How the FAA defines flying over people with your drone

[@ThePainWhisperer]

Get rid of the stupid hat!

[@josephrazmek9922]

Give it to the kid in the blue shit... he must be 15 with that dumb brit impersonation.

[@PileofBrass]

That hat really has to go, lol.

[@TravelswithYoly]

Please no more "fake" accents ... made it really hard to focus attention and even understand what was being said. Otherwise, thanks for some very useful information :-)

[@tycotech]

Travels with Yoly I agree, good info, lose the accent...

[@jrbtolentino]

yeah, definitely good info but the way it was delivered was a bit distracting and annoying. otherwise, thanks for video.

[@Craylor]

I enjoyed the comedy, but I guess some people can't look past that.

[@MrFOTOMAN1]

Again, very informative but CUT TO THE CHASE, don't waste time !

[@richard3365]

So, 20 minutes to say that "over" means above any part of the body. Got it.

[@BrianPhillipsRC]

Yeah, but then they've added the trajectory into the mix too. Is that their interpretation, or the law? I can't ever seem to get a strait answer. I guess the best way to handle this crap is like every other aspect of dealings with government, don't ask for clarification, or you'll probably get "no" for an answer, or worse yet "yes", but either way, it'll probably be from the village idiot who answers the phone at your local sheriff's department. The point is, I'm still liable, regardless of the law, or the rule, or the statute, if the guy with the gun tells me I am! I once called a sheriff's department to get clarification on if I would be allowed to carry (a gun concealed) legally since I'd be visiting this jurisdiction and there was ambiguity as to if my permit was valid there. The lady was very nice and helpful, but TOTALLY, 100% WRONG! She said YES, and she was wrong. Where would that have leave me, should I'd been stopped? It's called JAIL! Then I have to pay for attorneys, and bail, and lost wages, and lost job, to get out of trouble when I'm just tiring to obey the law! This is what happens all the time now! The Idiots out there aren't gonna go buy a 400 page FAA manual, let alone read and understand it, but the guys like me, who actually care about safety, and really who care MORE about liberty, get screwed AGAIN! By an UN-elected bureaucrat no less! This crap is getting out of hand!

[@MarcGyverIt]

With the government, just assume it's the most restrictive policy possible and you should be safe. lol

[@spuriouseffect]

If you are flying a drone recreationally without a license, you have to follow the rules of a nationwide organization. All of those model airplane/drone organizations, such as the AMA, have rules that state... You may not fly directly over unprotected people who have not expressly consented to the overflight. And federal law also states that you CAN fly over houses and private property, as long as no one is outside, at an altitude not lower than 83 feet and not above 400 feet. State and local laws also apply though, which vary from place to place. So it's still complicated.

[@alignmentinvestments7030]

@@spuriouseffect Where did you see 83 ft altitude restriction at?

[@spuriouseffect]

@@alignmentinvestments7030 There was a supreme court case way back involving a farmer and a local airstrip. The planes were spooking his livestock. The court ruled that while no one could own all the airspace above their property, they are entitled to a minimum airspace. 83 feet was based on an arbitrary measurement at the time, but the ruling still stands today.

[@ecoovert]

What if you are 390 feet above ground. In this case, how do you determine weather or not you are flying above a person? Surely, if you are flying at an altitude of 390 feet, flying over a person while not in a hover, or simply passing over that person at that altitude, is not unsafe.

[@bzfpv5311]

This is exactly what I am trying to find out. At that height, you may not even see a person on a small display. I take off and land on my property and fly to an open field a few hundred feet away, then fly around away from people. So in that short flight at 200 feet high, if I pass over someone walking a dog, is that "over people"? No one is in danger here

[@CrucesNomad1]

Depends on how you calibrate the drone lol.

[@kamapuaa666]

I had to peace out. I couldn't take the fake accent.

[@snugglyjeff214]

wtf are you talking about 2 years ago?

[@cristypauley7323]

Talk normal

[@HDPaulSzott]

Agree. great information but talk normal and get to the point

[@r3beatty]

Fake accent made the whole thing almost unintelligible. i was looking forward to hearing the interpretation, but the accent made me actually pause the video and comment on it. Skip it next time. Really.

[@mosslimbayter277]

I played it all 1.25 speed, it made it pretty normal. Then when he spoke at standard speed I left it at 1.25 speed and it was fine.

[@garyr.fischer8166]

There's 20 minutes of my life that I can'r back.

[@davidsv6220]

Ditto

[@TinyHouseHomestead]

You can fly anywhere, anytime, and in anyway, ... no matter what you are liable for damages to persons or property! That is everything in a NUTshell! 😱😝🤪🤣😁👍👍🇺🇲 But, we haven't gotten to the real kicker which is, ... you can record everything, BUT you can't "post" it without the expressed written consent of person or propety owners copyright, trademark, and patent, on their name, likeness, image, information, property, data, etc.! BAM! WTFDHJS! 😱😝🤪🤣😁👍👍🇺🇲

[@TinyHouseHomestead]

If you are member of "FREEFLYERS", the worldwide community of air, land, sea, and space travelers! You can fly over people, buildings, wessels, etc., you just assume the risk and liability! We have been around and doing this for hundreds of years! 😱😝🤪🤣😁👍👍🇺🇲 Our rights as individuals supercedes any and all privileges to serve! 😱😝🤪🤣😁👍👍🇺🇲

[@TinyHouseHomestead]

The "Safe Distance" when flying a drone is 1" farther away than the reach of a person who can snatch it out of the air and DRONE SLAM it onto the ground! Helluuuuuuuu! 😱😝🤪🤣😁👍👍🇺🇲

[@michaelwilson6190]

drones should have a deployable chute that auto-deploys upon power loss for a safe and controlled decent.

[@TinyHouseHomestead]

When me and my friends see a "drone", we form a circle around it, hold hands! BAM! GOTCHA! 😱😝🤪🤣😁👍👍🇺🇲

[@TheCablebill]

A catastrophic failure can mean anything, including the case of a drone becoming disoriented with lost comm and trying to RTH in a random direction. If we consider this, and we must, than a strict interpretation yields the conclusion that one may not fly a drone within range of any person that it has the battery capacity to fly to: Effectively nowhere but the remotest locations. Because if you put it in the air, it might come down on someone's head, period. I personally believe a reasonable regulation would scrap this language which effectively bans almost all flight in favor of something vaguer (yes, really) but more purpose-driven: It ought to prohibit hovering over a person or group of people or using a course that unnecessarily overflies people for the mission purpose, especially large groups or dense clusters of people. Assessment of recklessness is, unfortunately, a subjective matter that can only be evaluated on a case by case basis. I supposed the new rules that resulted from the recent NPRM reflect this thinking.

[@BassFearDave]

Did they ever reveal the FAA allowable height requirement for flying over people? I couldn't make it through the video and sopped watching at about half way.

[@PeachtreeFrenchies2]

Nope. It's not that simple.

[@johnecker]

Blocking all recommendations from this channel purely based on the distracting accent.

[@alexfaylona4007]

Link for the over people doc pls.

[@hobbs306]

dude just get to it.

[@muhammad8970]

Lmao..I was thinking the same😅

[@thomasmaughan4798]

With regard to being able to know if you have 3 miles visibility (minute 7) it is probably sufficient to refer to your friendly neighborhood METAR and if it says 3 SM or more then no worries; but if it is less than 3 SM on the METAR you might have to argue that you had sufficient visibility more than your nearest reporting station should anyone challenge it.

[@DJDrLandWhaleOfficial]

Hey I was born in Newport Beach :D

[@realdad32]

I got the fake accent and why he used it. Smh youtube subscribers are ultra sensitive.

[@maximummarklee]

The accent doesn't add value and is a distraction from the content. Otherwise, it would have been informative.

[@HomedronevideosNet]

You still have to add wind X weight of UAV into the bowl of soup.. As a Helicopter Pilot and drone pilot the FAA would have a hard time in court proving anything and will most likely issue you a warning unless you open your mouth and tell them you were in the wrong.

[@rty1955]

www.homedronevideos.net as a helicopter pilot you are exempt from fixed wing rules, you may fly any altitude, but you must abide by the "good neighbor" rule. I am a fixed wing pilot for over 30 yrs and I was shocked when lots of helicopters were flying over my house at or below 300 feet. I called the FAA General Aviation Office on Long island and was informed of this rule. After obtaining the tail numbers of these helicopters I went to the Chief pilots office and informed him that. I felt he was flying to low over my house. All of them politely changed their house as to not fly over my house so low. In response I sent them a nice letter after I noticed thier change.

[@german_i]

I thought this was going to be one of the best educational drone videos on FAA but as soon as he started making that obnoxious accent I just stopped watching the video then I came across it a couple of days later and thought I'll give you another chance but nope as soon as he start it I had to stop watching it it's just irritating

[@bobbuilder5490]

just fucking read it

[@anonymoushippopotamus8731]

8:47 Activate Super Cringe Man!

[@briannusser1407]

Just a quick tip regarding the visibility requirements. If you are unsure about the current viability just quickly pull up your nearest airport on virtually any pilot website/app like airnav, fltplan, skyvector ext. Find the AWOS, ATIS, or ASOS for the airport and it will have the phone number. You will hear the automated weather conditions including visibility. If it is over 3SM than chances are you are good. There are a lot of resources for pilots, use them, you are pilots now too.

[@Lovenpain]

Dude stop playing with your mic!! Lol

[@iphotographer6357]

What if I have Propeller Guard?

[@BlueDroneBlues]

This has been driving me crazy lately. I had a test question of how far away you need to be from people. I was like what the hell are you talking about? So, I have to be 500 ft away but I can pass over them but doesn't justify the altitude over the person. From the interpretation to make this legal. To maintain this 500 ft distance I have to be 500 ft AGL above the person to be legal. So, what you guys are saying this 500 ft distance away from people is in regards not to drones, but to manned aircraft? Frustrating this was a question on my 107 Certification. This is such a misleading question and extremely confusing!

[@joserafols8179]

before you bash helicopter pilots, if you're going to cite the regulations make sure you read the whole section for minimum safe altitudes. part 91.119 (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.

[@OnyxIGPIII]

There is ZERO altitude requirements for helicopters. That's a fact. If you are part 135 then there is. 300 feet day. That's EMS TOURS CHARTERS 500 night.

[@Dumps3rFir3]

But 91.13 still exists as a catch-all for irresponsible action. If another "reasonable person" would say that it was dangerous, then you can be cited for careless and reckless action (like flying 100ft over a road in downtown)

[@OnyxIGPIII]

Wrong again. It's. Pretty clear EXCEPT FOR HELICOPTERS. They would have to be able to prove, that if a "power plant failed" you could not execute an emergency landing. 1. Road or feeeway would have to be a parking lot in rush hour traffic to call it careless and reckless.

[@Dumps3rFir3]

It's more about the way the helicopter is being piloted. Realistically, there's no reason to be under 500ft, and if you're operating in within the H/V diagram, they can call it careless and reckless. The way they do that is either a helicopter DPE/CFI who works for the FSDO will be called OR if one isn't available, they'll call a local flight school and launch an investigation. Source: Commercial rated helicopter pilot/CFI/CFII

[@OnyxIGPIII]

Let me guess, a 1,000 hr wonder? HIV curve is not a limitation nor a requirement. It's a guideline for an "average pilot". Done hover autos at 25 and 50 feet. Doing an auto at 100 feet is a cake walk. Unfortunately MOST pilots are taught INCORRECTLY and does tthing they do is lower the collective. Most likely slamming it to the floor. Just like MOST pilots were INCORRCTLY taught how to recover from SLP using forward cyclic. Wrong again. Unless the FAA can prove that you could not safely land from 100' during an engine failure... there is nothing they can do. They wrote the rules! Learn what the HIV curve is for.

[@tornadokat]

You didn't read Paragraph D of 14 CFR 91.119 which has references specifically to helicopters, mentions an exception to Paragraphs B and C (which requires going down that rabbit hole if you want to properly address your personal issue with Newport Beach), and is completely relevant to your discussion... intentional?

[@MaxSMoke777]

It's a rule that is as clear as mud, could be applied to anyone, anywhere, at any time, in any way they want, for any reason they want. And moreover, almost never enforced.

[@anomalyevolution40]

When I'm flying around 300ft and see people I just change course. Thank of it as a game. If the people are mobile fly the opposite direction their headed. That way in case something goes wrong it's impossible your trajectory and there's will ever meet up. Unless there is a lot of wind in which case why are you flying at 300ft. Say it's crowded and if you could just make it to this area past the crowd it would open up and be safer. My advice is to just Fly high pick the best spot/time to cross. Do your best to not fly over anyone esp avoiding people moving the same direction as you. The main reasons why you fly high. 1. You get to see the bigger picture and find that gap you're looking for. 2. Karen might not even notice you. 3. If something were to go wrong you have precious time to sort it out and pick a safe landing area. I'm not an expert, these are just some things I think about when flying.

[@SoKeepMovingOnward]

So is there any defined altitude for trespassing over a person's property? Consider this... If you flew over somebody's house at ten feet and they shot down your drone, is it trespassing? What about 30ft? 50ft? 100ft?exactly where does their property end in accordance to property law and airspace law???? I would consider it trespassing if somebody is hovering in front of my window over my grass. I could shoot down that drone and I'm pretty sure it would be legal. But what if you were at say fifty feet?

[@jacobsonmg]

What does it mean to be a "participant" if I'm taking a group picture/video where I do a fly over and I brief the group that the drone will be doing said overflight are they participants?

[@StarCop97]

You should note that HELICOPTERS can be operated at ANY altitude without hazard. Read the whole Part guys don’t pick and choose what you want to read.

[@skyym3629]

Who gives a shit what the FAA defines anything as. I am not a commercial pilot and have been flying drones and planes and kites for almost 40 years. What the so-called FAA says about anything doesn't involve me in any way. What the FAA doesn't see or know, won't hurt them, accept in there pocket book because they can't fine me for bullshit. How many more years are the sheeple going to put up with Government encroaching and taking hard earned money from the people that they WORK for?

[@bikerdude5123]

If you read the flying over people finding in your normal voice, I would have continued to listen to your video. I stopped watching the video a minute after you started reading it in what you called your government voice.

[@mercurypic9390]

You know what would be helpful? A link to the actual text you are citing because it's damned hard to understand you. Like this: www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf

[@ckdrones4852]

this was super helpful. I fly just as a hobby and hopefully more one day. I've done a good bit of research through youtube but never thought about this subject as deep as you have. Def makes me rethink some previous flights, and will make me more aware in the future. Subscribing after this comment

[@SuperDanielB1]

Theoretically . . . Safe distance from people in the case of a catastrophic failure . . . let’s say a ‘fly-away’ at full speed (44mph for one of my drones) as soon as I take off . . . so basically with a battery that provides 15 minutes of fly time . . . I can’t fly within 660 mile of a person . . . . . . IF you end up dealing with an anal government bureaucrat (that cannot be fired) . . . not an uncommon occurrence . . . The odds of the scenario above actually happening: -Full speed fly-away .. 1 in a 1000 . . . 1 in 10,000 ??? -Crashing into a person walking in the desert -billion, trillions . . . mega trillions to 1 -Crashing into a person if flight ends at a large crowd; let's say a 'Woodstock' type of concert.. -odds would be VERY LOW Odds of dealing with an anal government bureaucrat on a power-trip - maybe 100 to 1 So I have a 100 to 1 chance of being prosecuted for flying anywhere in the continental US .... Odds of someone taking this post seriously -????

[@BrianPhillipsRC]

Yep, that's the land of the free now! Disgusting, isn't it!

[@MarcGyverIt]

Pretty sure your drone isn't going to fly 660 miles, let alone 66 miles, MAYBE 6 miles. lol

[@SuperDanielB1]

uh . . . what can I say . . . bourbon math . . single malt . . so 15 minutes at 44mph would mean I have to fly 11 miles from any humans . . . I also messed up the last part. I think the odds of dealing with an anal government bureaucrat on a power-trip are actually 10 to 1

[@MrJameric]

I fly for recreation only. Can you define participant and non participant. If I'm flying fvp with a spotter, would that person (the spotter) be considered a participant?

[@deanpatrick5873]

I had to drop off and unsubscribe at the British accent. You'll be more successful if you drop the gimmicks and get to the information.

[@rsauder]

One of the FAA 'technical expert' consultants did a detailed study on this. They detailed the statistical probability that a drone would hit a person based on people (various numbers) being inside the distance of a baseball diamond and the drone overhead. The conclusion was that it was a statistical improbability that it would occur and posed very little risk. It is a published study.

[@joedavajon7380]

Why wear a hat! Sun too bright? No hair? To shade face? Wearing a hat indoors is dumb, If you want to do a British accent, first learn to do it! Knock off the affectations and you will be better appreciated.

[@perryquaranta]

If you are over a person, the only way you could film them would be to have the camera facing straight down. If you can see them and your camera is not facing straight down, then you’re not flying over them.

[@AVToth]

What are the rules about flying over private property? I'm talking about rural farm or ranch property.

[@PISQUEFrancis]

If drones weighing a pound or two to be regulated the same as a 5 pound, 10 pound, or even a 55 pound drone, then so may of the rules, in a realistic world. There should be more division to keep a drone that is very likely to cause substantial damage(like 55 pounds). Very small drones are extremely unlikely to cause damage. One or two pound drones could cause damage, but drones at 5 pounds or 55 pounds will most certainly cause damage. Typical of the politicals making laws, the laws just don't make sense....

[@clarkede]

terrible discussion. it seemed from your discussion that every done is "deadly". How is it then that commercial airlines can fly over people? it's all about common sense and reasonable risk. if you going to have a discussion you should at least debate it a little.

[@ADP6163]

can you supply the link for the full Part 107 regulations other then the summary that keeps coming up when searching for it...looking for interpretation version on flying over humans and other regulations

[@xeric1953]

8:50 that’s what you’re watching for and get ready cause it’s gonna take another 5 minutes to slowly read 🙄 way too much talking about old rules and helicopters

[@crzyruskie86]

I don't see how anyone can get crap for flying over people? There are people absolutely everywhere. Planes fly over people all the time and there can be stuff that happens and planes crash. So when a plane is flying over people, why don't they get phone calls?

[@1stFlyingeagle]

Every drone I have seen go all crap with altitude. It hits the ground with almost a deadfall straight down. All forward motion is gone.

[@CrucesNomad1]

And you lost me at the selling point of a program I will never use. thanks for the click bait.

[@helipilotuh1]

Fun fact. Public use aircraft are exempt from most of the FAR’s.

[@haroldmorganTulsa]

You guys mess around for 20 minutes to make a 2 minute point. Dropped my subscription.

[@yankmyfinger]

Ref Police helicopter...I believe Government (police) and Military flights are exempt from all FAA rules.

[@spocksvulcanbrain]

yankMyFinger: That's just not true. They are different, but still must follow rules.

[@icecl0ud]

Your beliefs are not correct.

[@spocksvulcanbrain]

I'm a helicopter pilot and let me tell you they most definitely have to follow FAA rules. Some of them are different for the military, but still have rules they absolutely have to follow.

[@ttight11]

Just the info I wanted ... I'm guessing. Too bad i became ill before you got to it.

[@billowens695]

Can't keep his hand off his mic...... STOP!!!!!

[@Losbitiboys4441]

This is so easy to clear the problem fly your drone how ever you want to fly it just dont post nothing on social media that simple

[@DroneAdventuresEarthview]

Lost me on the fake accent ;p Just took to long and I got bored.

[@pS-sv3pm]

so is there any way to film a parade or public event? if I'm 500 feet away, you cant see anything. like what if I'm hovering over a building, so the drone would fall on that, instead of the crowd? So many situations where a drone shot would be cool, like an outdoor sports game, which from 400ft in the air wouldn't bother anyone.

[@lare500]

Peter,,, from my understanding .. You just can't over or about the people .. but you can fly in back of people, in a reasonable distance or along side..

[@sherlockholmes5912]

Edit, Two Drones going OVER drones going over Drones!

[@n3twork727]

... worst informative video ever. Here is theninfo we want ro share let me read it ironnically.

[@megadeth1763]

So..! What's going on with the guy in the starchy odd cap ?

[@rankinmg1]

information = +10 delivery= -1

[@linosepulvedajr2808]

Rotary winged aircraft, quadcopter, or drone, no matter how you decide to define them, it is capable of inertia, forward motion, and an uncontrolled trajectory during failure. I wonder, if an aircraft the size and weight of the DJI Spark fell 400ft out of the sky and struck your head and killed you, would you rather the pilot adhered to or ignored FAA regs or just practiced common sense? Aircraft, Cars, Motorcycles or any object that has the potential to cause injury and/or death to self or others needs only one safety feature, a pilot, driver, or rider that practices` COMMON SENSE.

[@darylchappell8731]

Regrettably, common sense isn't a flower that grows in everyone's garden.

[@linosepulvedajr2808]

very true

[@davidjacobs2541]

I had to leave when you started your accent, sorry

[@sicure]

·91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general (d) ·Helicopters. ·Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator. ·Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.

[@johnnywest7508]

14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) § 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General. (HELICOPTERS Section d. 1.) Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b)Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d)Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface - (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and (2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

[@northwoodsmediaworks3377]

Entertaining report - thanks guys. Excellent information further clarifying a VERY vague subject of minimum safe distances. Interpretation helps, although does not specifically answer that question other then 'directly over'.

[@xheliculo]

I was anticipating coming to a great place to learn about this new hobby ...and I had to listen to this...I hope they read the comments...by the way ..Mr. Burdict asked you to make it POP..not POOP!

[@villagelightsmith4375]

Powered glider at 100mph (yes, pure gliders DO go MUCH faster than that) can have a very - long - glide - path. At what distance could I strike a person if that was my intention? From a 500 foot AGL with a 50:1 glide path we are talking 25,000 feet, or close to 5 miles horizontal distance if the "Inspectah" really wants to be prickish about his "Authoritaw." (Thank You, Eric Cartman) [Rhetorical possibility only ... I've lost the word ... everything is there but the drone wasn't. ] I am out in the mountains of the Northwest, flying my drone along a ridge top, dutifully no more than 500 feet AGL, when a gen-u-wine BMF F-14 Tomcat (or was that an F-18? I can never keep them straight) comes sc-a-reaming across that ridge from the East, dropping into the canyon to the West, close enough that I can see the pilot's face, in fact, BETWEEN my drone and myself. [OK, where my drone could have been.] Turns out that location, unmarked on any road or forest map, is a part of the USAF's training loop. (HeII, I was there! Could have hit him with a rock if I'd known when he was coming through!) His tailwind knocks my drone out of the sky. Who's gonna pay for my drone? Or, if my drone gets sucked into his engine, will I really want my name and numbers all over that bird? Or suppose there was no drone ... suppose it was a turkey buzzard, sailing along, minding his own business, sniffing for a dead critter for lunch? It's not impossible; I accidentally killed one with a Buick. Following bureaucratic minutia reminds me of the old horse-logger who had quietly listened to the Forest Service children for long enough. They WANTED him to do the work, but ... he rose to his feet, put on his hat, and as he left the conference room he said "I'll diaper my horses when you diaper your bears!"

[@brianminkc]

I think the FAA had better not get to full of itself. I have cooperated in getting my UAS for recreational use. However I am not going to have an attorney nor go to a university to fly it. There is a point where I say.. f you and just fly as sensibly as I can and give the finger to the rest of this bullshit.

[@PhilC5987]

Still confused about flying over people. What if I’m at a park, very few people in my flight area. I’m cruising around at 50m, and someone happens to walk by, and under my flight path, and they just happen to be under my drone for a brief moment. Is this considered as flying over people/ person?

[@mrspanky369]

the men and woman of the STATE do what ever they like .. make a written complaint verify it that will change it =)

[@cilthyfunt]

takin for fuckin ever to get to the points

[@lhc3825]

If someone gets hurt no matter what altitude or speed while you are flying around people the FAA WILL call that careless and reckless when someone got hurt. It's all about safety don't over think it.....THINK SAFETY. I'm a airline pilot and flight instructor and a remote license pilot.

[@productions8]

I actually thought the fake british accent helped me to understand the definition lol. Normally I would have a harder time grasping extensive technical language as it would seem to all turn into blah blah blah in my mind. The fake accent was entertaining and the fact that you read the definition slowly was also helpful to me. To each his own though :)

[@mikegilreath5195]

Gentleman, I am not quite sure if aside from the FAA you have discussed another government entity that has laws about drones...THE FCC!!! I have some general knowledge about this and without searching I am aware of some of the FCC Laws.

[@rsauder]

Note the comment at 6:24; fantastic comment. This is critical to the basis of most drone/UAV regulation in Canada. It is based on the logic applied to aircraft and there are MANY clauses that just do not have any technical justification based on UAVs. I'd like to get more detailed, I plan to in the near future in an attempt to provide feedback/commentary to help influence the outcome of upcoming regulation; I'm in the midst of conjuring up community support (UAV users, and technical authorities). In Canada at least (haven't studied the FAA regs too much in detail yet) they are going over-board! Example: the max distance from buildings and people (aka built-up areas) is entirely related (I'm omitting lots of detail here, sorry) to the need for aircraft to be able to do emergency landings. Aircraft regs make allowances for these restrictions based on TAKE OFF and LANDINGS....BUT these allowances are not included in the reg wrt UAVs because doing so would be 'good' for UAV users. Many of these safety regs are a result of study, experience of FIXED WING aircraft that are inherently non-agile machines that require distance to control velocity and CANNOT control altitude or direction with high agility....like UAVs can.

[@davidh7268]

Great video! Police and Fire operate under “Special Use” which is non FAA regulated. But you guys are dead on with the 107. I am an FAA Safety Inspector and have 15 years reading regulations for air safety in 14 CFR particularly in civil aviation for large Part 121 operators. I have yet to find any section that gives interpretation. Case law in aviation court will often be the determination if the situation replicates the case. I think you are right on when you say use good judgment, have a decent risk management plan that will cover accidents and that should cover your butt if things go bad. Other then that, great video...keep up the great work.

[@garyheurich6835]

Gents, you referenced the 624 page FAA 14 CFR 107 "roll-out" document, which includes the interpretation. But, I have not been able to find it online. Would you please direct me to where I can download it? Thanks.

[@garycollins4647]

If we can't fly over people, we should ban Commercial and Private aircraft as well as helicopters from doing the same. It's only Logical. what do you guys think. Safe Flyer

[@steverayburn4583]

Paul really should know the far’s before he makes statements and accusations about a police pilot on this production. There are different requirements for helicopters than airplanes. He should do the research. If you have any questions, please contact me. This should be a forum for correct information.

[@InItForTheParking]

So basically that means anywhere your battery can make it to right? Because say I am 1km away from a crowd of people at only 20ft and the "catastrophic failure" involved it just taking off in a straight line until the battery failed.

[@billfarnham1592]

The drone is VERY unlikely to have the velocity/speed to move 100 feet laterally if it fails completely from 100 feet high. It will move SOME, but not very likely 100 feet horizontally.

[@zackreacts1848]

You guys are approaching the question in a philosophical manner. If a mishap were to happen. an investigation will be conducted to determine what the UAS was doing prior to the accident. If a pilot is flying AT people or buzzing cars and homes, that is going to be a case for reckless operation. The 45 degree rule is a good 'rule of thumb' because it minimizes the exposure to risk to people on the ground. Does that mean that a UAS can NEVER be closer than such a rule implies? Of course not! As soon as the pilot realizes that the UAS is closer than it should be then fly away or move back. It's that simple. Don't make this stuff harder than it needs to be. If a crash were to occur within the 45 degree area, but the pilot was trying to maintain that distance when the accident happened will be a factor in the investigation. Sometimes your best efforts just aren't good enough.

[@spearkc]

Let me see if I got this. "Over" means literally above people. But since a drone isn't stationary, the direction and speed of the drone is included in that definition. So, if you're asking the question about what "flying over people" means, it's likely your operation/flight path is over people.

[@forrestjoyner7593]

So you could have passed along the pertinent points of the information in about a minute or less and without the accent. As it is, it's like wading through syrup in January in a ghillie suit. Thus interminably boring. Sorry.

[@quadcopter9993]

I find the USA a little confusing. People can walk around with guns within 1ft of each other but a drone must me kept at a distance of 150ft? I suppose it's American humour (or should I say humor?). Love it!

[@morgenholz]

Paul Wingfield Big difference. You are comparing a sizable object with spinning blades, that could drop out of the sky and injure someone with a gun that is not going do anything at all on its own, if simply being carried in a holster by a licensed owner.

[@quadcopter9993]

Morgen Holz But why then are so many people killed by guns and they're still legal, whereas no one has been killed, or is likely to be, by a quadcopter, and yet it is quadcopter pilots that are the bad guys?

[@guyncali2]

Easy. Most gun deaths are perpetrated by people who are NOT carrying them legally anyway with the INTENT to do harm to others, NOT with the intent of self protection. So most of those gun deaths are NOT legal. And guns can do nothing without a users direct input. Whereas drones that fail CAN do damage once out of the control of the pilot, therefore there are safety precautions to mitigate the possibility of damage if failure happens to occur.

[@hanhelimax]

Basically FAA should just let people fly however drone pilots want. Just not around airports and set the height limit which is already 400ft. Force them to insure just like cars through State Farm or Geico. Cars could fail plunge into bystanders on a street and cause far more danger. Same concept for drones. Make drones insured for damages it can cause. Most likely much much cheaper to insure on drones than cars since it will almost always damage other properties or people very very little compare to cars. Anyway, nothing can be completely safe. American Airlines flies over people and sometimes crashes and kills people below. That's why they are insured.

[@jacquesdemolay2699]

It is flyophobia. or perhaps dronophobia. guns do not fly, so, no restriction.

[@NewAgeAerialcom]

I like the point about 100' high and 100' away I agree is extreme case, BUT if your UAS is a 'wing' you will easily cover that 100' with glide slope... yes it is hard to determine a fit all rule of thumb. Keep up the dialog!

[@oneofthesixbillion]

In catastrophic loss of control quadcopters don't only fall out of the sky or follow a parabolic trajectory, they can go sideways under full power. My personal rule for myself is I don't fly if people are within the distance of at least twice the height I'm flying, usually more.

[@matthewheath45]

I wanted information and you treat it like a game ..... with an accent that is horrible to listen to I wanted to actually learn. I just found your page and watched several videos you seem cool just kinda mad that I cannot stand that accent to actually hear the important message .

[@sevenwhitehorses]

i like that you are covering the new regulations and appreciate your information. i fell you would be better served to have kept away from using an accent for it both made you incomprehensible and silly on a serious matter. also, if you are going to site regulations you need to have a grasp of them by reading all of them. your fight with the helicopter is a lost battle as long as a helicopter can do so without hazard to persons or property on the surface they can pretty much fly where they wish unlike an airplane. if you were a certified pilot you would or a least should be aware of this fact. this same concept of not being a hazard would be applicable to how close one gets to people with the new rule of 'not over people'. COME TO THINK OF IT, if the FAA wished to control 'drones' which are for all practical matters a helicopter, the rules governing them should have been the same as those of helicopters not of airplanes as they were doing! all of these things can be a battle with the FAA if they care to fight you and most of the time the FAA wins. this all said, it is still nice that you are going to such length to keep up on what is going on and getting some very difficult to obtain information out to everyone. thanks for that! an ATP pilot and rc aircraft flier too.

[@UFGator1972]

Awesome video? Roughly 40% do not agree with your assessment. A little humility goes a long way.

[@rockywalker7127]

anytime there is a finding which could lead to a violation: the "Careless and Reckless" statute is ALWAYS attached.

[@lmccluer]

The wind will also be a part of the equation. If your flying in say a 5 mph wind from behind, then that will push you farther once you lose power. But if you are flying into the same wind, the forward motion won’t be as much.