KBP said:
What is considered the minimum safe distance for AIRCRAFT to fly over private property(houses etc) This is already determined by the FAA.
I discussed this issue piecemeal earlier in the thread.
14 CFR (FAR/AIM) § 91.119 establishes minimum altitudes for conventional manned aircraft. For fixed-wing airplanes, balloons, and airships (i.e. "blimps"), it's 500' AGL or 500' clear of persons, vessels, vehicles, or structures in "other than congested areas," and higher in other areas; takeoff, landing, and in-flight emergencies are exempt. However, for helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft, there is NO minimum altitude provided that "the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface."
However,
14 CFR (FAR/AIM) § 107.51 prescribes operating rules for small drones; it does NOT prescribe any minimum altitudes, and in fact prescribes a MAXIMUM altitude of less than 500' (my emphasis in
boldface):
(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:
(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and
(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.
[Subsequent sections discussing flight visibility and cloud clearance limitations omitted]
Additionally, this ONLY applies IF the small drone is being operated under Part 107. A drone flown "strictly for hobby or recreational purposes" may be flown under AC 91-57A (see my last post) and the
Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, and the FAA's statutory to enforce § 91.119 with regards to model aircraft is unclear, as discussed in JohnKSa's last post.
KBP said:
Drones are now considered aircraft.
This is not necessarily true if they're MODEL aircraft.
The Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft briefly discusses the minimum-altitude issue:
...the FAA regulates low-altitude operations to protect people and property on the ground. The FAA permits aircraft operations below 500 feet when flown over open water and in sparsely populated areas. 14 CFR 91.119(c). Such operations may not be conducted “closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.” Id. Therefore, although such low-altitude operations may pose a lower risk to aircraft flying much higher, the operation may still pose a risk to persons and property on the ground warranting enforcement action when conducted unsafely. See, e.g., Adm’r v. Kachalsky, NTSB Order No. EA-4847, 2000 WL 1072332 (July 24, 2000) (affirming a violation of § 91.119(c) for operating within 500 feet of a dwelling in a sparsely populated area); Adm’r v. Beissel, NTSB Docket No. SE-19436, 2013 WL 7809754 (Dec. 11, 2014) (ordering suspension of a pilot certificate when pilot flew a helicopter less than 40 feet above the surface of a lake).
Reading the broad reference to the NAS, along with Congress’ clear interest in ensuring that model aircraft are safely operated, we conclude that Congress intended for the FAA to be able to rely on a range of our existing regulations to protect users of the airspace and people and property on the ground. Therefore, regardless of whether a model aircraft satisfies the statutory definition and operational requirements described above, if the model aircraft is operated in such a manner that endangers the safety of the NAS, the FAA may take enforcement action consistent with Congress’ mandate.
In a nutshell: "We BELIEVE we can enforce § 91.119 against model aircraft for safety reasons, even though Congress really doesn't make this clear."
However, this ploy didn't work when they tried it in 2013-2014 against Raphael Pirker (the court case linked by JohnKSa).
And once again, the FAA is dancing around the property-rights issue, as they assert this authority in order to "...protect... people and property on the ground..," in keeping with their well-established statutory authority to protect the safety of the general public. The document never discusses trespass.
—and some other hobby groups have worked hard over the years to keep it that way, in return for enforcing voluntary operating rules themselves. They don't want the model aircraft hobby to be stifled by the regulatory structure that has (IMHO) stifled inexpensive general aviation over the last 50+ years. 
