Flying a drone on your own private property below 85 feet

[donkep]

Consider switching to decaf. I was just attempting to join in on the discussion. I’m a nooby here. Sorry for the upset.

 

[Gigman]

So if we pull this thread to a logical end and using some of the comments above.

If my 12 year old kid gets a small drone (say under .25 lbs) and decides to fly it in the backyard below the height of the house, we have to get permission from the FAA if we are in Class B, C, D, or E airspace (depending on the floor)....

I must say that seems like a far stretch and a far reach into the personal property domain.

 

[karlblessing]

Speaking of stretches, what if you own a warehouse that's up to 100 feet high indoors, you couldn't be cited for violation of safety as a justification to not being allowed... Because the only way you're going to hit a manned aircraft is if they crash into your warehouse to begin with.

 

[Meta4]

Speaking of stretches, what if you own a warehouse that's up to 100 feet high indoors, you couldn't be cited for violation of safety as a justification to not being allowed... Because the only way you're going to hit a manned aircraft is if they crash into your warehouse to begin with.

Inside a building is outside of the national airspace and therefore not under FAA jurisdiction.

 

[Chip]

So if we pull this thread to a logical end and using some of the comments above.

If my 12 year old kid gets a small drone (say under .25 lbs) and decides to fly it in the backyard below the height of the house, we have to get permission from the FAA if we are in Class B, C, D, or E airspace (depending on the floor)....

I must say that seems like a far stretch and a far reach into the personal property domain.

In answer to your question, yes absolutely. According to the FAA, if your drone lifts even one millimeter above the ground in your own backyard even surrounded by trees you are intruding into the navigable airspace and therefore you are subject to its regulatory authority. The Washington DC court of appeal is reviewing a case challenging drone remote ID. In the oral argument, one judge questioned the need for such pervasive governmental surveillance of a small drone being operated on and over private property at less than 400 feet. The FAA’s lawyer’s response was a gem. Basically, he said the FAA had to be able to ID pilots whose drones flew away and crossed property boundary lines. You know, like an “aerial trespass,” the very legal doctrine the FAA denies exists out the other side of its mouth.

 

[donkep]

Great discussion on this topic.

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

 

[Gigman]

It will be very interesting to see how this case pans out. It does seem a bit of government over reach.

So if I am flying a micro-drone in my yard that has a flight time of 3 minutes I need to get permission from the FAA.

Just does not make any sense....

 

[karlblessing]

Great discussion on this topic.

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

Is that supposed to be a credible contribution to this topic?

 

[donkep]

Is that supposed to be a credible contribution to this topic?

I thought so, interesting discussion. As has been said, you may own the airspace but the FAA controls it!

 

[karlblessing]

I thought so, interesting discussion. As has been said, you may own the airspace but the FAA controls it!

Though he says to the heavens which isn't even accurate or "legal".

 

[Chip]

Though he says to the heavens which isn't even accurate or "legal".

What he tried to say was Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.

Its a legal doctrine from ancient Roman times which translates to "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to HE double hockey sticks.”

In the Causby case, the US Supreme Court said:

"the doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim."

But, the court also said:

"if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere."

I do not see anything the guy says in his video about Causby that is palpably wrong. In fact, I would say there is nothing particularly profound or controversial in any of it. When you boil it down, all he is saying is that Causby recognized that private property owners have some kind of air rights and what those are exactly is subject to discussion and debate.

 

[Tim40]

You should read Causby in detail instead of relying on a dubious summary.
The supreme court didn't say that landowners own any airspace at all and the FAA think they control all airspace down to the grass.

You don't need FAA approval to fly at your property or most other places.
But if you are flying in the national airspace, the usual rules apply.

If you want to fly FPV sans spotter, or do any BVLOS - with any size of drone - you cannot without FAA approval - even if you stay under the trees in your yard - the FAA considers that navigable airspace - even though it's not. The FAA just burns my britches - it's so stupid.

 

[donkep]

A friend sent a picture of his Mavic flying at 2,200 feet!

 

[Photo Booth]

A friend sent a picture of his Mavic flying at 2,200 feet!

Please share the image with all identifying meta data intact.

Mark

 

[donkep]

Can we have a little laugh? Have a great weekend!

 

[karlblessing]

View attachment 148953

Can we have a little laugh? Have a great weekend!

Reminds me of the guy who did actually have a Mavic up rather high (battery mods, range mods, etc) then later tried to claim photos were actually shot from a Cessna when being attacked about it.

 

[RangerEd]

I mean good luck to you. The FAA controls the national airspace and has since 1958.

The best down to earth explanation was from Steve Lehto who is an attorney from Michigan. He basically said you own the airspace but the FAA controls it's use. Here's the link to the short video.

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

 

[CaCrab]

Quick question and there does seem to be some precedence but curious on your views.

Given the Supreme Court decision in the 1940’s that an owner has airspace ownership below 85 feet over their own home/property.

(The courts set precedent on this matter in the late 1940’s at approximately 85 feet above ground. See: UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY et ux.)

This airspace (0 to 85 feet) according to the Supreme Court is not controlled by the FAA but is personal property however, anything over 85 feet above your home would turn into FAA control.

Thus, Can a home owner fly their drone on their property up to 85 Feet without any FAA approval or drone registration?

Thoughts?

Thanks,

you're gonna get all kinds of answers. So I thinks it's best under 250 grams to be a certified pilot for recreational flight just to cover you butt because everything is changing .. even flight boundaries even if you do own it..

 

[karlblessing]

you're gonna get all kinds of answers. So I thinks it's best under 250 grams to be a certified pilot for recreational flight just to cover you butt because everything is changing .. even flight boundaries even if you do own it..

Seems to be a good reason just to get one when as a secondary drone.

 

[smashse]

Has nothing to do with it. The 0 AGL zones are because the FAA declared them so, not SCOTUS. Has to do with distance to the nearest airport, not some obscure ruling.

You should read Causby in detail instead of relying on a dubious summary.
The supreme court didn't say that landowners own any airspace at all and the FAA think they control all airspace down to the grass.

You don't need FAA approval to fly at your property or most other places.
But if you are flying in the national airspace, the usual rules apply.

The FAA didn't declare them so, Congress gave the FAA authority. But, you do need FAA approval to fly at your property, you need to be registered (anything over 250g), have TRUST or 107, because all airspace in the US is NAS. Just like states can't say where our drones can fly, but they can say where your feet are while flying.

Causby was actually more about the noise generated and making a property unusable at the ground level, and they mention navigable airspace. Well I am pretty proficient at navigating my drone at 1' off the ground... Manned Fixed wing aircraft are not made for that, and they aren't great at it, so different craft, as SCOTUS said in Causby, would have to be judged on their merits, as the height mentioned was for large Military aircraft, and that wasn't the height SCOTUS said it was OK, any height was OK, but that was the minimum height those specific aircraft were actually flying which is what made those aircraft responsible for making the property unusable. Not what was acceptable.

And, if you don't need FAA Approval to fly over your own property, try flying up to 400' within a mile of a class B airport, do it every day for 60 days for at least 30 minutes at a time, when there are lots of take offs and landings, and you will get a knock on the door and lots of legal problems.

Speaking of stretches, what if you own a warehouse that's up to 100 feet high indoors, you couldn't be cited for violation of safety as a justification to not being allowed... Because the only way you're going to hit a manned aircraft is if they crash into your warehouse to begin with.

YES! you would not be cited because you are not in NAS! Inside a building/enclosed structure is guess what, inside a structure. You wouldn't need a permit, registration, authorization, part 107, or a TRUST cert to fly inside. Say you own a sports arena with a closed top, no need to register your drone. Once you open the top, the rules change (thinking Silverdome style). Because as you say, there is no danger to manned aircraft inside a building.

Because interiors are not navigable airspace, they are not maintained, controlled or regulated by the FAA. So in reality, this argument doesn't matter, as it isn't what the thread is about.