But I’ve never said I’m hovering over the house. I said over houses and the answer is YES. Obviously with maintaining VLOS
Thanks for the video. I agree, it’s getting a little silly
1 Like
This is why it’ll all be legislated away by Christmas
1 Like
To the original question - is there any legislation that enforces a 50m vertical rule over your neighbours house. No there isn’t.
However, there is the law of trespass. I won’t attempt to explain that as I am not qualified to do so - essentially, you may not infringe on someone’s right to use and enjoy his/her land. This from the lake district does, I feel, put everything in perspective (at the end). Guidance on flying drones in the Lake District National Park
3 Likes
I have a feeling you could be right.
I’ve seen a few vids on YT from a guy on the Fylde coast of him really stretching the VLOS requirement. I know the area he’s flying in very well as I used to live there and at the edges of his range I know for a fact he can no longer see his Mini2.
In my location I’m about 40m higher than the centre of town. Stood on my decking I can see clearly over my house and the neighbours. But I think I’d need my bumps felt if I were to range test my Mini2 across the town.
Picture for clarity, my house is on the right.
2 Likes
Is that the Mickey Mouse dude ?
1 Like
Ive seen his videos. Not sure he knows what he’s doing especially as he’s constantly flying without VLOS over residential.
I’m intrigued and want to take a look?
There’s no way the Mini 2 will exit the transition period in the class (or with the restrictions) it’s in now. It’s only a matter of time before an idiot crashes in to something important, flies over something/someone they shouldn’t or the tabloids simply get bored and decide to have another pop at UAV.
Anything which is that capable needs some kind of legislation, even if it’s only a requirement to take the test. When the mini 3 or whichever it is that’s not legacy comes out it’ll likely be C0 and therefore require a test which will leave the legacy Mini 2 as an outlier they’ll want to correct.
2 Likes
Good find Mike
Their policy seems quite sensible it’s a shame more places are not as lenient 
I was under the impression that drones falling in the C0 category would only require the completion of DMARES and for the instruction manual to have been read. I don’t believe there is any requirement for formal training even for C1 class aircraft, although they can’t be flown intentionally over uninvolved people.
1 Like
DMARES is what I was referring to when I reference a “test”. To be honest the full mnemonic had escaped me so “test” is what came out! As a legacy <250g drone, you are only obliged to register and read the manual. It’s only >250 or a C stamped drone that DMARES kicks in. That’s the anomaly that will get removed.
Crikey, feel bad stepping into this thread late, but …
Notwithstanding a number of comments above, I can’t find any definitive requirement to avoid people with a sub-250g drone so long as they are not at risk (and that’s a might big “so long as”). As always, happy if someone can cite an actual clause in the regs that says otherwise.
This is the actual wording of UAS.OPEN.020 (2):
(The reference to 5(b) is to a legacy sub-250g drone like the Mini or Mini 2).
There’s no 50m, there’s no “avoid flying over uninvolved persons when possible”, there’s no “for the least amount of time”, there’s no “cannot hover”, there’s nothing about whether your flight is “unintentional” etc.
UAS.OPEN.060 (1)(c) is even more helpful:
You are exempt from even having to check whether there are uninvolved persons around when you take off. Although you may still want to. I would.
This is, as per the original query in the thread, not a license to fly wherever you want. You must be sure you are not endangering anyone (Article 241), and if someone is at risk you must immediately discontinue the flight (UAS.OPEN.060 (2)(b)).
If you fly close to people above their private property you are almost certainly trespassing; you may also be causing a private nuisance. Both of these are civil wrongs and the unlucky object of your attention could take you to court (obviously, enforcing their rights would be incredibly difficult, but hey, Wheaton’s Law still applies).
The 50m height sometimes tossed around seems to be entirely something that someone has made up. The Civil Aviation Act gives you a defence against trespass and nuisance only if your flight height is “reasonable … having regard to … all the circumstances”. Nothing about 50m. Which is probably sensible, given the Act applies to airliners as well as drones.
The general definition of a private nuisance is if you are “causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his/her use or enjoyment of that land”.
So, if your drone is at 50m, and someone below can hear it, and see it, and it’s hovering in place for long enough to bother them while they’re out enjoying their garden, I think they’d probably have a case (again, very difficult to enforce in practice, but you’re trying to do the right thing, yes?). Noise itself is not enough to be a problem though, otherwise nobody could mow their lawn: the intrusion would have to be “unreasonable”. On the other hand, if you just fly across in passing at the same height, their case would be weaker - they can see and hear aeroplanes at much greater height, but that’s not a nuisance.
FWIW, my advice would be to fly up to a height where your drone isn’t a noise nuisance, avoid hovering in one place for any longer than you need to, don’t capture footage that invades anyone’s privacy, and if it’s something you plan to do regularly, talk to your neighbours so they understand what you’re up to.
11 Likes
Great post. So many people still get much of this wrong!
2 Likes
The Lake District drone policy that Mike linked to above had it (in my opinion) perfect:
*It is easy to fly and for a drone to hover over someone’s property. Case law has established that the rights of a property owner are restricted in relation to the airspace above his land to such a height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land. This would be a matter of judgement in each case and whether or not there had been an invasion of privacy or an established nuisance would depend upon the frequency of flights, the height of those flights etc.
Based on existing case law, it may be argued that flying a drone above another’s property at heights so as not to interfere with that party’s ordinary use of the land is unlikely to constitute a trespass. In addition to this, photographing of that person’s property on occasion is unlikely to constitute nuisance. Matters do become more complex and less certain however where a drone is flying over another’s property on multiple occasions or even hovering in one place and taking multiple pictures.
The courts have not drawn a line as to what exactly will constitute trespass or nuisance by drones in these instances and therefore best practice is to ensure that the landowner’s permission is obtained"
More places really should have this much common sense and it’s a damn shame they don’t!
2 Likes
I was concerned about flying next to “vehicles, vessels and structures” in A1, as I spend a lot of time flying around fish farms, so I spoke to Tim Deakin at UAVHub about it. He was extremely helpful and said that since the new regs the emphasis was really only about uninvolved people rather than buildings or structures. He sent this:
Thanks for your time earlier, as requested further reading on the seperation distances can be found in the CAA CAP 722
Page 171 of the CAP 722 in respect to flying in congested areas
Page 43 of the CAP 722 for wording on Vehicles, vessels and structures
3 Likes
I’m not sure how relevant it is, or what it’s worth, but I’ll use it in my defence if I’m ever challenged over whether someone is uninvolved or not, as it seems quite woolly to me, but there’s a Home Office CCTV standard that classes “Recognition” as being a person of 1.7m in height occupying 50% of the screen height. This was based on old analogue CCTV resolutions, but the general concensus (i.e. Network Rail Standards) is it’s equivalent to 19% for a 1080p image and 9% for a 4K, so if they’re smaller than that, they can’t officially be “recognised”, so are therefore not “involved” in my book, but I suppose that’s just my opinion.
3 Likes
Interesting theory @anon97722470 - thanks for sharing.
Do you know if its ever been tested / challenged in court? 
That would be quite tricky to judge I’d imagine.
Not sure on that but when we have CCTV of local scroats being knobheads the po po are unwilling to accept CCTV where the knobheads face isn’t 50% of the frame, they reckon CPS won’t even chance it otherwise
1 Like