DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

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

In your opinion, how low is "to low" when flying over personal property without asking or notifying?

  • Below 50 feet

    Votes: 6 10.9%
  • Below 75 feet

    Votes: 3 5.5%
  • Below 100 feet

    Votes: 17 30.9%
  • Below 150 feet

    Votes: 16 29.1%
  • Below 200 feet

    Votes: 9 16.4%
  • Below 250 feet

    Votes: 3 5.5%
  • Below 300 feet

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Below 350 feet

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Below 399 feet

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .
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 more detailed background I linked does go into the "built up" vs. "congested" aspect a little, and it does indeed muddy the waters even further. With legal matters though it's always advisable to err on the broadest combination of two definitions, so if one rule says "A" and another says "B", then it's "A *or* B", not one or the other, and certainly not "A *and* B". In your example, that would absolutely rule out a deserted city centre in the UK, which I think most people would agree to be the intent of the wording in that scenario, although there's definitely footage out there - and posted here - that implies that at least some disagree.

As always though, interpretation of the law ultimately falls to the courts, so until there are prosecutions and precedent we're stuck with our good judgement - and we've just seen how that can go, albeit mostly in the court of public opinion.
 
The more detailed background I linked does go into the "built up" vs. "congested" aspect a little, and it does indeed muddy the waters even further. With legal matters though it's always advisable to err on the broadest combination of two definitions, so if one rule says "A" and another says "B", then it's "A *or* B", not one or the other, and certainly not "A *and* B". In your example, that would absolutely rule out a deserted city centre in the UK, which I think most people would agree to be the intent of the wording in that scenario, although there's definitely footage out there - and posted here - that implies that at least some disagree.

As always though, interpretation of the law ultimately falls to the courts, so until there are prosecutions and precedent we're stuck with our good judgement - and we've just seen how that can go, albeit mostly in the court of public opinion.

A lot of sense there ... however Where you can fly | UK Civil Aviation Authority is advice about the law without legal force of its own. In other spheres I've met plenty of people will always try to push the boundaries and either find gaps between the advice and the letter of the law or quibble about definitions, so I'd expect to find pilots who debate how much work needs to be done a building site before something qualifies as a "building or structure" or how far does a boat on a river need to sink before it ceases to be a "vessel", whether trains are vehicles. etc. (Generic answer: only a court can say definitively which interpretations of the law are correct).

I'm aware of being new to this, and having read the rules, the first flight I made with my new drone took off and landed in my garden - flying within 50M of my neighbour's house. Realising that not keeping separation while getting familiar with the controls was a particularly stupid combination, more forethought now goes into "should I be flying here" - a combination of legality and good manners (as I understand both).

The amount of footage I see of people flying drones from their screens, far outside visual range and/or without line of sight (and the ease of losing sight of the mini) suggests that other rules are not followed. Long experience in photography has shown "getting the shot" can drive bad behaviour. Sometimes it is getting carried away with what you're doing (my excitement at getting a new drone). Sometimes it is intended: the shooter expects no serious consequences and can usually excuse what they did, at least to themselves, ("My drone is small", "It's wasn't an occupied building", "That many people aren't a crowd", "I could see what I needed", "No aircraft were in the vicinity"),
 
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.

It does not concern me terribly, I am curious as to what others feel and see if there is a general "comfort" height for UAS pilots. IMO, down the road, there will be FAA mandated lower limits over private property, I'm curious as to others thoughts... privacy etc. Personally I'm in the 100-150 comfort zone, but it also depends if I'm loitering or just passing through :)
 
You have to put yourself in those people shoes. If your teenage daughter or wife is laying out by the pool, and a drone rolled up, I would be pissed to. Or circling my property.
 
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?
200 feet. In the city, maybe more. And I always use strobes as I'm not trying to hide from people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS6_Pilot and J2ps
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
130,598
Messages
1,554,236
Members
159,603
Latest member
refrigasketscanada