POLL: As a drone pilot how low is "to low" when flying over personal property without asking or notifying property owner

[CactusJackSlade]

We all know what the FAA says about who owns airspace, but that aside, as a drone pilot, in your opinion how low is "to low" when flying over personal property without asking or notifying the property owner(s) - what altitude are you comfortable with?

 

[bumper]

Depends on the state you live in (in the USA). In Nevada:

"NRS 493.103 makes it a civil offense to fly an unmanned aerial vehicle over someone else's property at a height of fewer than 250 feet. You only violate this law, however, if you have flown over the property at least once previously and the owner has given you notice that he or she did not authorize the flight." (The notice must be in writing, so the onus is on the complainant for sure.)

Home owner's associations, again, in Nevada, cannot prohibit drone flight over their common areas above 250' AGL.

Note too that this legal dance has been going on for ages, well, as least since men started flying, courts trying to balance privacy against avigation. Flying manned aircraft through farmer's barns and cloths lines is frowned upon. The FAA says I can't fly my plane closer than 500' to persons or structures in sparsely populated areas.

Before you respond to this saying the FAA controls all the airspace above private property, well yeah, that's true - to a point. This is a rapidly evolving area of law, privacy vs drones. There will be challenges and case decisions.

 

[LazerMan]

It doesn't depend on which state you live in. States and citys can not make laws that counter act Federal law. As of now FAA makes the rules not citys and state. Sure they make them but there unenforceable.

 

[Dakarenduro]

You dont have my choice.... when the property owner can hear the drone overhead.

 

[Brockrock]

For me, it depends on the UAV that I am flying. If flying a Phantom 4 - which is both loud and of a tone that can immediately be noticed - then 200' - 250' seems fair. If flying the Mavic Air 2, I think 100' - 150' seems fair. You can hardly even hear the little bugger at 50', but then you get into the justifiable concern of folks on the ground that they are being watched.

 

[zocalo]

FWIW, I went with 150ft (50m), but that assumes a single property or very small group of them and I didn't have permission (legally or from the owner) to get closer. If it's a built up area, then there's more chance of a serious issue if things go wrong so I'll increase the stand-off distance accordingly. Legally, that's no closer than 150m here in the UK/EU, but I'd be quite comfortable with 75-100m if the law allowed.

Noise level of the aircraft is a valid point to consider, but I'd also take into account the capabilities of the camera (even if I'm not shooting) and the nature of the property. If things were to get out of hand and none of your footage includes sufficient detail to identify anyone on the ground then that's going to be much better for you than the alternative. If it's a residential (as per the poll), or included something more sensitive like a school or play area, then I'd try to increase the distance accordingly. Noted that this is not always possible if the subject I am trying to shoot is directly adjacent though.

Either way, I'll generally try and figure out a way to make a small detour to avoid going directly overhead of a property just out of courtesy, unless doing so would seriously compromise my footage. I'm only able to watch the drone and its camera feed though, so if the camera is pointing in the wrong direction and I can't see what's immediately below the drone from where I'm standing then it's possible to get overhead without realising it. If I do end up going overhead for some reason, then I'll generally just press on and avoid lingering; even if the owner notices I was there, that's far less likely to cause any offense I would hope.

 

[KingRat]

In the UK, the regulations state 150m from any building not under your control. That is about 450ft.

 

[theDRONEranger]

What is your intent of flying over?

 

[zocalo]

In the UK, the regulations state 150m from any building not under your control. That is about 450ft.

Not quite. It's 50m from buildings (or other structures and vehicles), but 150m from "built-up areas" - see the current Drone Code poster (middle two panels on the right). Where exactly a group of buildings transitions into a "built-up area" has been discussed here before and is rather vague, but the consensus seems to be that a small village or hamlet is probably right on the line.

 

[KingRat]

Ah, I read the code wrongly then, or misinterpreted it. At least on the safe side! I thought it was 50 from people.

 

[zocalo]

Ah, I read the code wrongly then, or misinterpreted it. At least on the safe side! I thought it was 50 from people.

Yeah, the specifics are definitely a little vague when it comes to things like buildings and vehicles. This page does get into a little more detail and clears up some of the ambiguity present in the simpler poster, including some examples of what would constitute a built-up area. Note also that you can get closer than 50m if you have the permission of the owner to do so (e.g. to survey a roof for storm damage).

My personal take is that a small hamlet would be OK for 50m, as would a farm consisting of several outbuildings, but if it is undeniably a village (e.g. it's signed as a village, has a church, or some form of retail) then assume it's in the "built-up" category and use the 150m rule. Obviously, if anything goes seriously awry then all bets are off and the only opinion that is going to matter will be that of the court though, so always better to err on the side of caution whenever you can.

 

[KingRat]

Yeah, the specifics are definitely a little vague when it comes to things like buildings and vehicles. This page does get into a little more detail and clears up some of the ambiguity present in the simpler poster, including some examples of what would constitute a built-up area. Note also that you can get closer than 50m if you have the permission of the owner to do so (e.g. to survey a roof for storm damage).

My personal take is that a small hamlet would be OK for 50m, as would a farm consisting of several outbuildings, but if it is undeniably a village (e.g. it's signed as a village, has a church, or some form of retail) then assume it's in the "built-up" category and use the 150m rule. Obviously, if anything goes seriously awry then all bets are off and the only opinion that is going to matter will be that of the court though, so always better to err on the side of caution whenever you can.

Thanks for that clarification link.

 

[Bxr532001]

We all know what the FAA says about who owns airspace, but that aside, as a drone pilot, in your opinion how low is "to low" when flying over personal property without asking or notifying the property owner(s) - what altitude are you comfortable with?

In a previous post,I asked about trespassing. According to several response, the consensus was if you are flying above the highest point over a property, then you aren’t trespassing. The owner’s air rights stops at the highest point on the property.
Please correct me if I’m wrong

 

[DanaMc]

FWIW, I went with 150ft (50m), but that assumes a single property or very small group of them and I didn't have permission (legally or from the owner) to get closer. If it's a built up area, then there's more chance of a serious issue if things go wrong so I'll increase the stand-off distance accordingly. Legally, that's no closer than 150m here in the UK/EU, but I'd be quite comfortable with 75-100m if the law allowed.

Noise level of the aircraft is a valid point to consider, but I'd also take into account the capabilities of the camera (even if I'm not shooting) and the nature of the property. If things were to get out of hand and none of your footage includes sufficient detail to identify anyone on the ground then that's going to be much better for you than the alternative. If it's a residential (as per the poll), or included something more sensitive like a school or play area, then I'd try to increase the distance accordingly. Noted that this is not always possible if the subject I am trying to shoot is directly adjacent though.

Either way, I'll generally try and figure out a way to make a small detour to avoid going directly overhead of a property just out of courtesy, unless doing so would seriously compromise my footage. I'm only able to watch the drone and its camera feed though, so if the camera is pointing in the wrong direction and I can't see what's immediately below the drone from where I'm standing then it's possible to get overhead without realising it. If I do end up going overhead for some reason, then I'll generally just press on and avoid lingering; even if the owner notices I was there, that's far less likely to cause any offense I would hope.

Flying over in a continuous forward direction AT a reasonable altitude (150’ or more) and not creeping along shouldn’t raise any concerns. The key is “lingering”. Use some common sense and put yourself in the other persons position. They don’t know who or what this drone is about. I live in a heavily wooded area. I have to get above 125’ just to fly forward in any direction. Plus the tree top canopy virtually blocks any view below. I get up to 150-200 and fly all around or over to a nearby park.

 

[J2ps]

As my own rule, I fly at least 200 ft and never hover over anybody’s house or yard. No reason to.

 

[bmwbob]

The height that the neighbor doesn't go looking for the drone owner!

 

[hiflyer201]

If that's something that is concerning you...you probably are too low. I just don't think you are going to win the argument if someone starts complaining.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

I've seen a lot of information on this topic somewhere before. If I remember correctly (and there's no guarantee of that) there was a lawsuit in the late 1940's from a guy that said fighters from a nearby airbase were flying so low, it scared his cows to death. That's when the FAA stepped in and said property owners don't own the airspace above their property, the Federal government does and the gave him 80 feet above his property as a buffer. Now granted that was long ago but that set the precedent over airspace above your property. There are more recent cases I'm sure of differing outcomes but the general stance of the FAA is that they control the airspace at a national level and they will decide what is allowed and what is not.

 

[BadWolf1]

Not quite. It's 50m from buildings (or other structures and vehicles), but 150m from "built-up areas" - see the current Drone Code poster (middle two panels on the right). Where exactly a group of buildings transitions into a "built-up area" has been discussed here before and is rather vague, but the consensus seems to be that a small village or hamlet is probably right on the line.

Some things say "built up" , but the legal documents say "Congested" and that's even less well defined, because some readings would say a city centre deserted under current lockdown does not count, and others would say it definitely does. In the end it will need people to be prosecuted and a court to rule on how the line is drawn.

The resolution of the camera and the angle of the lens on the mavic mini I have means it can't spy on people from 50M up, but people don't know that, so there are questions of when people feel spied on, when the noise becomes an intrusion and whether it is a quick over-flight or a lingering hover. No everything inconsiderate is illegal (and vice versa), not making drone flying seem like anti-social behaviour is a consideration.

 

[Bob1956]

I'm fortunate that I mostly fly rural. And I actively avoid the occasional farmhouse or home. But if I am over houses or yards it's as high and fast as I can to put them behind me.