Urban areas and people below: what makes flying over people “safe”

The danger in cities is less the crash itself than who or what is underneath. Urban conditions pile on top: tall buildings hide the sky and disturb GNSS; wind strengthens and shifts suddenly between buildings; crowded 2.4 GHz and other bands make control links drop more easily; and steel frames and rebar upset the compass.

The urban wall appears on facades of condominiums and office buildings, at city bridges, on elevated expressways where traffic is hard to stop, and on railways with passengers and trains passing close by. More than the structure itself, the people around it and traffic that cannot stop set how you fly.

• First, map who could be below: draw the area directly beneath the flight and where a drifting aircraft could fall, and check pavements, entrances, car parks and roads.
• Choose the time: fly early morning, on holidays, or at times agreed with building management and tenants. Advance notice to residents is essential.
• Set a stand-off distance: stay far enough from the facade that a gust pushing you in still does not cause contact. Where you must close in, go carefully with a tether or manual control.
• Separate what you shoot from what you don’t: windows and residents will appear. Narrow the field of view, and blur people and rooms before sharing.
• Check permits and insurance: beyond aviation permissions and approvals, a road-use permit if taking off from a road, the park manager’s consent in parks, and liability insurance.

Before flying a real job in the city, practise somewhere with nobody underneath. Airffic Training Hyperspace shows how practice fields could be booked by the hour (the listings are samples for now, in Japanese).

Under Japan’s Civil Aeronautics Act, flight over densely inhabited districts (DIDs) or within 30 m of people or property is a “specified flight” needing permission or approval (with keep-out measures, a certified aircraft under 25 kg flown by a licensed pilot may be exempt). Since 5 December 2022, beyond-visual-line-of-sight flight over third parties without observers (Level 4) has been possible when the aircraft holds a first-class type certificate, the pilot holds a first-class licence, and each operation is permitted and approved. Most urban inspection today, however, still uses keep-out zones so as not to fly over third parties.

Abroad, Europe (EASA) divides operations into open, specific and certified categories by risk, and the specific category uses SORA (Specific Operations Risk Assessment) to evaluate risk to people on the ground. In the United States, the FAA sets aircraft conditions for flying over people within Part 107. No-fly zones around critical sites, handling of footage and personal-data protection follow separate rules in each country. See world regulations.

For flying in Japanese towns and cities, which places need a flight permit or approval, and how to apply (Airffic Flight Institute) walks through it step by step.

• Routine inspection without keep-out zones: Level 4 exists, but type certification and operating effort mean routine inspection flights over third parties are still limited.
• Wind and positioning in urban canyons: right next to a facade is where both wind and positioning are worst; few situations can be left fully to automation.
• Parachutes at low altitude: at facade-inspection heights a parachute may reach the ground before fully opening.
• Residents’ peace of mind: meeting safety standards does not erase unease about overflight or privacy concerns. Explanation and consent are not solved by technology.

City buildings have designated “inspection air corridors”, and certified redundant aircraft survey facades during agreed hours. Residents receive notices like “facade inspection today, from X to Y”, and windows in the footage are blurred automatically. Keep-out staffing is gradually giving way to sensors and monitoring systems, but on crowded event days or windy days the flights simply do not happen. Agreements with the city have advanced as much as the technology. That is the editors’ outlook.