Drones in private airspace? Is private airspace even a thing?

[Paul Stocum]

I feel fortunate that I’ve only been approached once while flying my drone. I do fly drone for real estate photography and video. What may help is I wear very visible clothing, usually hi viz neon yellow or bright red. I often operate from the street (easily cloned out in photos) so if people have issue, they can find me easily. I think being obvious makes me seem harmless, or less likely nefarious.

The one time I was approached, “why is there a drone hovering over my house”? I simply told him I’m photographing the house across the street so his neighbor can sell it, I’ll be done in a few minutes. The man simply returned to his house without a word.

 

[smashse]

...
Is there any reason I cannot launch from the AMA field which is not part of the county park and fly as a hobbyist wherever I want over the county trail ride in class G airspace without paying the ridiculous permit fee? It is not my intention to fly over people or spy on anyone, just to film myself and my friends riding our bikes from ahead, behind or to the side? There is no intent to monetize these recordings.

Yes that field is owned/maintained by an AMA club. They get to say what you can or can NOT do from that property. I highly doubt they would allow a non-club member have access to their property and doing so without permission would be trespassing.

Now if you get permission to fly from "Said" property, and you obey ALL other pertinent FAA rules & regulations then you "should" be good to go. Keep in mind I'm not an Aviation Attorney and I did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Use this information as you see fit but it is NOT legal advice. I'm just your average Keyboard Warrior with a few decades of UAS operations under my belt.

Actually, I disagree with @BigAl07 on this one. Not on the AMA permission thing. I am also Part107.q

@JoelP asks if he can LAUNCH from the AMA field, and then go on the trail as a PIC. Technically you would be "piloting" the aircraft from the trail, which you say is prohibited. I agree they can't stop you from launching from the AMA field, and flying over the trail to photo your friends, if you maintain VLOS, but the PIC being on the trail, they can 100% restrict where the pilot is located while the drone is in the air. It isn't just launching and landing, but where you are when piloting.

 

[Aerophile]

@JoelP asks if he can LAUNCH from the AMA field, and then go on the trail as a PIC. Technically you would be "piloting" the aircraft from the trail, which you say is prohibited. I agree they can't stop you from launching from the AMA field, and flying over the trail to photo your friends, if you maintain VLOS, but the PIC being on the trail, they can 100% restrict where the pilot is located while the drone is in the air. It isn't just launching and landing, but where you are when piloting.

Hmmm. Interesting distinction. I have not heard this distinction made before.

Where I live, the city has prohibited takeoffs/landings from all public property (including streets, sidewalks, parks, anyplace that's "owned" by the city). So the only place you can takeoff or land is from private property – your own, or someone else's if they have given you explicit permission.

AFAICT the city laws against takeoff/landing only refer to the takoff and landing points, not where the operator is standing. Hmmm.

So, the question is, can I be standing on the sidewalk (public space) in front of my house, launch the drone from my front lawn, and then fly it down the street, go get some footage of the nearby park just down the block, walking there and maintaining VLOS with the drone all the while, and then return on foot to land it at home (all while controlling it from public property)?

Asking for a friend...

 

[AlanL]

Hmmm. Interesting distinction. I have not heard this distinction made before.

Where I live, the city has prohibited takeoffs/landings from all public property (including streets, sidewalks, parks, anyplace that's "owned" by the city). So the only place you can takeoff or land is from private property – your own, or someone else's if they have given you explicit permission.

AFAICT the city laws against takeoff/landing only refer to the takoff and landing points, not where the operator is standing. Hmmm.

So, the question is, can I be standing on the sidewalk (public space) in front of my house, launch the drone from my front lawn, and then fly it down the street, go get some footage of the nearby park just down the block, walking there and maintaining VLOS with the drone all the while, and then return on foot to land it at home (all while controlling it from public property)?

Asking for a friend...

Language in drone prohibitions frequently mentions control of the UAS as well as takeoff and landing. This is the National Parks verbiage (I bolded the text):

Policy Memorandum 14-05, released by the National Park Service (NPS) director in June 2014, directed each superintendent to use the authority under 36 CFR 1.5 to prohibit the launching, landing, or operation of unmanned aircraft, subject to the certain conditions and exceptions set forth in the memo. This is still in force with a very few exceptions.

Interesting to note in this case the specific verbiage in the Santa Clara Parks policy where they do not specify operation of the drone - only takeoff and landing:

Drones​

A valid permit is required by the Director authorizing such use. No person shall launch or land a drone, aircraft, or personal air vehicle within any park area or on any structure, facility, or equipment located within any park area.

 

[lookout]

This is kind of strange that the pilot and the quad are treated differently. They are two different entities still. In a place where there is no stopping, standing or parking, I also wouldn't be able to do anything with a quad in the same spot that I couldn't do, but I sure could go somewhere else and fly my quad over the same spot and nothing happens. I could hover over that spot because nothing says I can't. But it helps since nobody is allowed to be in that spot. Maybe safest place for quad because nobody else can be there.

 

[smashse]

Language in drone prohibitions frequently mentions control of the UAS as well as takeoff and landing. This is the National Parks verbiage (I bolded the text):

Policy Memorandum 14-05, released by the National Park Service (NPS) director in June 2014, directed each superintendent to use the authority under 36 CFR 1.5 to prohibit the launching, landing, or operation of unmanned aircraft, subject to the certain conditions and exceptions set forth in the memo. This is still in force with a very few exceptions.

Interesting to note in this case the specific verbiage in the Santa Clara Parks policy where they do not specify operation of the drone - only takeoff and landing:

Drones​

A valid permit is required by the Director authorizing such use. No person shall launch or land a drone, aircraft, or personal air vehicle within any park area or on any structure, facility, or equipment located within any park area.

Interesting that they worded it that way, good to discuss that too. And that may be what they posted on a public website, but I wouldn't trust that the actual code doesn't mention operation.

From:
Chapter 8.60 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
(linked to from the city webpage, and it has a link at the bottom back).

8.60.030 Prohibition.
(a) Unless otherwise exempt under this chapter, drones or UASs are prohibited from being deployed, launched or flown in any airspace within or over any sporting and/or large venue special event, including but not limited to over and within one-half mile of Levi’s® Stadium, over Santa Clara University sports facilities when they are in use, and over public parks and public facilities during large venue special events.

So, you might be able to beg an officer to not ticket you as a misunderstanding, the officer could also just say, sorry, fight it in court. A lawyer could argue that the language is not legal because it says flying over, but then at the same time, to me that implies a violation if the PIC is actually on the park property. And a judge may decide to interpret the intent of the law instead of the actual language. Also, that lawyer may cost way more than the fine or permits. I don't think I would risk it myself. I'd rather find a private property location to do the same.

I also can't say 100% that this covers the correct Santa Clara (County vs City...). However, it should be considered, and if they say you can't launch or land, they probably mean operate as well (as the actual code/law implies).

At the same time, launching from the AMA field and the PIC remaining on the AMA side, and flying over the park to film friends, I don't see how they could even lawfully ticket you. I see no ambiguity in that. However it would prevent filming the pilot and depending on the situation, may not allow VLOS at low altitude. I would also consider it risky to be filming someone from in front or the side from much distance at all, like I would want more than 100' of distance (combined altitude and lateral) if I were more than 100' away. (side note, maybe use FPV with a VO under rec?)

You might get out of the fine on a technicality, or you might get a huge lawyer bill and still pay the fine.

So point is, just because a non-legal informational site probably written by lay-persons doesn't say operation, that doesn't mean the law doesn't say it. I believe (not a lawyer) that the prohibition of "Flown within any airspace within... a public park" pretty much sums it up.

 

[AlanL]

Interesting that they worded it that way, good to discuss that too. And that may be what they posted on a public website, but I wouldn't trust that the actual code doesn't mention operation.

From:
Chapter 8.60 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
(linked to from the city webpage, and it has a link at the bottom back).

8.60.030 Prohibition.
(a) Unless otherwise exempt under this chapter, drones or UASs are prohibited from being deployed, launched or flown in any airspace within or over any sporting and/or large venue special event, including but not limited to over and within one-half mile of Levi’s® Stadium, over Santa Clara University sports facilities when they are in use, and over public parks and public facilities during large venue special events.

So, you might be able to beg an officer to not ticket you as a misunderstanding, the officer could also just say, sorry, fight it in court. A lawyer could argue that the language is not legal because it says flying over, but then at the same time, to me that implies a violation if the PIC is actually on the park property. And a judge may decide to interpret the intent of the law instead of the actual language. Also, that lawyer may cost way more than the fine or permits. I don't think I would risk it myself. I'd rather find a private property location to do the same.

I also can't say 100% that this covers the correct Santa Clara (County vs City...). However, it should be considered, and if they say you can't launch or land, they probably mean operate as well (as the actual code/law implies).

At the same time, launching from the AMA field and the PIC remaining on the AMA side, and flying over the park to film friends, I don't see how they could even lawfully ticket you. I see no ambiguity in that. However it would prevent filming the pilot and depending on the situation, may not allow VLOS at low altitude. I would also consider it risky to be filming someone from in front or the side from much distance at all, like I would want more than 100' of distance (combined altitude and lateral) if I were more than 100' away. (side note, maybe use FPV with a VO under rec?)

You might get out of the fine on a technicality, or you might get a huge lawyer bill and still pay the fine.

So point is, just because a non-legal informational site probably written by lay-persons doesn't say operation, that doesn't mean the law doesn't say it. I believe (not a lawyer) that the prohibition of "Flown within any airspace within... a public park" pretty much sums it up.

The language you cite in the City code differs from the park website presentation in ways that would make me think twice about reliance on the park statement. If the PIC stays on the AMA field you would have room to argue but once you set foot in the park YMMV. When I looked up the park rules this morning I was expecting language more like what is in the City code.

 

[smashse]

The language you cite in the City code differs from the park website presentation in ways that would make me think twice about reliance on the park statement. If the PIC stays on the AMA field you would have room to argue but once you set foot in the park YMMV. When I looked up the park rules this morning I was expecting language more like what is in the City code.

Yeah, that was kind of my point. The park site isn't the code/law, it is more informational.

 

[lookout]

Yeah, that was kind of my point. The park site isn't the code/law, it is more informational.

Sometimes there are city ordinances that cover city parks and maybe look there. The posted signs may lack clarity or some of the code.

 

[Horsefly]

While I am not in US, navigable airspace with FAA would imply interstate navigation and as such would make perfect sense. Reasonable right to privacy must exists on your property and just because my drone is 2 meters above the ground doesn't logically make it in navigable airspace exempt from trespass. If people don't apply common decency and restrict their own behavior, arbitrary rules will be implemented by low iq government appointees. Flight rule number one should be, "don't annoy your neighbors"!

 

[BigAl07]

Actually, I disagree with @BigAl07 on this one. Not on the AMA permission thing. I am also Part107.q

@JoelP asks if he can LAUNCH from the AMA field, and then go on the trail as a PIC. Technically you would be "piloting" the aircraft from the trail, which you say is prohibited. I agree they can't stop you from launching from the AMA field, and flying over the trail to photo your friends, if you maintain VLOS, but the PIC being on the trail, they can 100% restrict where the pilot is located while the drone is in the air. It isn't just launching and landing, but where you are when piloting.

You totally missed the point about the AMA field. My point was the OP probably would not get permission from the AMA field to fly from there (call it launch/land if it makes you feel better) so making it impossible to get airborne to overfly the trail to begin with. The AMA field has every right to limit/restrict what you do from their property. Odds are they have club rules listed at the field and I'm sure they have club rules on their website stating Members & Official Guests only allowed to fly from the field.

Also, Flying From the trail rather than launching/landing on the trail is just an attempt to circumvent the system and perform an illegal flight. Flying, Launching, Landing etc are all "operating the aircraft" regardless of which aspect of flight it is.

 

[51 Drones]

Very good video Russ, and thank you for the VERY good interpretation of Causby. So many people are completely ignorant of that rule.

And in the recent RDQ case ruling, the judges did mention that that drones make "navigable airspace" from the ground up.

Well done, and thank you for putting this out. Perfectly explained.

Won't help the hardcore paranoids.

As far as cities and states attempting to regulate airspace, many still do, but they lose when cited.

Yes for sure! Thanks Vic!

 

[Horsefly]

the judges did mention that that drones make "navigable airspace" from the ground up.

Won't help the hardcore paranoids.

Yeah, I thank Russ for putting this out and the request to discuss. I just got my Mavic 3 thermal and have gone from "hard core paranoid" to something several levels up. The new zoom capabilities are hard to describe until you actually experience them.

Regarding the navigable air space from the ground up argument side: do you believe that it is reasonable to put a drone in this airspace as stated without violating peoples reasonable expectation of privacy? Say a neighbor has a 6' privacy fence which would have blocked casual observers from looking into or filming them in the back yard, do you think it is ok to run a drone up at 10' and drive through their backyard? If navigable airspace is a drone in flight, does that make it legal to drive a drone into a house if the window is open?

Legal or not, these actions are wrong. I suggest that we police ourselves rather than rely on dogmatic interpretation of judges who have no clue about current capabilities.

 

[Chip]

Legal or not, these actions are wrong. I suggest that we police ourselves rather than rely on dogmatic interpretation of judges who have no clue about current capabilities.

Guess whose side the FAA is on here, the police or the "auditor?"

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

 

[lookout]

Guess whose side the FAA is on here, the police or the "auditor?"

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

You think those quad guys looking in people's windows might include little police cars too?

 

[JoelP]

You totally missed the point about the AMA field. My point was the OP probably would not get permission from the AMA field to fly from there (call it launch/land if it makes you feel better) so making it impossible to get airborne to overfly the trail to begin with. The AMA field has every right to limit/restrict what you do from their property. Odds are they have club rules listed at the field and I'm sure they have club rules on their website stating Members & Official Guests only allowed to fly from the field.

Also, Flying From the trail rather than launching/landing on the trail is just an attempt to circumvent the system and perform an illegal flight. Flying, Launching, Landing etc are all "operating the aircraft" regardless of which aspect of flight it is.

Some AMA fields prohibit drones, but not the one along Coyote Creek Trail. Their rules are posted in a sign and there is no mention of drones. If I am a member of AMA they would be hard pressed to deny me access, especially if my flight didn’t interfere with other RC plane operations.

 

[okw]

Some AMA fields prohibit drones, but not the one along Coyote Creek Trail. Their rules are posted in a sign and there is no mention of drones. If I am a member of AMA they would be hard pressed to deny me access, especially if my flight didn’t interfere with other RC plane operations.

As @BigAl07 mentioned, most RC clubs only allow club members and their guests to fly on their property. Being an AMA member is typically one of the prerequisites to becoming a member. But likely wouldn't be all that's needed to fly there. It's their property (owned or leased) and they can deny anyone they wish.

 

[BigAl07]

Some AMA fields prohibit drones, but not the one along Coyote Creek Trail. Their rules are posted in a sign and there is no mention of drones. If I am a member of AMA they would be hard pressed to deny me access, especially if my flight didn’t interfere with other RC plane operations.

I was only stating that they wouldn't allow someone who isn't a Member to randomly fly there.

If you aren't a member of the club they could deny membership on some "other" reason if they happen to be anti-drone or just don't like your intentions or attitude. Being an AMA member does not guarantee (at least not for the clubs I've flown at) flight privileges. Our club requires AMA membership as well as a Flight Proficiency Demonstration (unless you're learning and then you're only flying with an Instructor) as well as an equipment review to make sure you're safe in both respects.

For the record, I've been an AMA member for several decades so I'm not "just blowing smoke" here.

Fortunately many clubs have become Drone Friendly after many years of very much Anti-Drone. Thankfully, my club was Pro-Drone since day one so it's always been a harmonious relationship.

 

[ScottTX]

Guess whose side the FAA is on here, the police or the "auditor?"

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

I've seen this video before - So what side did the FAA come down on?

I know if this police facility was also a location where people were incarcerated, It would be a no-fly zone.

 

[Aerophile]

I've seen this video before - So what side did the FAA come down on?

I know if this police facility was also a location where people were incarcerated, It would be a no-fly zone.

I would imagine that virtually all police stations (courthouses, too) have the potential to hold suspects, at least temporarily (if not actual jail cells, maybe a place one might be handcuffed or zip-tied to a chair...).
Possible no-fly zones?