"My Drone Crashed in Your Backyard"

[Glockster]

He has a legal right to fly his drone.

Maybe, if he complies with all applicable FAA regulations, but he doesn't have any legal right to set foot on my property without permission.

He can not fly over "people". If it lands in a backyard, its reasonable to assume there is a house by that back yard. A Homeowner could easily prove that drone should not have been flying there.

And I agree, he has no legal right to set foot on anybodys property without permission. I would have a problem if one of those "Big Ones" landed in my yard. He and I would have to have a serious talk about that. Those "Big Ones" can certainly hurt someone falling from the sky, or easily crack a windshield or other property damage. Now a kid toy? Not a problem. I would gladly give it back to the kid except I would retrieve it in my backyard if I could easily do so. Now if its high up in the tree, I wouldnt let them get it out due to liability. I wouldnt want someone climbing a ladder and risk a fall or other injury. I would let them know its in a tree and if/when it comes down, I'll let ya know.

What is the reference for your "can not fly over people" restriction? I'm unaware of that general restriction so having it would be helpful.

It's part of the FAA rules passed by executive fiat around this time last year IIRC.

I've looked at those, as well as the TX code on drones and cannot seem to find anywhere that it says that you "can not fly over people."

[Skiprr]

What is the reference for your "can not fly over people" restriction? I'm unaware of that general restriction so having it would be helpful.

It's part of the FAA rules passed by executive fiat around this time last year IIRC.

Yep; right you are. https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ft-systems; the "Summary of the Major Provisions" does a good job of highlighting the regulations.

• Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary vehicle.

Other interesting points about operations:

• Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS. Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the visual observer.

• Daylight-only operations, or civil twilight (30 minutes before official sunrise to 30 minutes after official sunset, local time) with appropriate anti-collision lighting.

• No careless or reckless operations.

[Glockster]

What is the reference for your "can not fly over people" restriction? I'm unaware of that general restriction so having it would be helpful.

It's part of the FAA rules passed by executive fiat around this time last year IIRC.

Yep; right you are. https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ft-systems; the "Summary of the Major Provisions" does a good job of highlighting the regulations.

• Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary vehicle.

Other interesting points about operations:

• Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS. Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the visual observer.

• Daylight-only operations, or civil twilight (30 minutes before official sunrise to 30 minutes after official sunset, local time) with appropriate anti-collision lighting.

• No careless or reckless operations.

I think that therein is the difference in that you're reading "not operate" differently than the FAA intended, according to the FAA.

I've had my drone license since June and when the rules became effective in August, I directly asked the FAA office in charge of drone regulations about this point. I was referred to the joint operational safety site that the FAA partners on and given the following guidance as to what the FAA means by the term "operate." That guidance states: "Do not intentionally fly over unprotected persons or moving vehicles, and remain at least 25 feet away from individuals and vulnerable property."

And that was based on the fact that if you were to fly a drone across any given neighborhood in the United States, it would be for all practical purposes not to fly over any person, as houses are full of people. So they issued that clarification, which as I have been told directly by the FAA means that simply flying your drone across any property where they may be people is allowed, as long as you do not intentionally operate over unprotected people (and I asked for the definition of "unprotected" and they said that it would be on a case by case basis as to what that term may mean). And the unintentional passing over people doesn't, according to the FAA, constitute as "operating" whereas hovering it overhead would.

I'm not trying to split hairs here, just was asking the question because as a responsible drone pilot I wouldn't want to violate the law and recognizing that the law states "not operate" haven't seen anything that specifically stated that literally you cannot fly over people. The form that I signed to get my license stated that I must comply with what was contained on that site, the not intentionally over unprotected people.

[FCH]

[Skiprr]

I think that therein is the difference in that you're reading "not operate" differently than the FAA intended, according to the FAA.

I'm not reading or interpreting anything. I just posted the link and a couple of quotations from the summary.

If you already knew the link--since you are obviously intimately familiar with the subject--why not just post it yourself and provide the interpretation you already had rather asking for a reference and having other members try to help by Googling it?

The FAA document as updated June 2016 is 152 pages long. I don't own a drone, have no interest in owning a drone, and thus have no intention of reading all 152 pages or searching for any nuanced interpretations.

[Glockster]

I think that therein is the difference in that you're reading "not operate" differently than the FAA intended, according to the FAA.

I'm not reading or interpreting anything. I just posted the link and a couple of quotations from the summary.

If you already knew the link--since you are obviously intimately familiar with the subject--why not just post it yourself and provide the interpretation you already had rather asking for a reference and having other members try to help by Googling it?

The FAA document as updated June 2016 is 152 pages long. I don't own a drone, have no interest in owning a drone, and thus have no intention of reading all 152 pages or searching for any nuanced interpretations.

Understand.

I only had what I had. I asked for any specific source because like with much of what the government does I thought that something else had come out since I spoke with them months ago. Like with gun issues here most drone owners have to rely on other drone owners because that full set of rules is painful. If there was something new I would have been very greatful for having someone pointing it out to me. That was why I asked.

[Mxrdad]

Wow, is that really Police property? If not, a drone like that for Police work would be a great investment. The "Big Ones" we were talking about is just like that picture. Thanks for posting it.

That is not a big drone, that is one of the more expensive drones available to the average person. The cost of that drone would be a small down payment of a big drone.
It is a popular drone because of it's bells and whistles and it can be easily operated without hours of practice. It must be registered and if it is used for any reason other than a hobby the pilot must be licensed as of August 2016 (even for police work) Hopefully the new regulations will be tweaked soon to make more common sense but this is the federal government and they move slower than the state, county or municipal governments.

Yes sir, agreed. The Phantom is a very popular model and I'm sure they make bigger ones. I dont know the cost of any bigger ones but I'll bet its up there and WAY out of my price range.

As far as the laws, yeah, there are a bunch of them and I am confident in saying the majority of flights break at least 1 of those laws. For example, FAA does require you to keep it Line of Sight (LOS), yet these drones are more than capable of going 2-3 miles away. Kinda hard to see a white spec in the sky from that distance. U-Tube is full of videos "breaking the law". Personally, I dont feel confident in my piloting skills to take it far away from me. Even when I keep it "close", say maybe 1/4 mile away, I can see it, but when I look down at my phone/tablet for just a second or 2, trying to find it again is extremely difficult and often times unsuccessful. Even if its just hovering and I had a landmark to help see it again.

I was just trying to help anyone that wasnt familiar with drones to put the fear of spying away. (Not counting the ones the military uses, I have no idea what those things are capable of). Big Brother and the WWW is way more dangerous as far as spying goes than drones like the Phantom. My dad and I had several funny conversations when I first got mine. He said, "If I see one of those things around my house, I'll shoot the thing out of the sky". And to this day, I still dont doubt him! LOL.

At the end of the day, it really boils down to common sense and respect and we all know there is a decline in both of those. All one has to do is turn to the MSM and the Liberals for proof of that! OH!

[The Dude]

One more thing to consider, since these drones are registered with the FAA, their flights are recorded and can be tracked. It is a huge no-no and a crime to shoot one of these out of the sky. Since they can be tracked, the flight data shows a ton of info and will show the exact flight path from take off to landing (or crashing) complete with altitude, speed, degrees of turns, etc.

Don't you need to recover the flight recorder first?

[G.A. Heath]

One more thing to consider, since these drones are registered with the FAA, their flights are recorded and can be tracked. It is a huge no-no and a crime to shoot one of these out of the sky. Since they can be tracked, the flight data shows a ton of info and will show the exact flight path from take off to landing (or crashing) complete with altitude, speed, degrees of turns, etc.

Don't you need to recover the flight recorder first?

On a model with capabilities like a phantom 3 or later (possibly older versions as well) you get telemetry back to your controller and the app your smart device is running to assist controlling the UAS. While you might not be able to provide all the detail the on board systems (IMU) recorded, you can probably dial in exactly where the device went down and potentially even have video/still images of what brought it down if your recording on the smart device. I have had someone threaten to shoot mine down, he thought we were spying on his property over five miles away. Turns out his neighbor was flying that drone checking his own irrigation system.

[The Dude]

It's a shame they don't have that technology for airliners. They would have known what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 right away.

[WTR]

I've read about Governmental agencies checking on improvements to the land (love to raise taxes), agriculture use, livestock numbers The drone you shoot down may get you in a heap of trouble.

[G.A. Heath]

It's a shame they don't have that technology for airliners. They would have known what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 right away.

To a degree they get a lot of data sent back to the ground with newer aircraft, in fact IIRC Flight 370's engines sent data back indicating their speed (RPM) and such until they failed. This is all based on memory and I could have that aircraft confused with another.

[tbrown]

The cameras aren't good enough to spy on people but if you take one down you'll get caught on camera.

[G.A. Heath]

The cameras aren't good enough to spy on people but if you take one down you'll get caught on camera.

I never said anything about the camera not being good enough to spy on someone. But if you want to spy on someone there are definately methods that make much less noise than a quadcopter does.

[rm9792]

I hear ya, I have felt "naked" a few times not long ago. Not a good feeling. On a side note, I want to throw something out here.

I

One more thing to consider, since these drones are registered with the FAA, their flights are recorded and can be tracked. It is a huge no-no and a crime to shoot one of these out of the sky. Since they can be tracked, the flight data shows a ton of info and will show the exact flight path from take off to landing (or crashing) complete with altitude, speed, degrees of turns, etc. But I have to admit, the thought of popping one of these out of the sky sounds fun but the recourse could be expensive. I would not recommend it.

.

Where did you get the idea they can be recorded and tracked? Registration just gives the FAA your name and address if it crashes and an investigation is done. Yes I have a Phantom 3 and it does record the flights but it doesn't send that data anywhere.