Oh go ahead. I am sure we all now a knucklehead or two (like this heli pilot).![]()
Hey who you calling a knucklehead!

Oh go ahead. I am sure we all now a knucklehead or two (like this heli pilot).![]()
I agree if they both broke the rules or the "the protocols of flying" then they BOTH should be held accountable, not just the drone pilot. . .just my 2 cents Peace
The reason he didn’t “fly away” could be that he was not flying VLOS and didn’t know the chopper was coming for him. If the competition was a private/closed set event then the drone had no business there.
FAR section 107.39 Operations over human beings: At NO time is anyone allowed to operate a UAV over anyone that is not part of the required crew. The drone pilot was flying illegally.
By the way, how is "over people" defined? Does it mean precisely vertically over a person so that a dead drop would hit the person? If so, how high does that extend? Does it mean hovering over a person, or is passing over a person included. The devil is in the details.
Even supposing that a piece of the ocean is somebody's private property, which I'm quite confident it is not, drones can legally fly over private property. Personally I would not go flying my drone around somebody else's event without their permission and I would do that out of etiquette. But from my understanding of the law, capturing video of Surfers in the ocean is completely within the bounds of what is legal so long as the Drone was not flying directly over anyone in the water.The reason he didn’t “fly away” could be that he was not flying VLOS and didn’t know the chopper was coming for him. If the competition was a private/closed set event then the drone had no business there.
Surely this is a fake? Probably not a Mavic, just a cheap phantom off eBay being used for a publicity stunt.
Apart from anything else the helicopter pilot needed to know the drone pilot was just going to wait rather than take avoiding action (which could have easily been towards the helicopter)
Yeah what he said . . .Illegally if flying under Part 107. But what if he was flying for enjoyment? Then it would be inadvisable but not illegal, (right?), because it would not be in keeping with the FAA Hobbyist Guidelines as posted in this thread earlier by a moderator. FAR rules are mandatory, and violation can bring legal action, fines and loss of permit. FAA guidelines for hobbyists are advisory and not punishable by law.
What the UAS pilot did was minor compared to the very major rule and safety violations by the helicopter pilot by deliberately attacking and downing the UAV, possibly endangering people below.
By the way, how is "over people" defined? Does it mean precisely vertically over a person so that a dead drop would hit the person? If so, how high does that extend? Does it mean hovering over a person, or is passing over a person included. The devil is in the details.
I did not violate any FAA rules. I didn't ask for permission from the race committee but ... did I have to?
The FAA has given us enough rope to hang ourselves with this. Basically they have it worded so that if an "incident happens" and the sUAS strikes someone then you were not flying in a manner to avoid "flying over people". Keep in mind that the forward progress of a sUAS could mean it could impact someone without you actually being directly over them during a system failure.
If hovering then directly over people would mean directly above their heads. If the aircraft is moving then we need to understand that and allow for a margin of safety should a total failure take place.
Either you don't know the difference between a Phantom and a Mavic or you didn't watch the video.
My issue with this is that most sUAS'es (that looks weird to type) can continue to stay at their level and just drift for potentially thousands of feet if loss of control and GPS happens. That makes it hard to set a specific area that is safe/unsafe to be in relation to people. I'm not saying I have a solution, just pointing out the flaw in the current rules logic.
My issue with this is that most sUAS'es (that looks weird to type) can continue to stay at their level and just drift for potentially thousands of feet if loss of control and GPS happens.
That makes it hard to set a specific area that is safe/unsafe to be in relation to people. I'm not saying I have a solution, just pointing out the flaw in the current rules logic
While it's possible for multiple systems to fail at the same time it's not common to have loss of control and loss GPS at the same time. Just like in an automobile we rarely see a genuine loss of steering and loss of braking at the same time.
As @N017RW pointed out the RPIC is responsible regardless. As an Aviator it is our responsibility to do everything we can to eliminate or at least reduce the risks in our actions as much as we can. While there will always be possible situations etc that we can't fully eliminate etc we have to do whatever we can to make our flights as safe as is possible even if it creates restrictions, problems or even cancels the flight.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.