Taking video of two lane highway for construction job

[Budsells]

I need of advice. I recently turned down a job that involved taking video and pictures of two and a half miles of a busy two lane road in the city limits of a suburb. The contractor was going to put in a sidewalk along this stretch of road.
One side had multiple homes close together and close to the road. The other side was solid trees which was where he was putting the sidewalk.
He wanted video before, during and after the project was completed. He estimated 3months for completion . The contractor wanted me to fly ny drone down one lane of the hwy while filming the other side where the sidewalk was going in while cars were going up and down both sides.
I told him that I could not due that due to FAA regulations and rules against flying over people and automobiles.
My question is, was there any way that I could have done the job legally and safely and not lost the job?

 

[BigAl07]

I need of advice. I recently turned down a job that involved taking video and pictures of two and a half miles of a busy two lane road in the city limits of a suburb. The contractor was going to put in a sidewalk along this stretch of road.
One side had multiple homes close together and close to the road. The other side was solid trees which was where he was putting the sidewalk.
He wanted video before, during and after the project was completed. He estimated 3months for completion . The contractor wanted me to fly ny drone down one lane of the hwy while filming the other side where the sidewalk was going in while cars were going up and down both sides.
I told him that I could not due that due to FAA regulations and rules against flying over people and automobiles.
My question is, was there any way that I could have done the job legally and safely and not lost the job?

In that scenario I don't see a viable way out. We've done similar projects but without the building and tree restraints.

You're right in that you can not fly over the highway unless it's CLOSED to traffic or there happens to be no traffic. It's possible you could coordinate short "shut downs" of the road to facilitate the process but that would entail more resources and expenses.

 

[athearnsd45]

Could you propose to him to fly over the wooded area looking down? It wouldn't have the same effect as being off to the side, but would be better than nothing. As construction proceeded, you'd start to have issues with construction workers being underneath, but perhaps he could ask those folks to clear the area during flight time.

 

[Harleydude]

I need of advice. I recently turned down a job that involved taking video and pictures of two and a half miles of a busy two lane road in the city limits of a suburb. The contractor was going to put in a sidewalk along this stretch of road.
One side had multiple homes close together and close to the road. The other side was solid trees which was where he was putting the sidewalk.
He wanted video before, during and after the project was completed. He estimated 3months for completion . The contractor wanted me to fly ny drone down one lane of the hwy while filming the other side where the sidewalk was going in while cars were going up and down both sides.
I told him that I could not due that due to FAA regulations and rules against flying over people and automobiles.
My question is, was there any way that I could have done the job legally and safely and not lost the job?

Based on your description, it seems flying over the trees would still allow you to get the shot without compromising safety. Even buildings are considered "safe places" by the FAA (at least they used to).

I would do an automated, connectionless, corridor mission with terrain awareness. I would think following a drone in a car and flying in real-time would be impractical in city traffic. You could drive toward the end of the line so you could be closer to your drone as it returns back to the home point. Make sure you utilize an iPad with GPS capabilities (or hotspot yer phone) and enable dynamic home point. This will ensure against erroneous RTH to your original launch point.

Depending on how fast you set your mission speed, you may have enough battery for the return trip, thereby negating the need to drive toward the drone. I think 12 mph would be a good starting point. The automated mission would insure consistency throughout your entire project, which would allow for some kewl morphing in post.

That's how I would do it, anyway.

D

 

[Earthman]

A 2-mile flight would take 20-min at 6-mph. You may be able to...

1. Apply for a road closure with detour. Do the flight on a light traffic day to reduce the impact.

2. Fly over the homes to video the work area on the opposite side of the street. As long as you don’t fly over people you are ok. You may need a moving observer staying with the drone to let you know if someone comes out of their home so you can intervene and alter the flight path or pause the flight as needed.

3. Use a combination of 1& 2.

In any case, fly using a flight plan with an automated flight path with waypoints.

Good luck if you take on the mission.


.

 

[GFields]

Please point me to the FAA rule that says flying over moving traffic is illegal. Thanks

 

[athearnsd45]

Flying Drones Over Streets and Moving Traffic

If you’re working as a professional drone pilot, you should become familiar with the FAA’s regulations around flying over streets and moving traffic.

www.thedroneu.com

 

[GFields]

Flying Drones Over Streets and Moving Traffic

If you’re working as a professional drone pilot, you should become familiar with the FAA’s regulations around flying over streets and moving traffic.

www.thedroneu.com

Thank you for your reply. However, Drone U is hardly an authority on FAA rules. I've seen their explanation on this subject and 107.39 falls short of flying over moving traffic.

 

[skymonkey]

Flying over people in a moving car is illegal. The only way to fly over people inside of a car is if the car is stationary.

 

[GFields]

I've read this however, I still find it short of moving traffic. Yes, I see the word, "stationary"

I'm going to dig deeper. I have emailed the FAA. I know of several pilots that have done traffic analysis who have flown over traffic. I'll update as I find out.

 

[skymonkey]

Do you know if these pilots had waivers to fly over people? I don’t see any other way to do it legally.

 

[GFields]

*UPDATE*

I spoke directly with FAA's UAS department and 107.39 does in fact deal with flying over "moving traffic" and to do so will require a waiver. However, you can fly to the left or right of the highway. You just cannot fly directly over moving traffic.

 

[Earthman]

*UPDATE*

I spoke directly with FAA's UAS department and 107.39 does in fact deal with flying over "moving traffic" and to do so will require a waiver. However, you can fly to the left or right of the highway. You just cannot fly directly over moving traffic.

The FAA’s definition of flying “over people or moving traffic” may seem flexible since they allow you to fly up to but not directly over any part of a person (or moving car); however, the FAA also prohibits “flying recklessly,” which is subjective. Knowing that when you lose control of a UAS it does not fall straight down and it may hit a nearby person or moving car, which could cause a catastrophic automobile chain reaction, a plaintiff’s attorney and expert witness will surely argue that you were flying recklessly if you don’t leave enough of a safety buffer for a “safe crash.” The words “enough” and “safe crash” are also subjective. In any case, if you end up in court defending yourself over something like this, plan on spending lots of money on attorney fees even if you win. So, you would be wise not to fly such a mission unless you are aware of the risks, have enough insurance, and you are compensated enough

 

[Harleydude]

Please point me to the FAA rule that says flying over moving traffic is illegal. Thanks

Yeah...I wouldn't mind seeing the FAA rule, myself (no third-party sources please).

D

 

[Earthman]

Yeah...I wouldn't mind seeing the FAA rule, myself (no third-party sources please).

D

You can and should read the regs for yourself here:

Commercial Operations Branch – Part 107 UAS Operations

www.faa.gov

You can read about things that require a waiver here:

Part 107 Waiver

www.faa.gov

This FAA Fact Sheet discusses flying over moving cars:

Fact Sheet – Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations (Part 107)

www.faa.gov

 

[Harleydude]

You can and should read the regs for yourself here:

Commercial Operations Branch – Part 107 UAS Operations

www.faa.gov

This says you can't operate FROM a moving vehicle. Nothing about OVER a moving vehicle.

You can read about things that require a waiver here:

Part 107 Waiver

www.faa.gov

Same here.

This FAA Fact Sheet discusses flying over moving cars:

Fact Sheet – Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations (Part 107)

www.faa.gov

Same here.

This is why I wanted to see the FAA regulation, because as far as I know, there are no rules regarding flying over moving vehicles. The FAA is very clear regarding operations FROM a moving vehicle. After examining all 3 links, I see nothing about operating OVER a moving vehicle. Did I miss something?

D

 

[Earthman]

This says you can't operate FROM a moving vehicle. Nothing about OVER a moving vehicle.

View attachment 114574



Same here.
View attachment 114575



Same here.
View attachment 114576

This is why I wanted to see the FAA regulation, because as far as I know, there are no rules regarding flying over moving vehicles. The FAA is very clear regarding operations FROM a moving vehicle. After examining all 3 links, I see nothing about operating OVER a moving vehicle. Did I miss something?

D

Same here.
View attachment 114576

This is why I wanted to see the FAA regulation, because as far as I know, there are no rules regarding flying over moving vehicles. The FAA is very clear regarding operations FROM a moving vehicle. After examining all 3 links, I see nothing about operating OVER a moving vehicle. Did I miss something?

D

The FAA fact sheet, which is an interpretation of their rules, says “You currently cannot fly a small UAS over anyone ... not inside a covered stationary vehicle.” So, you can’t fly over anyone in a moving vehicle.

This makes sense since hitting a moving vehicle may cause an accident. Also, flying a sUAS over moving vehicles when you know drones are not reliable and prone to flyaway or fall out of the sky for any number of reasons would be considered by most reasonable people to be reckless flying, which is also against the FAA’s rules. You would likely meet and be judged by “reasonable people” in court if your activities cause a vehicle accident.

 

[skymonkey]

You could fly over moving vehicle as long as there are no people inside the vehicle. If there are people inside the moving vehicle then you are violating 107.39 regulation. This also includes trains as they are also vehicles.

 

[Harleydude]

The FAA fact sheet, which is an interpretation of their rules, says “You currently cannot fly a small UAS over anyone ... not inside a covered stationary vehicle.” So, you can’t fly over anyone in a moving vehicle.

With all due respect, this above quote seems taken out of context. The FAA doesn't mix their words. If it's against FAA rules to fly over a moving vehicle, there will be an explicit paragraph citing that rule. Again, this is why I wanted to see the rule. I can't find it. I see where you're connecting dots, but that's not really how the FAA rule book operates.

Disclaimer: I'm no expert on the FAA, but I know their M.O. Still looking for the rule....

This makes sense since hitting a moving vehicle may cause an accident.

While I agree with your assertion that a drone impacting a moving vehicle MAY cause an accident, the odds are so slim as to not base legislation on. How many times has your vehicle been hit by a bird? Or a tire? Or something falling out of the bed of a truck? Me personally, at least a dozen times throughout my lifetime. Last year my truck windshield was plowed with a semi lug nut which almost penetrated the windshield. Did I wreck? Not even close. Would a drone smashing into a windshield cause an accident??? No more than a bird would. Do people crash because birds smash into their windshield?

Millions of birds are killed annually by moving vehicles. Yet no mention of this causing auto accidents.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Migratory Bird Program | Conserving America's Birds

www.fws.gov

Hell...I was hit by a bird on my MOTORCYCLE about 20 years ago and didn't even come close to wrecking. Hurt like a mother-f***er.

Also, flying a sUAS over moving vehicles when you know drones are not reliable and prone to flyaway or fall out of the sky for any number of reasons would be considered by most reasonable people to be reckless flying..."

Well then by that logic the FAA should make a rule regarding full scale aviation flying over vehicles, which has done orders of magnitude more damage to vehicles, property and life. Right?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't tout that a 3 lb. drone over vehicles is "dangerous," and then completely ignore real statistics that show ACTUAL carnage and damage caused by full scale aviation. Make sense?

...which is also against the FAA’s rules.

Again, with all due respect, I still haven't seen that rule.

You would likely meet and be judged by “reasonable people” in court if your activities cause a vehicle accident.

Agreed. But, to date, how many car accidents have been caused by drones? Now compare that number to the amount of drones sold times the average flight count of each drone, and we'll get some real-world numbers regarding the chances of a drone causing a car accident. The problem is that there seems to be zero auto accidents attributed to UAV collision. So that number brings "the odds" to zero.

Here's the data I could dig up.

Full scale aviation carnage:

Facts + Statistics: Aviation and drones | III

I can't find any statistics regarding UAV-caused automobile accidents. Logically, if there were any appreciable number, it would've been reported and tallied by someone somewhere.

Synopsis:

* No reported car accidents due to drone activity.
* No explicit FAA regulation regarding flying over moving vehicles.
* Lots of full-scale aviation falling out of the sky causing all manor of carnage and property damage.

Discuss.

D

 

[Harleydude]

You could fly over moving vehicle as long as there are no people inside the vehicle. If there are people inside the moving vehicle then you are violating 107.39 regulation. This also includes trains as they are also vehicles.
View attachment 114580

While not explicit, this rule is as close to "can't fly over moving vehicles" as I have seen. I find this a bit ironic, as there are no rules regarding full scale aviation operations over moving vehicles. The irony being that full-scale aviation has caused all manor of property damage, vehicle damage and ground deaths, compared to UAV's, which have caused zero in all three categories. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

What this boils down to is that the FAA creates regulation that protects their domain (ignores full-scale aviation carnage), but is happy to legislate UAV's, which is outside their domain. It's like having a panel of professional semi truck drivers make rules for bicycles, which would be very restrictive because truck drivers generally don't ride bicycles in their daily operations.

What I would like to see are test results of drones crashing into moving vehicles. Seems all this "UAV/Automobile danger" is based on conjecture and assumption, but being sold as "common sense," with zero data to support any of it.

Discuss.

D