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

[Doresain]

This is a grey area, it hasn't been tested in the modern era. The only case law that exists is 70 years old. Large military aircraft were flying as low as 83' above a guy's farm, causing his chickens to freak out and fly into walls, killing themselves. The supreme court essentially said that while the FAA regulates the airspace, aircraft were inhibiting the man's rights to use his property as intended.

A drone doesn't make the kind of noise a big 1940s military plane does, obviously, so the applicability is pretty murky - someone would, I assume, have to prove that the drone flying over their property prevented using that property as intended. I assume the most likely argument would be privacy-related, but that seems hard to prove if the drone is moving over the property (vs loitering above it).

The FAA has a lot of authorizations from congress that apply - regulating all navigable airspace (is the space below 400' that drones fly in 'navigable airspace?), regulating all aircraft, etc. The FAA certainly believes that it has the right to determine where it is/is not legal to fly and that local ordinances and private property don't currently mean much. We probably won't get a clear answer until it is tested in court a few more times.

 

[MarcObarlow]

Nextdoor is problematic. I typically avoid social media but signed up after a neighbor invited me. I followed casually then stupidly responded to a posted question - "Where can I get duck eggs locally". My response: "the best source for duck eggs is (wait for it...) a duck". You would have thought I insulted the guys mother. The response was humorless, quick and negative, except for the guy that originally asked the question. He thought it was hilarious and told everyone to calm down. That was all it took for me. Many Nextdoor-ers have little to do but complain about barking dogs, cats in their sandbox, creepy ice cream truck music and other nonsense. What happened to knocking on someone's door to introduce yourself and establish some rapport. Not a fan of Nextdoor.

 

[Astropin]

he riled up a bunch of other people saying they would shoot down the next drone they saw etc.

That would be highly illegal. You can not "shoot down" a drone in the US. even if it's 20ft above someone's head on their property.

 

[JeepDSL]

That would be highly illegal. You can not "shoot down" a drone in the US. even if it's 20ft above someone's head on their property.

Unfortunately, you can shoot down a drone in the U.S. and get away with it: Judge rules in favor of “Drone Slayer,” dismisses lawsuit filed by pilot

 

[HeavensAbove]

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

If it annoys them then there is the reason you may want to?

Sounds like the neighbour has a bee in his bonnet about perceived infringement of privacy. I would just fly high and wide of him, and deny any accusations he makes.

 

[Astropin]

Unfortunately, you can shoot down a drone in the U.S. and get away with it: Judge rules in favor of “Drone Slayer,” dismisses lawsuit filed by pilot

The Judge did not side with the "shooter" he simply said the case did not belong in Federal court and that it belonged in State court. So call this one "undecided".

"In a Tuesday opinion, Senior US District Judge Thomas B. Russell ruled in favor of Merideth’s motion to dismiss, finding that federal court is not the proper venue for this claim."

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

I wouldn't worry about this guy -- he's moved from "stay off my lawn" to "stay out of my sky".

 

[Thevicster]

I would never fly over my neighbours homes. No.

You're missing the point. It's not simply flying over homes, it's flying over private property. Unless you're entirely sure, and I'm entirely sure you're not entirely sure, you're flying over public land at all times, then the issue is exactly the same for you as it is for the OP.

 

[tcope]

The Judge did not side with the "shooter" he simply said the case did not belong in Federal court and that it belonged in State court. So call this one "undecided".

However, there is the case in KY where the judge did rule against the drone flier when the plaintiff admitted to shooting down the drone.

Judge rules Kentucky man had the right to shoot down his neighbor’s drone

When your family is a witness and states the drone was hovering over the property... it is apparently okay to shoot it down. Does not matter when the drone logs state.

 

[Robbyg]

Trust me folks I have seen it before. This thread could go on for 50 more pages and you will still not get a proper answer. We are in basically uncharted territory and therefore any judge can use his or her discretion on making a decision. Until the 1946 Supreme Court ruling is revisited it's pretty much the Wild West below 500ft.

Rob

 

[rickray]

Interesting Podcast on the subject:

 

[sprtbkrydr]

Interesting Podcast on the subject:

My advise to you would be to go fly your drone and quit worrying about everything that you read on the computer.

 

[Path Finder]

And to think I just wrapped my drone in florescent yellow and bought a strobe to help me see it. Now it seems I'm just making it easy target for everyone to see and to shoot down!!!

 

[Slayerstwin]

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.

What's the website I'll chime in and say how fun they are [emoji106] I'll help ya out [emoji108]

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

Thats the 2nd amendment at work.

A nation full of trigger happy and fully loaded to the back teeth snowflakes.

I hope a dingo eats your drone, bigot.

 

[JeepDSL]

The Judge did not side with the "shooter" he simply said the case did not belong in Federal court and that it belonged in State court. So call this one "undecided".

"In a Tuesday opinion, Senior US District Judge Thomas B. Russell ruled in favor of Merideth’s motion to dismiss, finding that federal court is not the proper venue for this claim."

You missed the first part of the story. First, the guy was charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment in county district court. The judge in that case did side with the shooter and dismissed the charges without reviewing the drone owner's evidence. Then, the drone owner filed a lawsuit in federal court (a mistake) and had it thrown out.

So, it's not "undecided" in Bullitt County Kentucky and this ruling establishes case law that would almost certainly be cited in future cases.

 

[the88man]

Fly it at 400 feet and hope he can spot it

 

[Hauptmann]

Your neighbor may be in for a surprise if he tries to shoot down your drone. Effective drone "laws" are yet to be defined, but laws against discharging a firearm within city limits are quite specific. Firing into the air is certainly regarded as reckless endangerment. Punishment includes a stiff fine and possible jail time.

I try to be a good neighbor, and don't knowingly fly over people or houses. Like probably 99% of UAV flyers, I've never had a problem. Just use good sense, and you won't either.

I also don't attend public meetings if the "Drone Menace" is on the agenda. My well meaning attempts to "educate the public" would only make me a target

 

[Bennett Deckard]

Did he have aluminum foil wrapped on his head?

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

My well meaning attempts to "educate the public" would only make me a target

It's next to impossible to use facts and logic against someone who's emotional and irrational.