Height above private property?

[Chip]

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?

The use of the word "own" can be problematic in this situation. As I believe SAR may have mentioned earlier, Its more like the right to use and enjoy the airspace above your land. But, yes, Causby stands for proposition that governmental interference with use and enjoyment of property through aerial activities may constitute a "taking" requiring compensation.

 

[drjulian]

If I may chime in: Although the neighbor may be wrong in claiming the airspace, I think it is more important to consider the reality that making an enemy of your neighbor will make your flying more difficult and more stressful. Even if you "legally" fly over his house, it is probably to YOUR best interest to avoid flying over it if you can or at least at a height that he would be unaware of.

If we as drone pilots get a reputation of being unfriendly or unwilling to cooperate, soon there will be so many laws against us that it will be difficult to fly at all. Remember there are more non-pilots then pilots ....Just My Opinion.

 

[LongWindFPV]

So I've read this: Fact Sheet – Small Unmanned Aircraft Regulations (Part 107), but am wondering if this is accurate? Is flying over someone's house illegal if no one is is outside under the drone? We have a neighbor claiming most airspace above their house is their property and drones flying overhead is, therefor, illegal. Can anyone provide clarification?

Every city will have a different law. When I first moved to Las Vegas back in 2013 and copped my first and only 3DR Solo, I googled and found that Las Vegas has an actual law that states a 250 feet minimum altitude when flying over residential areas with a drone. "With respect to reasonable privacy", it stated.

 

[bheiser1]

In my continuing quest to seek out photogenic, safe, and legal places to fly in CA, I ran across this.
No Drone Zone
I think it’s the first time I’ve seen a CA/local mention of specific parts of the airspace, and they explicitly discuss “State authority over airspace”.

Even more interesting, is some wording I found about “commercial” photography (e.g. even an individual selling photos). It’s possible, with a permit, if you get $10M (Ten Million USD) in liability insurance.

California State Parks

California State Parks, State of California

www.parks.ca.gov

 

[Thomas B]

In my continuing quest to seek out photogenic, safe, and legal places to fly in CA, I ran across this.
No Drone Zone
I think it’s the first time I’ve seen a CA/local mention of specific parts of the airspace, and they explicitly discuss “State authority over airspace”.

Even more interesting, is some wording I found about “commercial” photography (e.g. even an individual selling photos). It’s possible, with a permit, if you get $10M (Ten Million) in liability insurance.

California State Parks

California State Parks, State of California

www.parks.ca.gov

Interesting since they don’t have any due to superseding federal law/regs fro FAA/DOT. This is typical though. Still, not worth the hassle to fly these areas.

 

[bheiser1]

Struck out again, this time on public property (US Corp of Army Engineers recreation area). This sure is getting super frustrating.

 

[tcope]

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?

Better said, the property has an easement (not ownership) of the air above the property. Someone cannot infringe on the normal use of that property.

 

[Gringorio]

Thank you everyone for the informative comments! I've shared the relevant info/links on the neighborhood forum, but it seems the thread has gone silent. Hopefully now, more people are aware of the issues and know where to look for accurate information.

 

[Chip]

This is next. State and local governments charge residents to look up at night sky. Dont worry, the FAA has a legal team gearing up to prove it alone controls who may look at sky. Proposed regs and federal licensure requirements are under review.

Back in the day, you didn’t need permission to look up at the sky.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson January 22, 2020

 

[BigAl07]

This is next. State and local governments charge residents to look up at night sky. Dont worry, the FAA has a legal team gearing up to prove it alone controls who may look at sky. Proposed regs and federal licensure requirements are under review.

Back in the day, you didn’t need permission to look up at the sky.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson January 22, 2020

View attachment 92506

That's got to be some kind of joke or something. what's the back-story on that?

 

[sar104]

That's got to be some kind of joke or something. what's the back-story on that?

It looks like permission to be a closed park after dark for astronomy purposes.

 

[Chip]

That's got to be some kind of joke or something. what's the back-story on that?

Its a real law and permit but I was joking about the FAA's involvement. That was the wiseacre in me.

It looks like permission to be a closed park after dark for astronomy purposes.

Sounds about right (but less ominous when put that way)! A good example of how local park may regulate activities as seemingly innocuous as looking up at sky. At first blush, it sounds preposterous to regulate stargazing but if its occurring "after normal park hours" then it might very well be a legit exercise of "police power."

 

[sar104]

Its a real law and permit but I was joking about the FAA's involvement. That was the wiseacre in me.



Sounds about right (but less ominous when put that way)! A good example of how local park may regulate activities as seemingly innocuous as looking up at sky. At first blush, it sounds preposterous to regulate stargazing but if its occurring "after normal park hours" then it might very well be a legit exercise of "police power."

We have similar events here in a park that is closed at night (mostly for safety reasons I think). They are not regulating "looking at the sky" - they are regulating being in the park when it is closed to the public, i.e. giving permission for certain specific events or activities by named individuals or organizations.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It's in NY state. Nothing would surprise me about regulations in NY state.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Actually I just noticed it's not just in NYS but Suffolk County LI so I'm doubly not surprised. But as sar104 said, it's probably permission to be in the park after sundown.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Actually I just noticed it's not just in NYS but Suffolk County LI so I'm doubly not surprised. But as sar104 said, it's probably permission to be in the park after sundown.

Expect the after hours thing is spot on . . . and perhaps to bring such gear in for the purpose.
Some of those amatuer telescopes are quite large and there might be park liability considerations.

 

[sar104]

Expect the after hours thing is spot on . . . and perhaps to bring such gear in for the purpose.
Some of those amatuer telescopes are quite large and there might be park liability considerations.

Does New York Require a Permit to Stargaze in State Parks?

A few websites reported, with a note of outrage, that New York state was charging an annual fee to take in the night sky at six Long Island public parks.

www.snopes.com

 

[Chip]

Expect the after hours thing is spot on . . . and perhaps to bring such gear in for the purpose.
Some of those amatuer telescopes are quite large and there might be park liability considerations.

Plus these ne'er do wells who slink around in the dark when they should be working tend to attract criminal activity which brings additional burdens on police and courts (at least thats the classic argument justifying an ordinance under local government's police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents).

 

[sar104]

View attachment 92824

Plus these ne'er do wells who slink around in the dark when they should be working tend to attract criminal activity which brings additional burdens on police and courts (at least thats the classic argument justifying an ordinance under local government's police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents).

But isn't this just an accommodation to astronomers to allow them into parks that are otherwise closed at night? That undoubtedly incurs additional public cost to administer and police.

 

[Chip]

But isn't this just an accommodation to astronomers to allow them into parks that are otherwise closed at night? That undoubtedly incurs additional public cost to administer and police.

Yes, I agree with you. Its an accommodation and the permit fee could be justified by additional public cost to administer and police in this particular case. I am just poking some fun at the idea. The ironic thing is that the catchy headline people remember --New York charges to look at sky---is deemed accurate although it fails utterly to convey the nuanced purpose of the regulation.