Airspace flying over other peoples property

[shawgod]

I thought I would share this with everyone as this comes up once in a while.

 

[Exphantomflyer]

If you are in the UK take a look at a Barristers view of Drones

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=blackbeltbarrister+drone

 

[DoomMeister]

I thought I would share this with everyone as this comes up once in a while.

There are many state lawmakers that need to watch this video, Missouri comes to mind for starters!

 

[MS Coast]

I'm reluctant to spend 13 minutes watching. If anyone does, would you let us know if there's anything new or significant? Thanks.

 

[Mavikhan]

I'm reluctant to spend 13 minutes watching. If anyone does, would you let us know if there's anything new or significant? Thanks.

It basically says that you do in fact own the airspace above your property, but that all aircraft have an easement allowing them to fly in your airspace, including drones.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

There are many state lawmakers that need to watch this video, Missouri comes to mind for starters!

Missouri is spending its time draggin itself back into the middle ages, but I haven't run into too many drone restrictions yet. I post to our subdivision Facebook page and most people on there like seeing my photos and videos so at least around me it's not too bad...yet.

 

[GregS]

I have mentioned this before. Even though we have the legal right to fly over houses, there is no reason to stop over a house. Unless you are Part 107 and doing a job. I transit houses all the time to get to where I want to go, but never stop and always fly at just below the legally posted altitude for that sector. Usually 300' AGL.
Last year I was in Gulf Shores, AL in a condo with my drone on the table to 'check it out'. A maintenance guy came in and when he saw my drone, his eyes widened and said; "It's against the law to fly drones in G S and people in these condos complain about drones flying along the balconies. About 5 min later he told me about how they check the condo siding with a drone!
I said maybe that is what they were concerned about! He just gave me a very dumb look!!!!

 

[MS Coast]

I have mentioned this before. Even though we have the legal right to fly over houses, there is no reason to stop over a house. Unless you are Part 107 and doing a job. I transit houses all the time to get to where I want to go, but never stop and always fly at just below the legally posted altitude for that sector. Usually 300' AGL.
Last year I was in Gulf Shores, AL in a condo with my drone on the table to 'check it out'. A maintenance guy came in and when he saw my drone, his eyes widened and said; "It's against the law to fly drones in G S and people in these condos complain about drones flying along the balconies. About 5 min later he told me about how they check the condo siding with a drone!
I said maybe that is what they were concerned about! He just gave me a very dumb look!!!!

I grew up spending a lot of time at Gulf Shores, back when there was a single gas station and no grocery stores. Things have certainly changed. The city now has a rather wordy ordinance prohibiting drones in or near municipal property and rights of way and other locations. It also addresses a number of other things, including flying under the influence of alcohol, surveilling people for sexual gratification, and flying with the intent to offend a person or wildlife. (I'm serious. See Sec. 3-166 (e).)

Municode Library

MunicodeNEXT, the industry's leading search application with over 3,300 codes and growing!

library.municode.com

 

[DoomMeister]

Missouri is spending its time draggin itself back into the middle ages, but I haven't run into too many drone restrictions yet. I post to our subdivision Facebook page and most people on there like seeing my photos and videos so at least around me it's not too bad...yet.

This thread is the reason for my earlier reply Dangerous legislation in Missouri

 

[orionshooter]

It basically says that you do in fact own the airspace above your property, but that all aircraft have an easement allowing them to fly in your airspace, including drones.

I agree to the extent that is precisely what the narrator says regarding ownership of navigable airspace - but I disagree.

There is no ownership of navigable airspace by anyone and that includes the federal government. All that exists is control of the airspace and that authority lies exclusively with the fed by way of the FAA. If a landowner cannot sell it, control it or even build on it without permission - there is no ownership of it.

Think about building height restrictions which are so common. How can a government entity restrict a landowner's building design which exceeds the legal height limit if the landowner "owns the airspace"? If a landowner truly had any ownership interest in the airspace, all building height restrictions would be rendered untenable. Or by way of another example, try erecting a billboard which occupies only the airspace over your residential or commercial property without a permit and see how much of the airspace you “own.” I have read hundreds of deeds and other real property conveyance instruments and have never seen any mention of airspace rights in these legal documents which are designed to convey all interests in property by and between parties. These documents require the disclosure of all existing restrictions to include easements and yet, disclosures of airspace "easements" are non existent.

And while the legal concepts of trespass (privacy laws) and taking (Causby case) are applicable legal concepts, the root of those claims is based entirely on the effect on the physical property/persons on the ground - NOT because the aircraft merely used the navigable airspace above. Use of airspace without damages on the ground is not enough to sustain a cause of action. Likewise landowners adjacent to airfields who complain about commercial air traffic noise on the ground don't claim "ownership" of the air space - they claim damages sustained on the ground.

I found it interesting the narrator on several occasions, challenged those who disagreed to provide a link to a legal citation. However, he never provided one to support his theory that a landowner also "owned" the airspace above his property. That ownership concept is not part of the Causby case. I can't provide a legal citation because I am arguing a negative - you can't prove something does not exist. If you argue an ownership interest does exist, there should be plethora of authority to back it up. I haven't seen it.

My conclusion - no one owns the airspace - the FAA controls it for the benefit of the citizens it serves.

Sorry for the wordiness - old lawyer habits die very hard. ;-)

 

[GregS]

I grew up spending a lot of time at Gulf Shores, back when there was a single gas station and no grocery stores. Things have certainly changed. The city now has a rather wordy ordinance prohibiting drones in or near municipal property and rights of way and other locations. It also addresses a number of other things, including flying under the influence of alcohol, surveilling people for sexual gratification, and flying with the intent to offend a person or wildlife. (I'm serious. See Sec. 3-166 (e).)

Municode Library

MunicodeNEXT, the industry's leading search application with over 3,300 codes and growing!

library.municode.com

I was on the beach in Gulf Shores and they were looking for a guy that had gone way out on a board and fell off. I told the Deputy I could get my drone and look. He had a stern look and told me drones are not allowed in Gulf Shores. I 'almost' said, well just let him drown....but I didn't!

 

[RangerEd]

It basically says that you do in fact own the airspace above your property, but that all aircraft have an easement allowing them to fly in your airspace, including drones.

True ... however, what you do while flying over a private property is regulated by local and state privacy laws. Which basically means if you have a drone without a camera, no questions asked. But if you have a camera and you are just transiting you're probably in the clear. What you can't do is take pictures of the property; that requires permission from the property owner. If you're transiting and you have your camera on ... well, it's probably gonna be on a case by case basis. (I'm not a lawyer; I just watch Steve Lehto's videos who is a lawyer.)

 

[orionshooter]

True ... however, what you do while flying over a private property is regulated by local and state privacy laws. Which basically means if you have a drone without a camera, no questions asked. But if you have a camera and you are just transiting you're probably in the clear. What you can't do is take pictures of the property; that requires permission from the property owner. If you're transiting and you have your camera on ... well, it's probably gonna be on a case by case basis. (I'm not a lawyer; I just watch Steve Lehto's videos who is a lawyer.)

I disagree. There are no restrictions on taking photos or videos of any property during flyovers. If that was not the case, Google maps and every other satellite image obtained would require prior consent. Imagine a realtor taking aerial photos of a neighborhood being required to obtain prior consent from every homeowner. Ridiculous.

A landowner has no greater privacy interest in what can be seen from the air than what can be seen from the street or a nearby hill or a taller building. Law enforcement uses aerial imagery on a routine basis without the need for a search warrant or even a showing of probable cause.

The exception to this might be aerial activity which interferes with the owners use and enjoyment of the property. A photo/video flyover or even photos taken intentionally doesn’t cut it.

The restriction you speak of is an urban myth with all due respect to Mr. Lehto whose comments I intend to explore on my own.

 

[MS Coast]

I disagree. There are no restrictions on taking photos or videos of any property during flyovers. If that was not the case, Google maps and every other satellite image obtained would require prior consent. Imagine a realtor taking aerial photos of a neighborhood being required to obtain prior consent from every homeowner. Ridiculous.

A landowner has no greater privacy interest in what can be seen from the air than what can be seen from the street or a nearby hill or a taller building. Law enforcement uses aerial imagery on a routine basis without the need for a search warrant or even a showing of probable cause.

The exception to this might be aerial activity which interferes with the owners use and enjoyment of the property. A photo/video flyover or even photos taken intentionally doesn’t cut it.

The restriction you speak of is an urban myth with all due respect to Mr. Lehto whose comments I intend to explore on my own.

Yes.

Consider online county tax maps. Not only do they provide aerial views of property, but also the owner's name and a variety of additional information, that may include address, parcel size, property value, property tax, property legal description, tax payment history, ownership history, ...

RID for property?

 

[Osmosis]

Click bait - as usual in the YouTube video.