Can I fly over my own car?

[Weston Ney]

So I have a question. I know it is illegal to fly over roads with traffic on them. But I want to go out on rural roads in the morning when nobody is driving. There's lots of places like that where I live. I want to have a friend drive my car, while I stand on the side of the road and fly my drone directly over and behind and next to my car. Is it legal to fly over a car participating in the video you are making? And is it only illegal to fly over non-participating cars? Or is the law just plain you can't fly over cars?

 

[RonsPlc]

It's your own property, and you are well aware of the risks involved should your UAV lose power and come crashing into your own vehicle.
I doubt that you will be having him doing highway speeds while you are in a position that would allow the UAV to crash through the windshield and injure him.
So, no harm, no foul as far as I am concerned.

 

[Weston Ney]

Cool thanks yeah I definitely wouldn't be having him to highway speeds, for one thing the Drone wouldn't be able to keep haha!

It's your own property, and you are well aware of the risks involved should your UAV lose power and come crashing into your own vehicle.
I doubt that you will be having him doing highway speeds while you are in a position that would allow the UAV to crash through the windshield and injure him.
So, no harm, no foul as far as I am concerned.

 

[chascoadmin]

If your friend is part of your drone operation and you have consent then there's no problem. You only have to file for a waiver if you are flying over people and do not have direct consent. We had an interesting situation pop up a couple of weeks ago where the State of Texas Transportation Department (TXDOT) informed us that we were not allowed to fly in their Right-Of-Way (ROW) so I proceeded to provide them with a flight plan showing that i would be taking off outside of their ROW and the drone would maintain a flight line just outside the ROW. We did 10 miles of roadway without altercation after that.

 

[Propsontop]

This is why I wish even hobbyists would go take a 107 course, whether or not you take the test for a 107 certificate.
§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system -
(a) From a moving aircraft; or
(b) From a moving land or water-borne vehicle unless the small unmanned aircraft is flown over a sparsely populated area and is not transporting another person's property for compensation or hire.

The fact that it states "another person's property" is indicative that your own property is not under consideration. If you damage your own stuff there isn't a liability issue, nor is there a reportability issue regarding damage amounts or injuries. Go fly, do it in a sparsely populated area, and make darn sure yours is the only vehicle the drone could possibly damage. If you can do this and have the mission pre-planned with safety being your foremost thought, then go fly.

 

[chascoadmin]

This is why I wish even hobbyists would go take a 107 course, whether or not you take the test for a 107 certificate.
§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system -
(a) From a moving aircraft; or
(b) From a moving land or water-borne vehicle unless the small unmanned aircraft is flown over a sparsely populated area and is not transporting another person's property for compensation or hire.

The fact that it states "another person's property" is indicative that your own property is not under consideration. If you damage your own stuff there isn't a liability issue, nor is there a reportability issue regarding damage amounts or injuries. Go fly, do it in a sparsely populated area, and make darn sure yours is the only vehicle the drone could possibly damage. If you can do this and have the mission pre-planned with safety being your foremost thought, then go fly.

Good quote. I don't think he will be operating from a vehicle though. His friend will be driving and he'll be outside from what I gathered..

 

[Propsontop]

You are correct. I missed it the first time.
Then §107.23 would be appropriate:
§ 107.23 Hazardous operation.
No person may:
(a) Operate a small unmanned aircraft system in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another; or
(b) Allow an object to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft in a manner that creates an undue hazard to persons or property.

As chasco pointed out, unless you're driving, that could be deemed as putting another person's life in danger. Make sure you have his consent.

 

[sar104]

This is why I wish even hobbyists would go take a 107 course, whether or not you take the test for a 107 certificate.
§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system -
(a) From a moving aircraft; or
(b) From a moving land or water-borne vehicle unless the small unmanned aircraft is flown over a sparsely populated area and is not transporting another person's property for compensation or hire.

The fact that it states "another person's property" is indicative that your own property is not under consideration. If you damage your own stuff there isn't a liability issue, nor is there a reportability issue regarding damage amounts or injuries. Go fly, do it in a sparsely populated area, and make darn sure yours is the only vehicle the drone could possibly damage. If you can do this and have the mission pre-planned with safety being your foremost thought, then go fly.

But you appear to have misunderstood 107.25. The reference to property is only with regard to transporting property, not flying over it.

 

[Propsontop]

No misunderstanding, just a difference in interpretation perhaps. Operations over human beings implies "others", not self.
This is borne out by 107.39:
§ 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.

The " located...inside a stationary vehicle" part is in the section of non-participating members...which he and his friend are not in this case.

 

[Weston Ney]

Thanks everyone for your input! I'm starting to study for my part 107 this week actually, so I'll probably learn a lot of these things, but I'll still be coming back here for help im sure. Thanks!

You are correct. I missed it the first time.
Then §107.23 would be appropriate:
§ 107.23 Hazardous operation.
No person may:
(a) Operate a small unmanned aircraft system in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another; or
(b) Allow an object to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft in a manner that creates an undue hazard to persons or property.

As chasco pointed out, unless you're driving, that could be deemed as putting another person's life in danger. Make sure you have his consent.

 

[sar104]

No misunderstanding, just a difference in interpretation perhaps. Operations over human beings implies "others", not self.
This is borne out by 107.39:
§ 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.

The " located...inside a stationary vehicle" part is in the section of non-participating members...which he and his friend are not in this case.

Agreed, but that's 107.39. I was referring to your comments on 107.25.

 

[Propsontop]

I'm using all of 107 in my interpretation, but referring to specific portions in answering the whole. To me it all integrates, but to someone not versed in the regulations I can see where I was probably confusing them.

 

[Weston Ney]

Can I fly from a moving vehicle if I am not on public roads but on private property? Just curious.

But you appear to have misunderstood 107.25. The reference to property is only with regard to transporting property, not flying over it.

 

[Propsontop]

Yes, as long as it's a sparsely populated area.

 

[Propsontop]

And you can from public roads with the proviso that you are in a sparsely populated area and not flying over someone else's vehicle. You will be liable if the drone damages another vehicle or injures someone, or in violation of the law if you fly over anyone not involved in your own operation whether on foot or in another moving vehicle. Makes sense?

 

[BigAl07]

The FARS make no allowances for "yours" vs "other" vehicles. They state you can not fly over an occupied car unless it's stationary. No other "car" allowances in this scenario.

Is it going to come on the FAA's radar? No not unless you go onto a public forum and announce it (See where I'm going here?). Is it violating the FAR? Yes it sure is.

 

[Weston Ney]

Okay thanks that makes sense. Is this only talkin about directly flying over cars? Is it legal to fly next to cars on the road, just not over them?

The FARS make no allowances for "yours" vs "other" vehicles. They state you can not fly over an occupied car unless it's stationary. No other "car" allowances in this scenario.

Is it going to come on the FAA's radar? No not unless you go onto a public forum and announce it (See where I'm going here?). Is it violating the FAR? Yes it sure is.

 

[BigAl07]

Okay thanks that makes sense. Is this only talkin about directly flying over cars? Is it legal to fly next to cars on the road, just not over them?

Over is over is over. But just know IF (and that a very minuscule chance) there is an incident any flying near a car would most likely be considered careless & reckless.

 

[Propsontop]

Quite possible I'm wrong here, especially if Al weighed in. Al, what regulation did I miss?

 

[chascoadmin]

The FARS make no allowances for "yours" vs "other" vehicles. They state you can not fly over an occupied car unless it's stationary. No other "car" allowances in this scenario.

Is it going to come on the FAA's radar? No not unless you go onto a public forum and announce it (See where I'm going here?). Is it violating the FAR? Yes it sure is.

He would not be violating any regulations in this case. He's not in a restricted flight area, is not operating the UAV from a vehicle and he is not flying directly over a vehicle. That's it.