Can this ultimately affect drones that fly over another person's property simply based on principle?

[Cafguy]

They are the ONLY private company That has the same flight restrictions as the white house above them. As far as I know there is a list of only a dozen or so Drone pilots that are allowed (with permission of course) to fly on Disney owned property and those are all local 600 members.

 

[MS Coast]

they fragrantly fenced off all sort of trails…

View attachment 183647

Using pine scented barbed wire, I assume?

Sorry, sometimes the speech refrigeration arrows argh jest two bunny to pig snore.

 

[Vic Moss]

I've been following this on and off since it made the news since it's just North of me. I fly in WY frequently for clients. I don't see how this could affect our industry at all. First, I'm not sure the guy is going to win. Second, this is about low altitudes, and no one is going to equate 4' off the ground with a drone ruling.

No, not worried at all.

 

[LoudThunder]

Second, this is about low altitudes, and no one is going to equate 4' off the ground with a drone ruling.

I guess you have never sat down with a person who subscribes to the principle of "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos," a Latin maxim that means "whoever owns the soil, it is theirs all the way to the sky and to the depths".

This principle has its origins in English common law and suggests that the ownership of land extends indefinitely upwards into the sky and downwards towards the center of the earth. Therefore, a landowner could theoretically control the airspace above their property and the ground beneath it, allowing them to prevent unauthorized use of either.

It's people like this that shoot at drones screaming, "It's against the law to fly over my property…"

 

[sawman]

7.1K views · 359 reactions | #SiNgErSoNgWrIteR #OrIgInAL #CoUnTrY #folk #drones | jesse welles Fans

#SiNgErSoNgWrIteR #OrIgInAL #CoUnTrY #folk #drones.

www.facebook.com

 

[Vic Moss]

View attachment 183668

I guess you have never sat down with a person who subscribes to the principle of "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos," a Latin maxim that means "whoever owns the soil, it is theirs all the way to the sky and to the depths".

This principle has its origins in English common law and suggests that the ownership of land extends indefinitely upwards into the sky and downwards towards the center of the earth. Therefore, a landowner could theoretically control the airspace above their property and the ground beneath it, allowing them to prevent unauthorized use of either.

It's people like this that shoot at drones screaming, "It's against the law to fly over my property…"

View attachment 183669

I have sat down with many of them (virtually). And the answer is alway the same. In the SCOTUS ruling in Causby v. U.S. Justice William Douglas wrote in the majority opinion that "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" has no place in the modern world.

So no, that's an invalid argument in this country.

 

[LoudThunder]

So no, that's an invalid argument in this country.

It sounds like you think that I think that landowners should own from Heaven to H3LL… I do not and I probably did not make myself clear. I believe that this is the battle cry for the "Flat Earth'ers" and it was only a reference to the OP who thinks we own our own piece of Heaven up to 500 feet… and that idea went out with the dark ages…

And if you are a fan of the TV Series "Yellowstone" then you will understand this reference… I think the "Pharmaceutical Executive" needs a little Kayce Dutton attitude adjustment…

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[hank970]

View attachment 183668

I guess you have never sat down with a person who subscribes to the principle of "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos," a Latin maxim that means "whoever owns the soil, it is theirs all the way to the sky and to the depths".

This principle has its origins in English common law and suggests that the ownership of land extends indefinitely upwards into the sky and downwards towards the center of the earth. Therefore, a landowner could theoretically control the airspace above their property and the ground beneath it, allowing them to prevent unauthorized use of either.

It's people like this that shoot at drones screaming, "It's against the law to fly over my property…"

View attachment 183669

Well, then, this non-lawyer thinks that the quotation, whether in Latin or English, is imprecisely worded to achieve its intended meaning. For sure, its origins in English common law predate and couldn't have envisioned the Wright brothers' rude incursions into the sky. They even predate Benjamin Franklin's experiments with kites and thunderstorms.

The sky in which birds and bees and drones and Cessnas and 747s fly begins at ground level. Taken literally, the wording of the maxim states that ownership extends only to the sky and not into it. And that's the way the FAA sees it centuries later -- the sky begins at the Earth's surface with ground-hugging, uncontrolled Class G airspace and then goes upward from there.

Cessnas and 747s fly over private property with impunity, and nobody gives them a second thought. Why? Because they're usually high and therefore aren't perceived as being intrusive. Consumer drones are different. They're confined to the lowermost level of sky, down where people walk and breathe and build their houses and fences. People also erect invisible boundaries around themselves, and intrusions into such perceptions of personal space are unwelcome, even in public places. Drone operators should respect those personal boundaries, recognizing, of course, that they vary greatly from one person to the next. As always, it's best to err on the side of caution.

 

[LoudThunder]

Well, then, this non-lawyer thinks that the quotation, whether in Latin or English, is imprecisely worded to achieve its intended meaning. For sure, its origins in English common law predate and couldn't have envisioned the Wright brothers' rude incursions into the sky. They even predate Benjamin Franklin's experiments with kites and thunderstorms.

The sky in which birds and bees and drones and Cessnas and 747s fly begins at ground level. Taken literally, the wording of the maxim states that ownership extends only to the sky and not into it. And that's the way the FAA sees it centuries later -- the sky begins at the Earth's surface with ground-hugging, uncontrolled Class G airspace and then goes upward from there.

Cessnas and 747s fly over private property with impunity, and nobody gives them a second thought. Why? Because they're usually high and therefore aren't perceived as being intrusive. Consumer drones are different. They're confined to the lowermost level of sky, down where people walk and breathe and build their houses and fences. People also erect invisible boundaries around themselves, and intrusions into such perceptions of personal space are unwelcome, even in public places. Drone operators should respect those personal boundaries, recognizing, of course, that they vary greatly from one person to the next. As always, it's best to err on the side of caution.

Do you think that I subscribe to that old, outdated, bit of tort? I repeat, I do not, I know that the grass on my lawn extends into the FAA's controlled airspace. Did you not read the posting immediate above your posting where I explained that?

This is the edict that most Flat Earth'ers use to say you cannot fly over my property and my drones know of no property lines...

And if you were my neighbor, you could expect my drones to routinely transit "your airspace..."

 

[Cafguy]

Before I go out into the 102 degree heat and tend to my lawn, Does anyone know the FAA Obstruction Standards for my Home? I got a bird of paradise that can get pretty tall.
Wouldn't want to get a letter from them.

 

[LoudThunder]

I got a bird of paradise that can get pretty tall.

Just keep its roots well tethered to the Earth, don't let it get airborne… L L . . .

But you have two bigger problems, first, your Bird of Paradise is not native to California. So, if you live in a neighborhood with an HOA, you might be in violation of their rules and susceptible to who knows what ridiculous fines…

Next and perhaps more importantly, your Bird of Paradise is also not native to the United Sates either as it is native to South Africa. And I do not know if California status as a "Sanctuary State" will save it from being rounded up and repotted by an ICE raid on your home… Double L L . . .



Look at what they did its cousin "Sun Flower…" Triple L L . . .

 

[Cafguy]

As long as I don't hang a "FOR HIRE" sign on it and place it in the home depot parking lot I think I may be safe.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Before I go out into the 102 degree heat and tend to my lawn, Does anyone know the FAA Obstruction Standards for my Home? I got a bird of paradise that can get pretty tall.
Wouldn't want to get a letter from them.

It was recently reported that the FAA unilaterally cut down palm trees, without notice, that they had decided had grown too tall on a hillside adjacent to SD International Airport, despite the fact that the flight path clearance above them was well over 400 feet. They received lots of angry letters from homeowners!

 

[anotherlab]

It was recently reported that the FAA unilaterally cut down palm trees, without notice, that they had decided had grown too tall on a hillside adjacent to SD International Airport, despite the fact that the flight path clearance above them was well over 400 feet. They received lots of angry letters from homeowners!

That's not even close to how it happened.

The FAA and the San Diego Airport Authority requested that the city of San Diego remove 20 trees because their height exceeded the safety limit as required by federal law. They followed due process, and it was the city that took down the trees.

Concerned citizens had enough time to file a lawsuit to prevent the removal, but that suit was eventually dropped.

This happened 5+ years ago. You can argue whether or not the trees needed to come down, but to say "the FAA unilaterally cut down palm trees, without notice", that statement is false.

 

[GadgetGuy]

That's not even close to how it happened.

The FAA and the San Diego Airport Authority requested that the city of San Diego remove 20 trees because their height exceeded the safety limit as required by federal law. They followed due process, and it was the city that took down the trees.

Concerned citizens had enough time to file a lawsuit to prevent the removal, but that suit was eventually dropped.

This happened 5+ years ago. You can argue whether or not the trees needed to come down, but to say "the FAA unilaterally cut down palm trees, without notice", that statement is false.

Thank you for the correction. Whether or not the trees needed to come down and the homeowners displeasure with their removal is the takeaway. I thought I had read that many concerned citizens were unaware of the intent to remove the trees until after they had been removed. Whether those unhappy concerned citizens would have had legal standing to object, or just wanted to be heard, the notification process was apparently inadequate, even if legally sufficient. Hard to argue with the FAA.

Do you happen to know what the safety limit height above the trees, as required by federal law, is?

 

[hank970]

It was recently reported that the FAA unilaterally cut down palm trees, without notice, that they had decided had grown too tall on a hillside adjacent to SD International Airport, despite the fact that the flight path clearance above them was well over 400 feet. They received lots of angry letters from homeowners!

I like trees, but if I lived beneath a major airport's flight path, I think I'd be more concerned about constant noise than the fate of a few trees. I wouldn't want to live downwind of pig or chicken farm either.

 

[anotherlab]

Thank you for the correction. Whether or not the trees needed to come down and the homeowners displeasure with their removal is the takeaway. I thought I had read that many concerned citizens were unaware of the intent to remove the trees until after they had been removed. Whether those unhappy concerned citizens would have had legal standing to object, or just wanted to be heard, the notification process was apparently inadequate, even if legally sufficient. Hard to argue with the FAA.

Do you happen to know what the safety limit height above the trees, as required by federal law, is?

For what it's worth, the couple that filed the lawsuit did not dispute the federal height limit; they based their claim that removing the trees would violate the California Environmental Quality Act.

The city had made this statement to local news outlets

At the request of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and San Diego International Airport, the City of San Diego is planning to remove approximately 20 palm trees from two locations in Ocean Beach and Bankers Hill. The trees are located on city property. According to the FAA, during inclement weather conditions, these trees may interfere with the designated flight path and potentially cause arriving planes to be diverted away from the airport. We understand the community's concern over losing these tall palm trees, which are not native to our region. The city will prioritize working with the adjacent property owners to plant new leaf trees that will add to our urban canopy. In addition to providing shade and lowering temperatures, native trees support the city's climate action goals of removing air pollution, reducing stormwater runoff, and creating a more sustainable and resilient San Diego.

 

[Hauptmann]

My guess is that the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case.

 

[GadgetGuy]

For what it's worth, the couple that filed the lawsuit did not dispute the federal height limit; they based their claim that removing the trees would violate the California Environmental Quality Act.

The city had made this statement to local news outlets

So we still don't know what the federal height limit is for aircraft clearance and how it is measured.

Anyone?

That palm trees are not native to CA, and do not support the city's climate action goals apparently means that all palm trees all over San Diego are now at risk of removal, and the City will use any excuse to remove them, including FAA height clearances!

Palm trees define many neighborhoods in both San Diego and Los Angeles and line the streets and hillsides. Their nativity should be irrelevant. They have been part of the environment and skyline for over 100 years. That the city wants to legislate them away in the name of climate change is abhorrent.

"We'll plant new leaf trees that will add to our urban canopy. In addition to providing shade and lowering temperatures, native trees support the city's climate action goals of removing air pollution, reducing stormwater runoff, and creating a more sustainable and resilient San Diego."

 

[hank970]

So we still don't know what the federal height limit is for aircraft clearance and how it is measured.

Anyone?

That palm trees are not native to CA, and do not support the city's climate action goals apparently means that all palm trees all over San Diego are now at risk of removal, and the City will use any excuse to remove them, including FAA height clearances!

Palm trees define many neighborhoods in both San Diego and Los Angeles and line the streets and hillsides. Their nativity should be irrelevant. They have been part of the environment and skyline for over 100 years. That the city wants to legislate them away in the name of climate change is abhorrent.

"We'll plant new leaf trees that will add to our urban canopy. In addition to providing shade and lowering temperatures, native trees support the city's climate action goals of removing air pollution, reducing stormwater runoff, and creating a more sustainable and resilient San Diego."

The same could be said for non-native Norway Rats in New York City. They define many neighborhoods in NYC and thrive in a variety of habitats. Their nativity should be irrelevant. They've been part of the environment for hundreds of years. That the city wants to eradicate them in the interest of public health and safety is abhorrent.