Taking video of two lane highway for construction job

[skymonkey]

UAV’s operate in the NAS witch is governed by the FAA.
Pilots of manned aircraft are trained in emergency procedures and have to go through retesting every 6 months for commercial pilots and 24 months for private pilots I believe.
The benefit of aviation to society outweighs the potential of possible accidents. All aircraft have redundant systems on board to deal with posible systems failures.
Nowadays when you here of a plane crash it’s either some whacked out pilot bringing down a plane or pilot/mechanic thinking the rule/procedure they were breaking wasn’t that important.

 

[Harleydude]

UAV’s operate in the NAS witch is governed by the FAA.

Correct. But that's declaration, not a qualification. The FAA is staffed 100% by pilots or non-pilots. They are not staffed by UAV pilots. So that beckons the question, "In what way are they qualified to create rules and regulations for UAV's?" The clear answer is to hire UAV pilots as employees, or at the very least to consult so that UAV rules and regulations are reasonable and benefit everybody. Not just pilots.

Pilots of manned aircraft are trained in emergency procedures and have to go through retesting every 6 months for commercial pilots and 24 months for private pilots I believe.

Do those tests involve practical testing??? Actual flights?

The benefit of aviation to society outweighs the potential of possible accidents.

The same argument could be made for UAV's. While I concede that full-scale aviation benefits mankind far greater than UAV's do (at this time), anyone with even a remedial understanding of UAV and aviation statistics know that the damage done by full scale aviation is orders of magnitude greater than that of their UAV counterpart. So what we have here is a great focus on the BENEFITS of full-scale aviation with almost zero consideration for the damage they do. It's all about ratio...which is equal, all things considered.

All aircraft have redundant systems on board to deal with posible systems failures.

Ironically, a new system was just developed that insures no drone will every free-fall crash ever again. When one or two motors fail, the drone can go into a rotation that not only prevents free-fall, but still allows limited control of the drone. I predict this system will be employed by all flight controllers in the next year or two.

I have scoured the Internet for this new system, but seems it's highly guarded. I can't seem to find any video of these rotating drones.

Nowadays when you here of a plane crash it’s either some whacked out pilot bringing down a plane or pilot/mechanic thinking the rule/procedure they were breaking wasn’t that important.

Funny....I was going to make the same excuse for rogue UAV incidents.

D

 

[Earthman]

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....





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.






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?




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




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

Any words quoted without the entire text is taken out of context. The ellipsis (three dots, see Ellipsis - Wikipedia) replaced words I left out to get to the point. Here’s the entire sentence:

“You currently cannot fly a small UAS over anyone not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, or not inside a covered stationary vehicle.”

I added the bold and underline in the above. The other words are what the ellipsis replaced. See my prior post for a link to the entire FAA Fact Sheet from which this was taken. Read it if you don’t want to see stuff taken out of context.

If you are still not convinced and are still looking for the applicable reg, you need to read all of the regs yourself. They aren’t hard to find and I provided the link in my prior post.

I know my tone here may seem disrespectful to you or others but I don’t mean to be. Sorry in advance if I do.

The FAA’s rules, just like all rules and regulations, are subject to interpretation, which is why we have attorneys, judges, and juries. The FAA is establishing rules that will be the basis for settling claims in court when bad stuff happens from accidents, negligence, and recklessness.

Until the FAA is convinced that UASs are as reliable, safe, and flown as responsibly as conventional aircraft, they will be subject to different rules. The FAA isn’t overstepping its mission by doing so. UASs can be dangerous. There are plenty of examples on YouTube.

Read the regs, know your risks, and fly safely as defined by those who will judge your actions.

 

[Harleydude]

Any words quoted without the entire text is taken out of context. The ellipsis (three dots, see Ellipsis - Wikipedia) replaced words I left out to get to the point. Here’s the entire sentence:

“You currently cannot fly a small UAS over anyone not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, or not inside a covered stationary vehicle.”

I added the bold and underline in the above. The other words are what the ellipsis replaced. See my prior post for a link to the entire FAA Fact Sheet from which this was taken. Read it if you don’t want to see stuff taken out of context.

The full quote is helpful. It's clear that the FAA has forbidden unmanned aerial vehicles from flying over MANNED ground vehicles...which leads us to believe that it's okay to fly over moving automobiles, as long as they are unmanned. Goooooooooooo FAA!!!!!

If you are still not convinced and are still looking for the applicable reg, you need to read all of the regs yourself. They aren’t hard to find and I provided the link in my prior email.

I am convinced.

I know my tone here may seem disrespectful to you or others but I don’t mean to be. Sorry in advance if I do.

Ditto. That's the problem with text...it CAN be taken OUT of context. Unless otherwise noted via a flat-out insult, I assume the conversation is respectful. I try to convey that with my "with all due respect" declarations.

Until the FAA is convinced that UASs are as reliable, safe, and flown as responsibly as conventional aircraft, they will be subject to different rules.

The irony is that the FAA distributes the certifications that insure neither skill nor safety. When they finally get their proverbial **** together, the 107 test questions will not only be more germane to what we actually do as UAV pilots, but will also include a practical skills test. As we sit, the 107 test is about 50% good education and 50% crap. And without a practical test, ANY bastard can get a 107...even if they have never flown a UAV in their life. THAT is scary.

The FAA isn’t overstepping their mission by doing so. UASs can be dangerous. There are plenty of examples on YouTube.

Well...again, with all due respect, define "dangerous." I mean really, when you scale UAV's next to full-scale aviation, the former becomes little more than a nuisance at best, and the latter becomes the danger. In the scale of things, you might as well compare automobiles to bicycles.

Read the regs, know your risks, and fly safely as defined by those who will judge your actions.

I always fly safely, as the lack of dents, dings and scratches on my drones will attest to....<;^)

D

 

[Drestin Black]

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 stood out to me: "a moving vehicle as long as there are no people inside the vehicle." What kind of pilotless vehicle would that be?

 

[Drestin Black]

This reminds me of 2nd Ammendment arguments, examining what a comma means. By pure coincidence I know an English professor and asked her her opinion of what this sentence means:

“You currently cannot fly a small UAS over anyone not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, or not inside a covered stationary vehicle.”

Her reply was: Break it down for part, so, it becomes:
1) You currently cannot fly a small UAS over anyone not directly participating in the operation,
2) You currently cannot fly a small UAS over anyone not under a covered structure,
3) You currently cannot fly a small UAS over anyone not inside a covered stationary vehicle.

Look at each part, does someone in a moving vehicle fit any of those 3 exclusions? No.

Examining #3 directly: It clearly reads "not inside a covered stationary vehicle" - that's the exclusion. If that word was left off then flying over anyone inside any vehicle would have be fine. But, there it is; "stationary".

As much as I think it's a dumb rule I would say that flying over any persons inside a moving vehicle are against this rule.

 

[skymonkey]

This stood out to me: "a moving vehicle as long as there are no people inside the vehicle." What kind of pilotless vehicle would that be?

Just make sure there are no passengers on board.

 

[Drestin Black]

Just make sure there are no passengers on board.

How would you know?

 

[skymonkey]

Lol...have your VO check with binoculars.

 

[Drestin Black]

Lol...have your VO check with binoculars.

Yea ... I’m gonna just keep flying over cars, sorry not sorry. Dumb rule.