Legal altitude above a house.

[UpLift Aerial]

How high are you supposed to fly above someone's house?

Sent from my SM-T350 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[JBR]

Somewhat higher the highest point on the roof would be a good start...just kidding. I am sure there are those who would object regardless of how high above their abode a drone is. Some are just not happy with life and thus mad at everyone, just turn on the news and see what I mean.

 

[brolland]

I try to avoid flying directly over someone's house unless I'm videoing or taking snaps of that house. I feel that it just avoids unneeded confrontations.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Allen B]

Just out of gunshot range LOL!
No, really, some cities/states actually have ordinances about minimum and maximum height in addition to the FAA (US) max of 400ft. In Texas for instance, when in a public place, and subject to all the other public safety requirements, maximum height is 8ft above ground, supposedly to discourage peeping Toms, or at a greater height/distance that would not allow the photo/video to identify anyone without their express permission and with no electronic or mechanical amplification that would push the image beyond human eye perception to allow recognition for other than officially sanctioned surveillance. On the private property side, in essence, if you fly over someone's house in Texas, make sure your camera is off and you are not capturing images without the property owner's consent. Violations could be as high as $5,000 per image if the owner registers a complaint! See part of the proposed law here. Not sure if it made it to actual legislation yet: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/83ccrs/hb0912.pdf

 

[glen e]

I have no idea what all the rules are, but here's what I found to work when flying over neighborhoods and people centers:

Get the drone high enough to where it's really not able to be seen by anyone on the ground. I find that's somewhere between 200 and 300 feet. You can't hear or see it, unless you are really trying......

 

[Meta4]

In Texas for instance, when in a public place, and subject to all the other public safety requirements, maximum height is 8ft above ground, supposedly to discourage peeping Toms, or at a greater height/distance that would not allow the photo/video to identify anyone without their express permission and with no electronic or mechanical amplification that would push the image beyond human eye perception to allow recognition for other than officially sanctioned surveillance. On the private property side, in essence, if you fly over someone's house in Texas, make sure your camera is off and you are not capturing images without the property owner's consent. Violations could be as high as $5,000 per image if the owner registers a complaint! See part of the proposed law here. Not sure if it made it to actual legislation yet: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/83ccrs/hb0912.pdf

Sorry but you are quoting an early draft of HB912 from 2013 and the points you refer to were dropped from the version that was adopted, also back in 2013.
There is no mention of 8 feet high (it was actually 6 ft in the draft) etc etc in the adopted version.
But this clause was added:

Sec. A 423.003. AA
OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.

Here's the actual bill as passed: https://static.votesmart.org/static/billtext/44656.pdf​

 

[CDR]

How high are you supposed to fly above someone's house?

What country you in? different rules for different countries.

 

[Allen B]

Sorry but you are quoting an early draft of HB912 from 2013 and the points you refer to were dropped from the version that was adopted, also back in 2013.
There is no mention of 8 feet high (it was actually 6 ft in the draft) etc etc in the adopted version.
But this clause was added:

Sec. A 423.003. AA
OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.

Here's the actual bill as passed: https://static.votesmart.org/static/billtext/44656.pdf​

Don't be sorry, It's always good to have accurate info! Thanks for the link.