Originally Posted by
franklin_m
Idea being that at any point in the path, based on the current velocity vector, a complete loss of control would result in sUAS impacting inside lateral limits of FRIA and no closer to 100 feet from any non-participant (FAA's definition of participant) inside the FRIA.
Originally Posted by
franklin_m
Quite interesting that you're saying something is impossible that FARs essentially already requires you to do. To refresh, FAR 107.19(C) requires YOU to "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 (emphasis added)." All I did was add some distances.
Originally Posted by
grognard
As my full-scale flight instructor taught me years ago: The FAA cannot tell you what is safe. The FAA cannot tell you what is smart. The FAA can only tell you what is LEGAL.
The word you should have emphasized is "UNDUE". Unlike you, the regulation writer clearly recognized the indisputable fact that aviation of any kind is an inherently risky activity.
The intent of the regulation is clearly to prohibit obviously unsafe practices such as flying over crowds, flying in close proximity to full-scale aircraft, or "buzzing". It does not mean that flight should be limited so that collision with people, other aircraft, or other property is physically impossible.
That's an interesting sound bite, but it will be FAA, NTSB, and litigators that decide whether the risk you imposed was "undue." The point you're missing is that your "inherently risky" and "obviously unsafe practices" are not get out of jail free cards. Nor do they justify doing what you want to do and hope that it turns out ok. Part of the evaluation of whether the risk was "undue" will be a determination of whether you planned for the loss of control or likely failures and whether your mitigations were adequate. And just like the determination of whether the risk you imposed was "undue" is entirely theirs to make, so too will be the determination as to whether your mitigations were sufficient or not. While there is risk in aviation, the FAA expects you to take measures to minimize that risk even when things go wrong ... and given loss of control happens frequently with RC toy planes, it would be "obviously unsafe" to not expect that to happen and plan for it.
Oh, and your caveat that a remote PIC can deviate from the rule to meet an emergency, your understanding of that is flawed. You could deviate from speed. You can deviate from altitude. You can even deviate from flying over people. But that carve out does NOT include deviating from the rule of imposing "undue risk." Try and make that argument.