PDA

View Full Version : 107.39 Operation over human beings



egproductions
05-19-2017, 04:08 PM
107.39 Operation over human beings.

No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless that human being is:

(a) Directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft; or

(b) Located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft.


My question, how do you make films if you can't put people under a drone?

What is considered under? Does it have to be directly under or if they are off center by 5 feet (but at an altitidue of 400 feet) is that ok?

Will liability insurance ever cover a person who is injured by a drone? (I imagine not since hte presumption is that they could only get injured if they were under the drone to begin with)

J Michael
05-19-2017, 06:21 PM
If the person can get hit by the drone if it falls out of the sky then consider the person under the drone. FAA always has the wildcard reckless operation card, so just use common sense. Re the insurance the policy might have exclusions for violations, so read carefully.

jagraphics
05-20-2017, 06:21 AM
If we are going to discuss the legalities and requirements of drone usage you do need to make it clear which country or jurisdiction you are talking about DVX User is an international community and there are 192 countries (according to the UN)

People's locations are on their post-profile are not always clear... I am in Birmingham but not the USA ( many US city names are taken from European city names) and the location on my post-profile may not be where I intend to operate. In some countries e.g. USA, Russia, Germany, Canada(?) where there are state/provincial/regional governments/administrations there may be different rules from the National ones.

Also whilst I am being pedantic (as the Law and the courts will be) the OP states " 107.39 Operation over human beings." and we are expected to guess which document the OP is referring to...... You should quote the full document title (and version/date) as well. Then there will be no miss understandings.

Also these threads are visible for years. So some one could read it in a years time and not realise it refers to the (by then) old version and he new version is subtly different.

Sorry to be pedantic but I have worked in a field (aerospace) where this matters a lot and if your system ( a flying one) causes a problem people get huge fines, if they are lucky. (otherwise it is long jail terms for manslaughter)

paulears
05-20-2017, 07:19 AM
Most administrations have something broadly similar for all kinds of flying aircraft. 500ft for example, with a light aircraft - In some locations people 'own' the airspace over their property, in the US, I understand the Supreme Court even tried to define it, and the result was the notion that there is a limit, Above 500ft, aircraft can fly but at 499ft, they're trespassing. I guess this is why where trespass laws allow you to shoot the trespassers they shoot your drones down. Here in the UK we cannot shoot anybody, but we could throw bricks I suppose.

J Michael
05-20-2017, 10:33 AM
There are aviation treaties that make things a little more consistent, hopefully this will occur with drone regs.