Height above private property?

[BigAl07]

Let's be sure to keep in mind that controlling whether you Take Off/Land on said property has NOTHING to do with airspace etc. That is a Land Use issue and nothing to do with FAA regulations.

A property owner (private citizen or Govt ) can control/dictate what you do while physically ON said property.

Govt, HOA, and Land Owners do have the right to control what happens from/on their property.

 

[Chip]

Let's be sure to keep in mind that controlling whether you Take Off/Land on said property has NOTHING to do with airspace etc. That is a Land Use issue and nothing to do with FAA regulations.

A property owner (private citizen or Govt ) can control/dictate what you do while physically ON said property.

Govt, HOA, and Land Owners do have the right to control what happens from/on their property.

The sky banner case does show, however, a particular situation where a city could prohibit an aircraft from a particular activity while flying over its property. Maybe thin edge of wedge? In the Hawaii case, the FAA fumed that its self-professed unilateral authority over all air in the country was successfully challenged.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

As far as the statement in the OP "We have a neighbor claiming most airspace above their house is their property and drones flying overhead is, therefor, illegal.", there are many post that correctly point out that most of that airspace is controlled by the FAA and not the property owner, the town or the state.

As for the airspace immediately above the property I think reasonableness would dictate that the airspace up to the height of the highest object on the property (top of the house, top of trees, etc.) would be in control of the property owner unless it became a hinderance to the use of the national airspace.

That said the use of drones for commercial purposes may have an impact. If you have a 150' tree on your property that interferes with delivery drones can the FAA demand you cut it down?

 

[AMann]

As far as the statement in the OP "We have a neighbor claiming most airspace above their house is their property and drones flying overhead is, therefor, illegal.", there are many post that correctly point out that most of that airspace is controlled by the FAA and not the property owner, the town or the state.

As for the airspace immediately above the property I think reasonableness would dictate that the airspace up to the height of the highest object on the property (top of the house, top of trees, etc.) would be in control of the property owner unless it became a hinderance to the use of the national airspace.

That said the use of drones for commercial purposes may have an impact. If you have a 150' tree on your property that interferes with delivery drones can the FAA demand you cut it down?

Said 150’ tree would allow drones to fly up to 550’ AGL within 400’ of it. It would also rain lots of presents on the owner from those commercial drones lacking good obstacle avoidance systems. And sadly, in many states, neighbors with even new solar panels that are shaded by it can get it cut down.

But seriously, I think trees would not be removed for drone traffic, else aerial towers and others would be too.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Said 150’ tree would allow drones to fly up to 550’ AGL within 400’ of it. It would also rain lots of presents on the owner from those commercial drones lacking good obstacle avoidance systems. And sadly, in many states, neighbors with even new solar panels that are shaded by it can get it cut down.

But seriously, I think trees would not be removed for drone traffic, else aerial towers and others would be too.

I'm not familiar with this but if an "existing" tree on someone's property blocked a "new" solar panel installation on a neighbors property the state can force the property owner to cut it down (or as much as need to unblock the panel)? How about an existing tree on someone's property that blocks satellite TV reception a neighbor wants to install?

 

[AMann]

I'm not familiar with this but if an "existing" tree on someone's property blocked a "new" solar panel installation on a neighbors property the state can force the property owner to cut it down (or as much as need to unblock the panel)? How about an existing tree on someone's property that blocks satellite TV reception a neighbor wants to install?

Solar access laws- depending on state... in California, an owner has to keep their existing trees from growing over and blocking a neighbor’s panels. They cannot grow a new tree that can block existing panels as well.

 

[tcope]

Flying over someone's house is not illegal per say, planes do it all of the time. This is specifically why it is not illegal. Supreme Court has basically ruled that flight cannot interfere with the property owners intended use of the property. You also cannot violate someone's right of privacy. Land owners do not own airspace above their property. They do have rights are far as use of that area but this does not pertain to flight over the property. If you want more info, look to US v Causby.

 

[DoomMeister]

As far as the statement in the OP "We have a neighbor claiming most airspace above their house is their property and drones flying overhead is, therefor, illegal.", there are many post that correctly point out that most of that airspace is controlled by the FAA and not the property owner, the town or the state.

As for the airspace immediately above the property I think reasonableness would dictate that the airspace up to the height of the highest object on the property (top of the house, top of trees, etc.) would be in control of the property owner unless it became a hinderance to the use of the national airspace.

That said the use of drones for commercial purposes may have an impact. If you have a 150' tree on your property that interferes with delivery drones can the FAA demand you cut it down?

I would plant even more, fast growing trees. Trees are the natural apex predators of delivery drones.

 

[dougiefresh27]

The air we breathe isn't ours. I try and stay above 200' over property and never linger over private property.

 

[bheiser1]

California addresses this directly:

Law section

”1708.8.
(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.”

 

[Chip]

California addresses this directly:

Law section

”1708.8.
(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.”

This CA law is often referred to as the "paparazzi law" as it was intended specifically to protect celebrities from "surveillance." Its a good example of how states do in fact retain some right to decide what activities UAVs may engage in while flying over private or public property despite the FAA's unquenchable thirst for sole domination.

 

[sar104]

This CA law is often referred to as the "paparazzi law" as it is intended specifically to protect celebrities from "surveillance." It a good example of how states do in fact retain some right to decide what activities UAVs may engage in while flying over private or public property despite the FAA's unquenchable thirst for sole domination.

To go further on that point, states clearly have the right to implement such privacy laws, but they are not in any way contrary to the FAA's control of airspace. The privacy laws prohibit the specified behavior (intent to capture intrusive photos or video), not simply the presence of the aircraft in the airspace.

 

[Chip]

To go further on that point, states clearly have the right to implement such privacy laws, but they are not in any way contrary to the FAA's control of airspace. The privacy laws prohibit the specified behavior (intent to capture intrusive photos or video), not simply the presence of the aircraft in the airspace.

Yes, I agree in general, but there can be legit argument over what is "contrary" to FAA control and it raises question whether states have the authority to say to Amazon and all the rest sure fly your drones just do not use them to (fill in blank: deliver products or whatever) because its too noisy, distracting, ugly and dangerous to our people on the ground in our opinion.

 

[Thomas B]

Yes, I agree in general, but there can be legit argument over what is "contrary" to FAA control and it raises question whether states have the authority to say to Amazon and all the rest sure fly your drones just do not use them to (fill in blank: deliver products or whatever) because its too noisy, distracting, ugly and dangerous to our people on the ground in our opinion.

It appears states do not have this authority. That said, my plan is to refuse to grant Amazon permission to deliver to me via drone or send it back to them if it is delivered via drone.

I believe there is a place for drone delivery... urgent medical supplies to a hospital as an example.

 

[sar104]

It appears states do not have this authority. That said, my plan is to refuse to grant Amazon permission to deliver to me via drone or send it back to them if it is delivered via drone.

I believe there is a place for drone delivery... urgent medical supplies to a hospital as an example.

I still cannot quite envisage how residential drone delivery is going to work out, but commercial/medical etc. is clearly a big opportunity.

 

[Steve_UK]

Looking through that document, it mentions markings on your drone that you may have, C0, C1, C2 etc. Anyone have those?
Also it mentions uploading your registration number onto the e-identification system. Is that a thing yet?

The C0 to C4 are classes of aircraft. No manufacturer has as yet produced or, as far as I am aware, even announced the release of any class-certified drone. I'm not even sure that the full specifications are finalized.

It is interesting to note that, with the correct pilot certification a C2 class aircraft can (when the new regulations are implemented) be flown in "low-speed mode" to within 5m of uninvolved people. Now that could be very useful!

 

[Chip]

Flying over someone's house is not illegal per say, planes do it all of the time. This is specifically why it is not illegal. Supreme Court has basically ruled that flight cannot interfere with the property owners intended use of the property. You also cannot violate someone's right of privacy. Land owners do not own airspace above their property. They do have rights are far as use of that area but this does not pertain to flight over the property. If you want more info, look to US v Causby.

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

 

[Chip]

The Kingston Daily Freeman Kingston, New York 28 May 1946

 

[Chip]

The legal issue in Causby was whether the United States military's flying of large planes over Causby's farm in order to land and take-off from airbase nearby violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is arguably a very different legal issue than whether flying aircraft (including UAVs) over private property may violate state or local trespassing, nuisance, harassment, stalking, or privacy laws.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution and applies to every level of the government, including federal, state, and local. The last clause of the Fifth Amendment is the so-called "Takings Clause", which limits the power of eminent domain by requiring "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use:

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without just compensation....

In Causby, the court concluded that if the US wants to keep flying over Causby's property in furtherance of the war effort then okay so be it. But, given the extreme noise and disturbance the flights were causing to the property owner below, the US government would have to pay "just compensation" as it was depriving Causby of the use and enjoyment of his property for the benefit of the public.

One type of aircraft that flew over Causby's property as low as 85 feet

 

[Deleted member 93449]

The legal issue in Causby was whether the United States military's flying of large planes over Causby's farm in order to land and take-off from airbase nearby violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is arguably a very different legal issue than whether flying aircraft (including UAVs) over private property may violate state or local trespassing, nuisance, harassment, stalking, or privacy laws.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution and applies to every level of the government, including federal, state, and local. The last clause of the Fifth Amendment is the so-called "Takings Clause", which limits the power of eminent domain by requiring "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use:

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without just compensation....

In Causby, the court concluded that if the US wants to keep flying over Causby's property in furtherance of the war effort then okay so be it. But, given the extreme noise and disturbance the flights were causing to the property owner below, the US government would have to pay "just compensation" as it was depriving Causby of the use and enjoyment of his property for the benefit of the public.

One type of aircraft that flew over Causby's property as low as 85 feet
View attachment 90488

If I am understanding this correctly the property owner does "own" a certain amount of the airspace over their property but the government can make use of that airspace if there is a compelling reason to do so but must pay compensation. Is that correct?