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

[Chip]

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 am sorry I used poor word choice. I did not mean to imply the FAA became directly involved in a case arising over this incident. I was trying to get a sense of whose side people would take in this encounter which tees up the aerial trespass and privacy issues very nicely. You have the wiseacres (guess which side I am on) playing a game testing the police for no real purpose other than YT views. But, they prepped enough to ask good questions to test the police officers' knowledge including:

1. What if I was standing on stilts on the sidewalk looking into the parking lot and taking pics with a telephoto?

2. Why is your parking lot private when there are GOOGLE satellite and street images?

3. What if a plane or helicopter flies overhead, would they be trespassing?

The officers do an excellent job answering every question which they tie into CA privacy and surveillance laws. And they do so in very courteous and respectful way.

My personal opinion is that anyone who tells you there is no such thing as aerial trespass or privacy in your backyard or over your fenced in property is, well, expressing an opinion on something that is far from clear or fully and finally resolved.

My opinion is based on review of reports from US government agencies such as the one linked and excerpted below:

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current Jurisdictional, Property, and Privacy Legal Issues Regarding the Commercial and Recreational Use of Drones
BY US GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
B-330570 September 16, 2020
https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-330570.pdf

"Based on our review of the law, as well as the legal positions expressed by a range of stakeholders we spoke with and analyses by a number of legal commentators, key unresolved UAS legal jurisdiction and privacy issues include:

• Whether Congress may use its power under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause to regulate all UAS operations, including non-commercial, non-interstate, low-altitude operations over private property, and if so, whether Congress has authorized FAA to regulate all such operations in FMRA or other legislation;

• What impact possible Fifth Amendment-protected property rights held by landowners in the airspace within the “immediate reaches” above their property, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Causby and other legal precedents, may have on federal, state, local, and tribal authority over low-altitude UAS operations;

• Whether and to what extent Congress intended, in FMRA or other legislation, to preempt states, localities, and tribes from regulating UAS operations at low altitudes;

• What liability UAS operators and the federal, state, local, and tribal governments may have to landowners under state aerial trespass and constitutional takings law precedents for conducting, regulating, or preempting state regulation of UAS operations in low-altitude airspace, and whether landowners may exclude drones from their overlying airspace;

• Whether existing federal and state privacy laws adequately protect against invasions of physical privacy and personal data privacy involving UAS operations and what authority the federal, state, local, and tribal governments have to enact additional measures that may be needed.

The legal uncertainty surrounding these and other issues is presenting challenges to integration
of UAS into the national airspace system. Successful integration may involve balancing the social and economic benefits anticipated from UAS operations with constitutionally protected property and privacy rights. It may also involve balancing the federal government’s constitutional rights and responsibilities to regulate interstate commerce with the states’ constitutionally reserved police powers and principles of federalism. A number of stakeholders we spoke to, and legal commentators who have addressed these matters, said additional clarity on these matters from Congress, FAA, or the courts would facilitate the successful integration of UAS into the national airspace."

 

[Vic Moss]

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.

The FAA doesn't consider Police Stations and prisons no fly zones.

The only ones that are are federal prisons.

 

[Horsefly]

I am sorry I used poor word choice. I did not mean to imply the FAA became directly involved in a case arising over this incident. I was trying to get a sense of whose side people would take in this encounter which tees up the aerial trespass and privacy issues very nicely. You have the wiseacres (guess which side I am on) playing a game testing the police for no real purpose other than YT views. But, they prepped enough to ask good questions to test the police officers' knowledge including:

1. What if I was standing on stilts on the sidewalk looking into the parking lot and taking pics with a telephoto?

2. Why is your parking lot private when there are GOOGLE satellite and street images?

3. What if a plane or helicopter flies overhead, would they be trespassing?

The officers do an excellent job answering every question which they tie into CA privacy and surveillance laws. And they do so in very courteous and respectful way.

My personal opinion is that anyone who tells you there is no such thing as aerial trespass or privacy in your backyard or over your fenced in property is, well, expressing an opinion on something that is far from clear or fully and finally resolved.

My opinion is based on review of reports from US government agencies such as the one linked and excerpted below:

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current Jurisdictional, Property, and Privacy Legal Issues Regarding the Commercial and Recreational Use of Drones
BY US GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
B-330570 September 16, 2020
https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-330570.pdf

"Based on our review of the law, as well as the legal positions expressed by a range of stakeholders we spoke with and analyses by a number of legal commentators, key unresolved UAS legal jurisdiction and privacy issues include:

• Whether Congress may use its power under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause to regulate all UAS operations, including non-commercial, non-interstate, low-altitude operations over private property, and if so, whether Congress has authorized FAA to regulate all such operations in FMRA or other legislation;

• What impact possible Fifth Amendment-protected property rights held by landowners in the airspace within the “immediate reaches” above their property, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Causby and other legal precedents, may have on federal, state, local, and tribal authority over low-altitude UAS operations;

• Whether and to what extent Congress intended, in FMRA or other legislation, to preempt states, localities, and tribes from regulating UAS operations at low altitudes;

• What liability UAS operators and the federal, state, local, and tribal governments may have to landowners under state aerial trespass and constitutional takings law precedents for conducting, regulating, or preempting state regulation of UAS operations in low-altitude airspace, and whether landowners may exclude drones from their overlying airspace;

• Whether existing federal and state privacy laws adequately protect against invasions of physical privacy and personal data privacy involving UAS operations and what authority the federal, state, local, and tribal governments have to enact additional measures that may be needed.

The legal uncertainty surrounding these and other issues is presenting challenges to integration
of UAS into the national airspace system. Successful integration may involve balancing the social and economic benefits anticipated from UAS operations with constitutionally protected property and privacy rights. It may also involve balancing the federal government’s constitutional rights and responsibilities to regulate interstate commerce with the states’ constitutionally reserved police powers and principles of federalism. A number of stakeholders we spoke to, and legal commentators who have addressed these matters, said additional clarity on these matters from Congress, FAA, or the courts would facilitate the successful integration of UAS into the national airspace."

Very articulate response!

If common sense is not used by individuals, it will be legislated by idiots. Look at the covid response world wide.

 

[JoelP]

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.

Points well taken. I have met several of the people at this field who fly. Perhaps I should approach them to see who I need to demonstrate my proficiency to. As a part 107 pilot I may have a better chance to get their permission.

 

[ScottTX]

The FAA doesn't consider Police Stations and prisons no fly zones.

The only ones that are are federal prisons.

Interesting I know that all "correctional facilities" are concerned with drones being used as a way to bring contraband into their facilities. I would personally treat all "correctional facilities" as no fly zones.

 

[Vic Moss]

Interesting I know that all "correctional facilities" are concerned with drones being used as a way to bring contraband into their facilities. I would personally treat all "correctional facilities" as no fly zones.

They are certainly concerned, but not official NFZs. When I'm near a prison, or shooting a prison, I always check in and let them know.