Altercation

[grignard]

Got some verbal from a [Language Removed by Moderator] insisting that it is illegal to fly over houses in the UK. I said it was not as long as you are 50 meters up. Am i right?

 

[brass_monkey]

if the house is not in a congested area then you're ok as long as you are 50 metres up. If it's in a congested area then you can't fly over it. No definition of what a congested area is though.

Consumers | Civil Aviation Authority

Protecting passengers and the public

www.caa.co.uk

 

[grignard]

Thanks, it was not in a congested area.

 

[RayOZ]

I thought it's a certain horizontal distance from people and building. In Australia, it's 30m from people, and as a general rule, I assume it's 30m from properties as well. I think the reason for this rule is that if the drone fails and falls, it won't hit someone or someone's property. So if you are flying above someone's house, I can see them being concerns that if the drone fails mid-flight, it could fall on their roof, or on someone in their backyard. And 30m horizontal distance is cos you can't assume it'll fall straight down. Taking account of wind and the drone might be moving horizontally, it'll move a distance from when it fails.

 

[The Editor]

if the house is not in a congested area then you're ok as long as you are 50 metres up. If it's in a congested area then you can't fly over it. No definition of what a congested area is though.

Consumers | Civil Aviation Authority

Protecting passengers and the public

www.caa.co.uk

Yes there is.
The Air Navigation Order defines a congested area as being 'any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes'

 

[brass_monkey]

well the CAA rules that I pointed to make a distinction between flying over something and flying within a distance of something. Since they make no mention of prohibiting flying over property just within 50 metres then it's legal to fly over as long as you're more than 50 metres above.

Note that the restriction only applies if you've got a camera on your drone as it's then a small unmanned surveillance aircraft. If you don't then these restrictions don't apply

 

[bewa]

I stick to the drone-code and to make my life easier i just stick to a minimum of 50mtrs from houses, i don't bother flying in towns/cities I won't even fly in parks.
I also don't fly if i can't see people.

I still get enjoyment out of my drone

that way i feel that i'm not causing a nuisance to people that don't understand drones and that might come over and give me lip

 

[brass_monkey]

You've got the right attitude. Don't invite scrutiny. I try to fly like that too.

However, the thread is about what's legal. Flying over someone's house is legal but it's not sensible.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

In Australia, it's 30m from people, and as a general rule, I assume it's 30m from properties as well.

Our rules were update a few years ago, and flying above buildings was removed, not sure why.
I thought it was a fair enough rule.

Our latest rules only mention not flying above people, 30m laterally.
There is the part that says "You must not operate your drone in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, person, or property"

The aircraft, people part of that is specifically defined in the rules, but how is that part related to property specifically definable ?
Perhaps just courtesy is added, high altitude, filming horizontally, not hovering / panned down, just simple flyover, like so many aircraft do a day.

Common sense (or lack of it) could see this part of the rules re-written again sometime.

 

[RayOZ]

Our rules were update a few years ago, and flying above buildings was removed, not sure why.
I thought it was a fair enough rule.

Our latest rules only mention not flying above people, 30m laterally.
There is the part that says "You must not operate your drone in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, person, or property"

The aircraft, people part of that is specifically defined in the rules, but how is that part related to property specifically definable ?
Perhaps just courtesy is added, high altitude, filming horizontally, not hovering / panned down, just simple flyover, like so many aircraft do a day.

Common sense (or lack of it) could see this part of the rules re-written again sometime.

Yeah. I thought there were rules about flying distance from people AND property.
And the distance rule is more of a cylinder, not a sphere. I am not worried if someone's drone fall 30m in front of me, but I'll be worried if it fails 30m above me. Which way do I run? If the rules are not clear, it should be clarified. To just state 30m or 50m from someone, it doesn't mean it's safe to fly 30m/50m above someone. I don't want to hurt anyone AND I don't want to damage anyone's property; car, house, etc.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Yeah. I thought there were rules about flying distance from people AND property.
And the distance rule is more of a cylinder, not a sphere. I am not worried if someone's drone fall 30m in front of me, but I'll be worried if it fails 30m above me. Which way do I run? If the rules are not clear, it should be clarified. To just state 30m or 50m from someone, it doesn't mean it's safe to fly 30m/50m above someone. I don't want to hurt anyone AND I don't want to damage anyone's property; car, house, etc.

Yes, 30m laterally from a person, that's all they need because it includes above to whatever height you are flying anyway.

True, in wind a drone could be blown quite a distance if falling 120m, but maybe 30m is safe in most levels of wind that consumer drones can be practically flown.
Of course if in sports mode flat out flying at 120m altitude and all of a sudden lost power, well that could fall past 30m perhaps.

I agree, no one wants to do an injury to a person, or damage any property.
I don't usually have any problems flying over SOME buildings, if I can see no pedestrians etc below, I am personally confident in my piloting and Mavic that simply flying over is not posing an unnecessary risk to anybody's property.

Things can happen, I just think if it was said by someone that you can't fly over any building anytime, someone might come out any second, (then let's be honest here) many drone fliers would not be flying at all.
Me, I fly mostly away from any sort of regular building / homes etc . . . old abandoned ones etc, that's fine and interesting to film, but not normally over obviously occupied homes.
Suburbs / built up areas simply hold no interest for me to fly, I just have a couple of large open ovals / parks I go to rarely to test fly anything I need to.

 

[Soledamcer]

If you look hard enough, there is a rule to stop you doing anything. Do nothing, or stop looking for rules. My house is in a congested area, but I am the only person living there. Safety is paramount, but common sense is even more paramount. Nobody likes a drone over their house, but Google Earth is fantastic.

 

[deleted member 877]

Our rules were update a few years ago, and flying above buildings was removed, not sure why.
I thought it was a fair enough rule.

Maybe they are softening us up so we get used to drones flying around our suburbs and over our houses - then when Dominoes begins Pizza drone delivery (and it looks like it will be sooner than later) there won't be hoards of angry residents storming the gates of parliament.

My guess is that the drone delivery lobby group put pressure on CASA to remove the bit about flying over buildings. A friend in the building industry told me recently that a couple of builders are now putting landing pads on the roofs of new houses.

 

[deleted member 877]

Nobody likes a drone over their house, but Google Earth is fantastic.

Yeah, Google Earth is fantastic because it's not a physical aircraft that could, though not likely but could, fall out of the sky on to your property causing damage or worse. The airspace regulators are not interested in the photographic aspect - for them, it is and will always be about Safety and Risk.

 

[Soledamcer]

Yeah, Google Earth is fantastic because it's not a physical aircraft that could, though not likely but could, fall out of the sky on to your property causing damage or worse. The airspace regulators are not interested in the photographic aspect - for them, it is and will always be about Safety and Risk.

Then why do they make rules concerning the use of photographs?

 

[deleted member 877]

Then why do they make rules concerning the use of photographs?

I was clearly referring to the airspace regulators. Have they published regulations concerning the use of photographs? I don't think so but of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Soledamcer]

You can take a drone photo, but you can only charge for it if you can afford CAA's PfCO.

 

[deleted member 877]

You can take a drone photo, but you can only charge for it if you can afford CAA's PfCO.

OK, so now you're going off on a tangent not related to this discussion. You initially made what I consider to be an irrelevant comparison to Google Earth.

 

[RayOZ]

You can take a drone photo, but you can only charge for it if you can afford CAA's PfCO.

That's a government thing. If you want to make money, they want a slice of it. Nothing to do with safety.

 

[Aussie Oldtimer]

Got some verbal from a [Language Removed by Moderator] insisting that it is illegal to fly over houses in the UK. I said it was not as long as you are 50 meters up. Am i right?

Cant help with UK regs but in aust its illegal to fly within 30m of a person OR where a person may be. very wide definition but its all about to change, for the better i hope, A regulator told me to visualise a cylinder that is 60m in diameter. you cant fly in that zone.