Originally Posted by
grognard
Courts have ruled there is a statutory "right of overflight". If toy airplanes are now "UAS" according to the FAA, then they are also "aircraft" and the operators can claim right of overflight. Of course this does not justify flying directly over buildings or crowds of people or deliberately using a model airplane to annoy anyone.
Ah ... but that is not the whole story. FAR 107.39 prohibits operation over people not directly involved in the operation (note 1), and FAA has interpreted "directly involved" VERY narrowly (note 2). Furthermore, FAR 107.19(c) requires that the remote pilot in command must ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (note 3). And finally, NONE of these provisions are waived under Section 349 operations (note 4).
In summary:
IF you don't fly over non-participants, and
IF you pose no hazard to people or PROPERTY in event of loss of control for ANY reason, and
IF you remain greater than 500 feet from buildings, and
IF you meet all the provisions of 349 ... only then can you overflight as you indicate above. This is MUCH more restrictive than you would lead folks to believe. And by the way, PROPERTY includes crops, livestock, equipment, buildings, etc. So if your toy crashes while flying from a FRIA, and you damage someone else's "property," you are by definition in violation of FAR 107.19(c). This is why I suggest the FRIAs be limited to the lateral limits of land they own, lease, or otherwise have documentation that gives them exclusive use. In fact, it might benefit FAA to add a reporting requirement that FRIAs report not less than annually the number of toys that crash outside land owned, leased, or otherwise under direct control of the organization named in the FRIA.
And we already know the courts, at least here in Pennsylvania, are well aware of the risk to PROPERTY as a result of AMA clubs that can't keep their toys over land they control. In a ruling that's available for others to search and find, she said:
"The record is replete with testimony ․ evidencing the Club's inability to ensure the safety of [Landowners'] neighbors and the public at large. There have been numerous complaints, crashes, and trespasses by Club members retrieving fallen parts from neighboring land. The Club's actions are increasingly putting residents, workers, livestock, buildings, equipment, and crops in threatening situations [emphasis added] (note 5)"
So if you get your FRIAs, overflying other people and property in violation of FAR 107.39 and putting neighbors' PROPERTY at risk in violation of FAR 107.19(c), you are handing the neighbors the stick to beat you with, in the form of asking FAA to revoke the FRIA.
Note 1: Pg 607,
RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf
Note 2: Ibid., 266 and throughout document
Note 3: Ibid., 602
Note 4:
BILLS-115hr302enr.pdf
Note 5:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-common...t/1757094.html