List of CAP Part 107.39 waivers

[Eclipse]

"14 CFR § 107.39 - Operation over human beings.

§ 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."

https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers/
"In Section 107.39, Operations Over Human Beings, what does 'directly participating mean?"

The term "directly participating" refers to specific personnel that the remote pilot in command has deemed to be involved with the flight operation of the small unmanned aircraft. These include the remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the controls of the small UAS (if other than the remote pilot in command), and the visual observer. These personnel also include any person who is necessary for the safety of the small UAS flight operation. For example, if a small UAS operation employs a person whose duties are to maintain a perimeter to ensure that other people do not enter the area of operation, that person would be considered a direct participant in the flight operation of the small UAS."

I'm just curious where they are filed?

The national FAA database of granted waivers has no mention of CAP. 
https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers/waivers_issued/
In fact, there's only about 40 active .39 waivers right now nationally,
yet somehow we have photos like this:



Not to mention the increasing number of videos from encampments and other activities
that feature aerial footage directly over people.

[NovemberWhiskey]

From that angle, it doesn't look like the drone would fall onto the people being photographed; so that doesn't constitute being operated "over" them according the FAA's interpretation of Part 107.

[Eclipse]

From that angle, it doesn't look like the drone would fall onto the people being photographed; so that doesn't constitute being operated "over" them according the FAA's interpretation of Part 107.

No, that's according to your interpretation of 107.39, and further to that argument, these people are clearly
not involved in the operation, in fact the caption indicates they are looking for a uSUS beacon.

At least according to lawyers involved in 107 operations, the FAA makes the term "over" purposely vague
to err on the side of safety. 

This is clearly "over people not involved in the operation", and a good breeze and battery failure puts it right on their head,
and they are not paying attention.

Rulez is rulez, and connects to the point in the other thread that people who don't obey all the rules, become safety issues.

[NovemberWhiskey]

Quoting the Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 124 at page 42129:

"The term ''over'' refers to the flight of the small unmanned aircraft directly over any part of a person. For example, a small UAS that hovers directly over a person's head, shoulders, or extended arms or legs would be an operation over people. Similarly, if a person is lying down, for example at a beach, an operation over that person's torso or toes would also constitute an operation over people. An operation during which a small UAS flies over any part of any person, regardless of the dwell time, if any, over the person, would be an operation over people.

The remote pilot needs to take into account the small unmanned aircraft's course, speed, and trajectory, including the possibility of a catastrophic failure, to determine if the small unmanned aircraft would go over or strike a person not directly involved in the flight operation (non-participant). In addition, the remote pilot must take steps using a safety risk-based approach to ensure that: (1) The small unmanned aircraft does not operate over non-participants who are not under a covered structure or in a stationary covered vehicle; (2) the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other aircraft, people, or property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (§ 107.19); and (3) the small UAS is not operated in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life orproperty of another (§ 107.23). If the remote pilot cannot comply with these requirements, then the flight must not take place or the flight must be immediately and safely terminated."

[Eclipse]

Yes.  Correct, which makes my argument in just this photo alone, not to mention
the others I've seen.

[etodd]

 Without knowing the altitude of the drone, it's impossible to say the horizontal distance here. The photo is fuzzy leading me to believe it's a small crop of a photo. At this angle if the drone was only 20 feet off the ground then by all means I agree it is too close to the people. If the drone was 400 feet vertically and at the oblique angle we are looking at, it could easily be 50 or 75 feet away horizontally. Too little information to make a decision.  But just enough information to give those who specifically come here to criticize, all the daggers they need.

The tone has changed here for sure. When I started posting a few months ago it was all personal attacks on me saying I was doing things inappropriate. But now that national headquarters is putting out webinars and more information that validates all I have been doing, it's obviously frustrating the heck out of a few individuals.  And from now on I guess they will be looking for every little thing. Out of frustration. So be it.  It amuses me.

(Watching for yet another lock coming)

[Eclipse]

And from now on I guess they will be looking for every little thing.

Which rules and regs are optional?

[etodd]

And from now on I guess they will be looking for every little thing.

Which rules and regs are optional?

Absolutely none. The rest of my answer will be PM