Thought this was interesting so I'm sharing it here:
Now you can help search for missing Seattle hiker Samantha Sayers
Now you can help search for missing Seattle hiker Samantha Sayers
Man using Phantom P4P to assist in search for missing hiker
- Thread starter BucksCountyBob
- Start date
Yeah, interesting, but "I hike up the mountain and can fly out about 3 to 4 miles from where I am standing," One of the reasons that I'm not renewing my Part 107 cert. is that I see certified remote pilots doing things like this that are obviously not within the scope of Part 107 requirements. It's not just hobbyists messing up the industry through illicit and ill-advised actions. I see news agencies using quads in national forest (almost certainly without prior permitting) and directly over the heads of people that, while they may be the subjects of the filming, are definitely not actively involved in the operation (flying and filming) of the "drone". I observed members of a club near me (one that offers classes for 107 certification) flying in the middle of a crowded craft fair much closer than the required 25' distance from non-participant individuals, including small children. They had no VO and no-one to control ground space beneath where they were flying. Also no designated landing area or alternate landing site. People, please leave your egos and self-entitlement at home when you go out to fly these machines, even if you think you are doing something for the greater good.
Last edited:
A lot of this is because the technology far outstrips the regulations. When a major selling point of a new UAV is 8 km range, VLOS is clearly not uppermost in everyone's mind. Plus these things are so stable and easy to fly that the "what if" hazard analysis just doesn't happen for many people.
One point though - if you were referring to regular USFS land (not wilderness) then, in general, no permit is required to fly under Part 101 or Part 107.
A permit to film or photograph in National Forest is required for any commercial operation, so while it is not required by Part 107, it is required by the Forest Service.
Certainly true of commercial filming, based on Public Law 106–206, but I've never heard of that being applied to news reporting. The only USFS documentation that I have seen clearly indicates that permits are not required for news gathering activities:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5355613.pdf
If that has changed, or if specific regulations have been implemented with respect to sUAS operations, then I'd be interested to know.
Thanks sar104 for the correction. The clip I was referring to was a human interest story not "breaking news", but I guess if the reporters call it news, it's news. They were still flying over unprotected non-participants.
I would think that many would not come against it because it is for a popular and a humanitarian like cause. You can get away with a lot on that count.
So, it's a published fact. Did he get a permit or waver? Will the authorities fine him? He is endangering other pilots lives if there is an incident due to his neglect to know what is flying around his drone. It wouldn't be fair to all the law abiding flyers.
So, it's a published fact. Did he get a permit or waver? Will the authorities fine him? He is endangering other pilots lives if there is an incident due to his neglect to know what is flying around his drone. It wouldn't be fair to all the law abiding flyers.
Right - flying over non-participants is off-limits in any situation. I'm pretty sure that permitting is generally only applied to film/tv production-type activities with actors etc. so yes - anything involving reporters is likely excluded.
The complication with search and rescue is that there are often other low-flying aircraft (CAP fixed-wing and helicopters) involved, and so traffic de-confliction is a real issue. Agency helicopters in NM simply won't fly if there are UAVs in the air – I think that is unnecessarily dogmatic since we have Air Operations Branch Directors to control air traffic, but I understand their concerns.
There is a claim in the article that you can spot a tennis ball at 150ft.
Sounds ambitious to me.
Sounds ambitious to me.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
Sure. A bright orange tennis ball on a green field. Easy Peasy. A hiker in heavy Pacific NW trees - not so much.
We've been trialing P3's and a Mavik as an aide to finding hikers in SE Alaska. Not terribly helpful. Trees eat up radio signals. Trees mask visible light reflections. Trees eat drones.
Ken Kesey once called the Pacific NW 'the tyranny of the green' - and he has a point. Possibly for more open areas, but out here you can't beat the $60 million dollar Coast Guard HH-60 with the $100,000 FLIR camera.
Imagine that....
The 20 MP camera in the P4P has an 84° field of view, which means that at 150 ft the diagonal FOV on the ground is 270 ft. That comes out as 2 pixels per inch. A tennis ball has a diameter of 2.5 inches, so it would be represented by a circle 5 pixels across. Visible - yes - but not obvious.
For search purposes I've found that 150 ft is around the upper limit to be able to spot clues such as clothing or packs.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
Wish I could have captured a news piece where a drone (brand not mentioned), located a boater on the Rogue River in Oregon. I do know the Jackson County Sheriff bought a Phantom.
Wondering if this didn't get FAA attention what would. He's put himself right out in front.
It was probably not a wise move. As a commercial operator (presumably - although he is not listed in the FAA registry of Part 107 holders) I would have expected him to be aware that advertising that he routinely ignores Part 107 regulations is clear grounds for the FAA to revoke his license.
If he's not listed chances are he's not certified whereby all his commercial activities should be a problem also.
Could have a certified pilot working with him, but his actions are still irresponsible.
Could have a certified pilot working with him, but his actions are still irresponsible.
As a side note... I haven't watched/read the article in question (or I may have I can't remember now LOL) but it's important to note that a Public Safety entity CAN get approval to fly over people other than the Flight Crew without getting ~107.39 (Flight over people). In certain instances a person operating under a Public Safety Agency (could be Part 107 or PAO COA) can get approved to fly over non-crew using the SGI process. It's a fairly quick but not so easy process and it has to be something Emergency Services driven. This would allow flight over people on the ground not part of the air crew but not something like flying over a concert or stadium of people. Think SAR and flying over searchers on the ground.
PAO - Public Air Operations
COA - Certificate of Authorization
SGI - Special Government Interest (formerly called an eCOA)
Similar threads
