Homeowner Claims Airspace Up To 500 ft Above His House - Legal?

[rickray]

Hi there,

A local resident of my community forum (Nextdoor.com) has posted that no one has the right to fly a drone over his property under 500 ft. He is pointing people to the US "Bundle Of Rights" law, which I Googled, which states that private property owners must grant an easement to anyone flying any sort of aircraft over their property under 500 ft in an urban or suburban areas and 360 ft in rural areas.

I objected to his statement, and pointed out that the FAA does not allow UAV flight over 400 ft, effectively making it impossible to fly a drone over private property in any urban or suburban area of the US, according to his assertion. He said that is correct. He maintained that he has the full right to sue any drone flyer for "trespassing" if they fly over his property. I asked him to present legal precedent for this and he said there soon would be. He claims that the FAA has no right to violate a homeowner's property rights by granting an "easement" over their property.

Has there been any legal precedent for a property owner claiming "Bundle Of Rights" laws against a drone flyer? I'm sure violation of privacy is common, but could someone actually sue me for trespassing just for flying over their property under 500 ft? If not, what is the legal limit for flying over someone's property, provided you are not violating their privacy?

Insight appreciated!

 

[tcope]

A local resident of my community forum (Nextdoor.com) has posted that no one has the right to fly a drone over his property under 500 ft. He is pointing people to the US "Bundle Of Rights" law, which I Googled, which states that private property owners must grant an easement to anyone flying any sort of aircraft over their property under 500 ft in an urban or suburban areas and 360 ft in rural areas.

Not entirely correct. It's been ruled that planes flying over private property 500' and above are not infringing on someone's right to use their property. This does not mean that people own or even have an easement to that 500'. Causby vs US states that a property owner has a right to use their land as it was intended and the case shows that a plane flying at 83' above that property _can_ interfere with that us.

Again, none of that airspace is privately owned. It's still public airspace.

I objected to his statement, and pointed out that the FAA does not allow UAV flight over 400 ft, effectively making it impossible to fly a drone over private property in any urban or suburban area of the US, according to his assertion.

You are incorrect and I don't see why people in this form keep stating this. It's not illegal in the US to fly above 400'. It's not a regulation, it's a recommendation.

He said that is correct. He maintained that he has the full right to sue any drone flyer for "trespassing" if they fly over his property. I asked him to present legal precedent for this and he said there soon would be. He claims that the FAA has no right to violate a homeowner's property rights by granting an "easement" over their property.

There soon would be? Huh? There soon will be unicorns as well. There is no and what is "soon"?

He can sue anyone he wants. Having the law on your side and winning is something different. A property owner has the right to use their property as it was intended. You could be found guilty if it can be shown that you infringed on that right. Right now, there is only case law up to 83'.

Of course you can always have a rough judge that does not care about the law and rules on their emotions. That actually does happen often in the lower courts.

 

[rickray]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Yes, I can fly above the recommended height of 400' but I usually don't want to. My question is, is this homeowner technically right? Are we all just operating in a gray area until someone wants to challenge us with the "Bundle Of Rights"?

 

[benjaminkan]

I guess since we are flying the mavics he would not be able to hear it once it flys more than 30 ft off the ground anyway. Perhaps fly full sports mode over his house hahaha. [emoji23]

 

[Robbyg]

As far as I know the FAA has set no minimum altitude and they are the ones that regulate airspace.

The supreme court has an old ruling that states that 83 feet is the reserved air space for homeowners.

Google Scholar
Supreme court ruling link.


My suggestion is that if you don't need to fly over his house, don't and just avoid the hassle. Going to court even if you win is absolutely no fun and very time consuming.

Rob

 

[rickray]

As far as I know the FAA has set no minimum altitude and they are the ones that regulate airspace.

The supreme court has an old ruling that states that 83 feet is the reserved air space for homeowners.

Google Scholar
Supreme court ruling link.


My suggestion is that if you don't need to fly over his house, don't and just avoid the hassle. Going to court even if you win is absolutely no fun and very time consuming.

Rob

Good advice Rob. The thing is, this is a neighborhood website which actually covers my entire city and he riled up a bunch of other people saying they would shoot down the next drone they saw etc. So I have no idea where he lives but just resented his reflexive drone-hating paranoia. He also claimed that he was being spied on from 150 yards away and that you can zoom drone cameras into his bedroom, so he might have just been on commercial break from Alex Jones but he set a tone for the city and I found myself the only person defending drone fliers.

 

[firestars]

Not sure why a) you would fly over someone's house and b) why you would want to antagonise your neighbours.

 

[rickray]

Who said anything about antagonizing people firestars? Unless you live in Antarctica, it's a little bit hard to fly your drone without flying over private property at some point. Are you saying you never fly over houses, fields, or other private property?

 

[Michael W.]

I guess since we are flying the mavics he would not be able to hear it once it flys more than 30 ft off the ground anyway. Perhaps fly full sports mode over his house hahaha. [emoji23]

I don't know why this is often repeated. I can clearly hear my Mavic even when it is at 200 ft and goes over my head.

 

[benjaminkan]

I don't know why this is often repeated. I can clearly hear my Mavic even when it is at 200 ft and goes over my head.

Could it be that it might be a little different when flying in the city and in rural areas especially with sound pollution? It could be that when flying out in a wide open space with only the beautiful notes of nature's own music, the mavic can be heard. In the city no chance.

 

[firestars]

Who said anything about antagonizing people firestars? Unless you live in Antarctica, it's a little bit hard to fly your drone without flying over private property at some point. Are you saying you never fly over houses, fields, or other private property?

I would never fly over my neighbours homes. No.

 

[benjaminkan]

I would never fly over my neighbours homes. No.

Might be possible if you stay out in whoop whoop

 

[logge]

Might be possible if you stay out in whoop whoop

Here in France you are not allowed to fly over any buildings, parks or public spaces. It definitely limits the places you can fly, but has the added advantage of forcing me to do a lot of exercise whenever I want to fly my Mavic.

 

[dewster]

Try not to loiter. The Mavic is practically a ghost a 400 ft. Just keep your craft moving. They'll only know it's there if they happen to look up when it passes.

 

[tcope]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Yes, I can fly above the recommended height of 400' but I usually don't want to. My question is, is this homeowner technically right? Are we all just operating in a gray area until someone wants to challenge us with the "Bundle Of Rights"?

We are in a grey area... that is part of the problem. Case law does states, when it comes to aircraft flying over property, that the property owner has a right to use the property as it was intended and that an airplane using public airspace above can be held liable for damages. This is a civil ruling. This is why many local areas are [attempting] to make laws that make this a criminal offense as well. To "protect" the people and allow the government to go after someone as well.

What you are talking about are civil matters, not criminal. Two different things. Civil matters can be just about anything. I don't like the way you looked at me. I can sue you. I won't win, but I _can_ make the argument. Criminal means that I need to show you violated an existing law that specifically applies to what you did. Criminal is much more clear.

 

[tcope]

I would never fly over my neighbours homes. No.

Yes you would.. unless by neighbor you mean that some that is directly adjacent to yours. I'm willing to bet you have flown "over" someone's home at some point. Same thing as we are discussing here.

 

[Will.i.am]

Go on NextDoor.com and offer free roof and gutter inspections to your neighbors. The homeowner can give you permission to fly over his property, and you have a legitimate reason to be there. You will also generate some good will with the community.

 

[rickray]

I don't mean literally your "neighbor". The man voicing his concern is not even in my neighborhood, although he used an information sharing site called Nextdoor. He is just saying that if you accidentally cross his property at under 500 ft (!!!) that you are violating his personal property airspace and he will bring charges against you. I get that he could do it. But I guess I was wondering if anyone else had been confronted with the "Bundle Of Rights" "law" he is claiming?

 

[JeepDSL]

As far as I know the FAA has set no minimum altitude and they are the ones that regulate airspace.

The supreme court has an old ruling that states that 83 feet is the reserved air space for homeowners.

Google Scholar
Supreme court ruling link.


My suggestion is that if you don't need to fly over his house, don't and just avoid the hassle. Going to court even if you win is absolutely no fun and very time consuming.

Rob

Lots of sources make the 83' claim, but the Supreme Court opinion states: "The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the land, is part of the public domain. We need not determine at this time what those precise limits are." The 83' applied only in this specific case. There are also people who quote 500' based on this statement in the case: "The minimum prescribed by the Authority is 500 feet during the day and 1,000 feet at night for air carriers (Civil Air Regulations, Pt. 61, §§ 61.7400, 61. 7401, Code Fed. Reg. Cum. Supp., Tit. 14, ch. 1),...", when the statement actually continues with, "and from 300 feet to 1,000 feet for other aircraft, depending on the type of plane and the character of the terrain. Id., Pt. 60, §§ 60.350-60.3505, Fed. Reg. Cum. Supp., supra." So, the minimum for air carriers is 500' but for other aircraft it's 300'. So, it appears that I could legally fly any aircraft (even a 737) at 300' AGL over his house as long as I'm not operating as an air carrier, but I'm not a lawyer so I may not be interpreting things correctly (and not a licensed pilot and don't own a 737 so I won't try the flight).

Knowing how things go in the US, there will eventually be a case testing the limits of UAV flight; probably sooner rather than later. (CALL MY LAWYER!!)

 

[JeepDSL]

the "Bundle Of Rights" "law"

Bundle Of Rights

People who don't understand drones (or other things) and don't want to understand drones are always going to scream "privacy" and "rights" and do whatever they can to infringe your rights. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

Guns kill people - ban guns
People kill people - ban people (as long as I get the last shot)