Flying drones over private property is illegal in California?

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I haven't ever heard of any supposed 500' 'rule' of airspace ownership.
It could have been a state thing as a proposal, or 500' might be a misinterpretation of the (usual) lower limit for light manned aircraft to fly at or above, where I suppose some may wrongly think because of that, that below 500' 'belongs' to the ground underneath.

Even with the infamous Causby v the US case of aircraft impeding on a landowners rights to airspace settled on 200' for that case, it did not set a precedent.

"The NCCUSL has decided that the balance of interest in aerial trespass should be abandoned, and that any aerial trespass below 200’ should be treated as a trespass to land, with the right to bring an action without any requirement to prove an actual injury. The 200’ altitude limit is increased by the altitude of any structure. For example, if there is a building that is 100’ tall, any flight over the building below 300’ AGL would be a per se trespass."
( Drones: A Uniformly Bad Law | Casetext )

That "without any requirement to prove an actual injury" proved a little too unrealistic and easily manipulative.

 

[Vic Moss]

Yes. But the regulations do say that you can't fly over people or moving vehicles (at least not at the moment with any available drone).

I have three separate drones that qualify for OOP Category 1 ops. Including a Mini 2. Also, you can fly over moving vehicles, just not the people in them.

I'd guess if you fly over a bunch of houses you would have to take extra care to avoid the people and vehicles that tend to be around those houses.

The likelihood is negligible.

 

[Vic Moss]

Here's an interesting scenario. West Hollywood, CA is incorporated and has drone regs that include registering with the city, and labeling it with their tail number. In addition your drone must be physically inspected before you're Kosher.

Well, I reached out and got this reply already:

"Hi Vic,

Thank you for reaching out to our City Manager regarding drone regulations. Staff will look into the inquiry and follow-up with you.

Regards,

Danny Rivas
Acting Director of Public Works
City of West Hollywood
Phone: (323) XXX-XXXX"

I'll let you know what I hear. If you'd like, PM me your email address and I'll BCC you in the email exchange.

So you launch from LA City right next door and fly over The Roxy. The LA County Sheriff has jurisdiction in WeHo. Could you be busted? I say no, but if Barney Fife decides to arrest you, the LA County Jail is not for the faint of heart.

 

[BigAl07]

Well, I reached out and got this reply already:

"Hi Vic,

Thank you for reaching out to our City Manager regarding drone regulations. Staff will look into the inquiry and follow-up with you.

Regards,

Danny Rivas
Acting Director of Public Works
City of West Hollywood
Phone: (323) XXX-XXXX"

I'll let you know what I hear. If you'd like, PM me your email address and I'll BCC you in the email exchange.

Excellent! That sounds promising and it's a LOT more than I had thought you'd hear back.

 

[Tufargon]

Excellent! That sounds promising and it's a LOT more than I had thought you'd hear back.

A lot faster too!

 

[thispilothere]

I say no, but if Barney Fife decides to arrest you, the LA County Jail is not for the faint of heart.

And they use that threat all the time.

 

[kjonyou]

Well this doesn't sound right, the FAA only controls airspace above 400 feet?
Can You Fly A Drone Over Private Property? Is It Allowed?

 

[Vic Moss]

Well this doesn't sound right, the FAA only controls airspace above 400 feet?
Can You Fly A Drone Over Private Property? Is It Allowed?

What an absolutely idiotic article.

Obviously not written by an aviation attorney. Or anyone with the ability to do research for that matter.

 

[Tufargon]

Well this doesn't sound right, the FAA only controls airspace above 400 feet?
Can You Fly A Drone Over Private Property? Is It Allowed?

My god. We wonder how bad info is spread and there's no way to even contact the guy to INFORM him. SMH!

 

[DoomMeister]

Well, I reached out and got this reply already:

"Hi Vic,

Thank you for reaching out to our City Manager regarding drone regulations. Staff will look into the inquiry and follow-up with you.

Regards,

Danny Rivas
Acting Director of Public Works
City of West Hollywood
Phone: (323) XXX-XXXX"

I'll let you know what I hear. If you'd like, PM me your email address and I'll BCC you in the email exchange.

Vic,

Hoping you post the answer in this thread. I could not tell if you were posting here and adding the member as BCC in your correspondence or not.

 

[Vic Moss]

Vic,

Hoping you post the answer in this thread. I could not tell if you were posting here and adding the member as BCC in your correspondence or not.

I'll share what we find. I just like to have people who bring these to our attention part of the email chain if they like.

 

[Reginald E Johnson]

Can someone clear this up for me? Apparently there was a law passed in CA in 2015 making it illegal to fly a drone over someone else's private property. I know there are privacy laws and I know the FAA took over in 2018 and things changed but I am confused. On other websites I have read that the FAA only controls 500 feet and above and therefore anything below that is private.

So my question is, in theory, if I am in an unrestricted zone in a big city, could I take off from my backyard, fly over a bunch of houses to another area without being in violation of California law? Assuming I don't hover in one spot like spying on someone?

When flying over Property, I fly as high as Possible! I was at 400 feet filming a Party and my Relatives didn’t even know I was there!

 

[Vic Moss]

I haven't ever heard of any supposed 500' 'rule' of airspace ownership.
It could have been a state thing as a proposal, or 500' might be a misinterpretation of the (usual) lower limit for light manned aircraft to fly at or above, where I suppose some may wrongly think because of that, that below 500' 'belongs' to the ground underneath.

Even with the infamous Causby v the US case of aircraft impeding on a landowners rights to airspace settled on 200' for that case, it did not set a precedent.

Actually, that was 83'.

"The NCCUSL has decided that the balance of interest in aerial trespass should be abandoned, and that any aerial trespass below 200’ should be treated as a trespass to land, with the right to bring an action without any requirement to prove an actual injury. The 200’ altitude limit is increased by the altitude of any structure. For example, if there is a building that is 100’ tall, any flight over the building below 300’ AGL would be a per se trespass."
( Drones: A Uniformly Bad Law | Casetext )

That "without any requirement to prove an actual injury" proved a little too unrealistic and easily manipulative.

Luckily the work of the NCCUSL (I've never heard of them) didn't go anywhere.

Their attempt at creating uniform law with the ULC committee (Tort Law Relating to Drones Committee - Uniform Law Commission) failed miserably. I was part of those discussions, and we had a fairly decent compromise worked out for their 2019 annual meeting in Anchorage. But there were some last minute complaints raised by some land rights attorneys who weren't part of the process. They had every opportunity to be part of the committee meetings but chose not to.

So the entire attempt was shelved.

Which is what we wanted to do anyway, so they basically shot themselves in the foot. We didn't mind.

Supposedly the ULC drone committee was going to reconvene, but that never happened. You can see some of the silly comments by landowner attorneys in the comments section of the page above.

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

I have three separate drones that qualify for OOP Category 1 ops. Including a Mini 2. Also, you can fly over moving vehicles, just not the people in them.

The likelihood is negligible.

You found a lighter battery for the Mini 2? Otherwise, how do you stay under the Category 1 weight limit with prop guards on?

 

[Vic Moss]

You found a lighter battery for the Mini 2? Otherwise, how do you stay under the Category 1 weight limit with prop guards on?

Here is our article on it:

Category 1-OOP Compliant-DJI Mini 2 - Drone Service Providers Alliance

Can the DJI Mini 2 be Category 1-Operations Over People compliant? We think so. All it takes is the Japanese Mini 2 battery, and a bit of judicious prop cage shaving. A quick disclaimer is in order. As per 14 CFR § 107.110, it is up to the Remote Pilot In Command (RPIC) to […]

dspalliance.org

 

[Wade L.]

Here is our article on it:

Category 1-OOP Compliant-DJI Mini 2 - Drone Service Providers Alliance

Can the DJI Mini 2 be Category 1-Operations Over People compliant? We think so. All it takes is the Japanese Mini 2 battery, and a bit of judicious prop cage shaving. A quick disclaimer is in order. As per 14 CFR § 107.110, it is up to the Remote Pilot In Command (RPIC) to […]

dspalliance.org

Pretty ingenious! What is the flight time with the Japanese battery?

 

[spamgnome]

The issue would be finding a "reasonable person" in California...

Seriously??

 

[Vic Moss]

Seriously??

No, it was a joke.

 

[Vic Moss]

Pretty ingenious! What is the flight time with the Japanese battery?

Not so great. I get about 10 minutes at 8000'MSL.

 

[offtheback]

Well, I reached out and got this reply already:

"Hi Vic,

Thank you for reaching out to our City Manager regarding drone regulations. Staff will look into the inquiry and follow-up with you.

Regards,

Danny Rivas
Acting Director of Public Works
City of West Hollywood
Phone: (323) XXX-XXXX"

I'll let you know what I hear. If you'd like, PM me your email address and I'll BCC you in the email exchange.

Is it a bit odd that the DPW guy responded?