortable with it.

Regards
Ari

 

[skymonkey]

And yet the ”killed folks on the ground” comparative tally just keeps on growing...

More people are killed by licensed automobile drivers.
Should we ban automobiles and start riding bicycles?-

 

[skymonkey]

Night and DAY difference:



UAS Pilots - if you can read you can fly.

Hobbyists are not required to take a test.

 

[Dwilliams35]

More people are killed by licensed automobile drivers.
Should we ban automobiles and start riding bicycles?-

That’s kind of my point... if the FAA is going to reach out of their real sphere of operations and start regulating terrestrial safety, they need to pay attention to where the problem actually lies... risk of a wedding guest getting a boo-boo on their head and getting a few stitches? “ By all means we've got to regulate that”. .... risk of a 757 landing on a daycare and killing all the occupants in a jet-fuel fed inferno? “ Well, I’m sure they didn’t MEAN to land there...”

They’ve obviously recognized that falling aircraft is a threat to public safety, their regulations just don’t seem to care where the real problem is.

We’ve already got plenty of laws and regulations regarding such an occurrence already: hit somebody in the head with a drone, and you’re going to end up in one courtroom or another in fairly short order. For the FAA to start inconsistently policing terrestrial public safety just smells like a hint of regulatory overreach to me.

 

[skymonkey]

That’s kind of my point... if the FAA is going to reach out of their real sphere of operations and start regulating terrestrial safety, they need to pay attention to where the problem actually lies... risk of a wedding guest getting a boo-boo on their head and getting a few stitches? “ By all means we've got to regulate that”. .... risk of a 757 landing on a daycare and killing all the occupants in a jet-fuel fed inferno? “ Well, I’m sure they didn’t MEAN to land there...”

They’ve obviously recognized that falling aircraft is a threat to public safety, their regulations just don’t seem to care where the real problem is.

We’ve already got plenty of laws and regulations regarding such an occurrence already: hit somebody in the head with a drone, and you’re going to end up in one courtroom or another in fairly short order. For the FAA to start inconsistently policing terrestrial public safety just smells like a hint of regulatory overreach to me.

Even though the sUAS PIC is on the ground, the craft they operate is in the NAS, and as such the FAA has the responsibility to mitigate the danger to people on the ground.
Like BigA107 stated, manned aircraft have redundant systems and their pilots are very highly trained. Additionally manned aircraft can loose an engine and continue to fly, where a sUAS will fall out of NAS.

 

[BigAl07]

The only pilots who would be allowed to fly an R.P.A. over any event here in Australia are RePL flying for a company which holds a ReOC. C.A.S.A. models the R.P.A. regime on the manned aviation closely for standardisation.



True in the U.S. The incomming scheme here has even recreational and Excluded class Recreational pilots required to re examine every 3 years, RePL are subject to demonstration of competency at any time of C.A.S.A.'s chosing



While not required for recreational and excluded pilots here, RePLs with a ReOC granted company are required to have a nominated maintenance officer and all maintenance schedules for all aircraft must be specified in the company's procedures and operations manuals which must be submitted to, inspected and approved by C.A.S.A. and maintenance logs eqivilent to manned avaition must be kept by that officer and submitted.



Possibly true in the U.S. Not so here. You can obtain 100% pass mark in the theory but if you do not meet the required practical flight standards during your practical you will not be issued an RePL.



Predominately true. To overfly people here is a deviation from the "Standard operating Conditions", only a RePL and ReOC certified Chief Pilot can grant those dispensations and you are required to provide Full engine and Battery redundancy to even be allowed to fly within 15m of people. As my company's chief pilot it is my task to do final Job Safety Assessments and put in place any threat and error management steps and risk mitigation before allowing an exemption, there is an actual formalised risk assessment and rating scheme in place I must follow.

So, I know what you're about to say, "who cares what the Australian rules are they are not the same here?" and that's true but I wanted to mention the above before I say the following.

Even though I am an RePL and have a ReOC company and can get the necessary exemptions required to do most anything for wedding parties or other events I simply do not offer these services from my company. I will not issue an authorisation to an RePL working for me for overflight of people regardless of whether the risk can be brought down to an "officially accepted level" (4 or less out of 10) or not. I have no interest in flying anything that I am not seated in with a fixed wing over populous area's.

I'm with BigAL07, as technology currently stands there are just not enough redundancies and fail safes with Multi Rotor R.P.A.'s for regular overflight of crowds (In my opinion, you can disagree of course). Yes, a falling or out of control R.P.A. is unlikely to kill someone but more cases than we would like to admit of blinding and facial disfigurement have already taken place.

drone face injury - Google Search

If I'm flying a 172 and the engine quits I at least get to choose where I am putting it down and I have a reasonable time frame to think it through from x thousand feet. Even with a OctoCopter R.P.A. with 8 batteries if an engine quits I have little time to react and I need to rely too heavily on technology over my own input to put it down safely to be comfortable with it.

Regards
Ari

Thanks for your in-depth reply Ari.

I firmly believe that with the stupid knucklehead flights we are seeing more of, that at some point in the future the United States will have similarly tight fisted regulations in place across the board as well. We are our own worst enemy as an industry and self regulation is a thing of the past now.

That’s kind of my point... if the FAA is going to reach out of their real sphere of operations and start regulating terrestrial safety, they need to pay attention to where the problem actually lies... risk of a wedding guest getting a boo-boo on their head and getting a few stitches? “ By all means we've got to regulate that”. .... risk of a 757 landing on a daycare and killing all the occupants in a jet-fuel fed inferno? “ Well, I’m sure they didn’t MEAN to land there...”

They’ve obviously recognized that falling aircraft is a threat to public safety, their regulations just don’t seem to care where the real problem is.

We’ve already got plenty of laws and regulations regarding such an occurrence already: hit somebody in the head with a drone, and you’re going to end up in one courtroom or another in fairly short order. For the FAA to start inconsistently policing terrestrial public safety just smells like a hint of regulatory overreach to me.

It boggles my mind how you could think/assume the FAA is over reaching by protecting people and property on the ground. That is the REASON for the FAA. They keep us SAFE on the ground by controlling what happens in the air.

Now if the FAA stated something like "R/C cars and boats must remain at a X# speed etc" that would be out of their Realm of Control. By them saying what you can and can't do IN THE AIR is well within their Realm of Control and rightfully so. Just because you are planted firmly on Terra Firma doesn't change the fact that your operation is 100% within the National Airspace System.

If you're going to be a Big Boy and play in the NAS then you're going to also have to play by the Big Boy rules.

Hobbyists are not required to take a test.

My apology. I was referring to reading a "Quick Start Guide" and not Part 107 vs 336. If you've got a few hundred dollars you're set up to fly with no "Real" flight proficiency testing required for any level of flight (in the US).

 

[Dwilliams35]

Even though the sUAS PIC is on the ground, the craft they operate is in the NAS, and as such the FAA has the responsibility to mitigate the danger to people on the ground.
Like BigA107 stated, manned aircraft have redundant systems and their pilots are very highly trained. Additionally manned aircraft can loose an engine and continue to fly, where a sUAS will fall out of NAS.

deaths from drones: 0. Deaths from planes that somehow didn’t continue to fly: ??