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

[QuadKid]

Private Homeowners do not own the airspace above their property. Certain local laws my apply in municipalities, people have a reasonable expectancy of privacy when they seclude themselves like their home, sanctuary, ect...but in public you are fair game.

I have a copy of the Laws just can't figure how to post it to the forum yet, gonna work on that.

 

[Oz9902]

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.

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.


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.

First, how is guy going to know the difference between 300,400', tape measure ?

 

[cderoche]

You MIGHT get 5 years in prison. No judge has made this the case and the only one who has heard a case relating to shooting a drone down has ruled in favor of said shooter.

There eventually will either be a case precedent for it someday or the FAA will stop calling drones aircraft and also stop trying to regulate them. Just because it hasn't happen yet doesn't mean it won't. This is still new stuff for everyone. I would not want to be the first guy on trial for it for sure.

 

[flipside05us]

My argument was with the implication that one can't hear a mavic pro above 30'

But one can.

 

[flipside05us]

My argument was with the implication that one can't hear a mavic pro above 30'

Hibby my apologies, it quoted your response. I meant to comment on the op.

 

[Lapeer20m]

But one can.

I live in the country and I'm surprised how well you can hear mavic at 400' agl, especially in sport mode.

I flew the fire dept mavic at a scene last week and people commented on how silent it was even though it was less than 50' elevation. Compared to a Fire engine, mavic is whisper quiet.

How far away you can easily hear mavic completely depends on the environment.

 

[QuadKid]

Private Homeowners do not own the airspace above their property. Certain local laws my apply in municipalities, people have a reasonable expectancy of privacy when they seclude themselves like their home, sanctuary, ect...but in public you are fair game.

I have a copy of the Laws just can't figure how to post it to the forum yet, gonna work on that.

Here they are:

UAV Privacy Law.pdf

 

[cderoche]

First, how is guy going to know the difference between 300,400', tape measure ?

First the dude will run and get a laser range finder, and if he measures under 500 foot, then he run back and get the shotgun.

 

[cderoche]

You MIGHT get 5 years in prison. No judge has made this the case and the only one who has heard a case relating to shooting a drone down has ruled in favor of said shooter.

I'm also fairly certain that no one would likely ever get 5 years for the threat of shooting down a Mavic Pro. Probably wouldn't get any time whatsoever, and I'd be shocked if anything were even done about it at all unless the shoot down occurred. Then, the fine and potential jail time would likely depend on what happened, case by case basis. For example, if the Mavic fell from 300 feet up and hit someone in the head and killed them as a result of it being shot down? Someone is getting some jail time you can bet. Or if it was simply shot down and landed in a field? Maybe they'd only get a fine and probation. Threaten to shoot down an airliner and the stakes are much higher. Terrorist watch list, and most likely jail time.

 

[QuadKid]

Just firing a weapon straight up can be a felony in some areas.

 

[cderoche]

Just firing a weapon straight up can be a felony in some areas.

Local ordinance here is can't fire a gun within 1000' of a residence. (Short of protecting someone's life) Misdemeanor here but still a crime.

 

[atlasx2001]

Just firing a weapon straight up can be a felony in some areas.

Not just that...what goes up will definitely come back down. Not a smart idea.

 

[cderoche]

Not just that...what goes up will definitely come back down. Not a smart idea.

Did I mention I love this thread?

 

[BobbyDigital]

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 do you think they would be shooting a drone down with? I dont think people really think that threat all the way through. Most people are thinking theyre going to shoot it down with some sort of gun... fine by me. Shooting my drone down would require you to discharge a firearm in city or town limits and thats almost ALWAYS illegal. If they shoot it down or even attempt to I would call the police and turn them in for shooting firearms in the city or town limits and if they actually hit it I would then look into pressing charges for vandalism or destroying my $1000 + property.

 

[Lapeer20m]

What do you think they would be shooting a drone down with? I dont think people really think that threat all the way through. Most people are thinking theyre going to shoot it down with some sort of gun... fine by me. Shooting my drone down would require you to discharge a firearm in city or town limits and thats almost ALWAYS illegal. If they shoot it down or even attempt to I would call the police and turn them in for shooting firearms in the city or town limits and if they actually hit it I would then look into pressing charges for vandalism or destroying my $1000 + property.

I live in a place where nearly everybody hunts. My property stretches for a half mile in one direction. I do have neighbor's realatively close in other directions. I consider flying over their property risky. Shooting down a drone out here where it is perfectly legal and safe to discharge firearms is a distinct possibility and there are likely no real repercussions. For these reasons, among others, I try to be polite and not fly near people's houses especially at lower elevations.

This is totally different from living in a city, or in some European country where population density is greater and /or access to and use of firearms is more strictly regulated. As a pilot, you should still be polite, but the risk of getting shot down is much less.

 

[rickray]

The debate has continued on Nextdoor. It turns out quite a few people use drones for real estate ads, which means they do a fair amount of hovering over and around private property as well as neighbors in urban areas.

 

[cderoche]

I live in a place where nearly everybody hunts. My property stretches for a half mile in one direction. I do have neighbor's realatively close in other directions. I consider flying over their property risky. Shooting down a drone out here where it is perfectly legal and safe to discharge firearms is a distinct possibility and there are likely no real repercussions. For these reasons, among others, I try to be polite and not fly near people's houses especially at lower elevations.

This is totally different from living in a city, or in some European country where population density is greater and /or access to and use of firearms is more strictly regulated. As a pilot, you should still be polite, but the risk of getting shot down is much less.

The debate has continued on Nextdoor. It turns out quite a few people use drones for real estate ads, which means they do a fair amount of hovering over and around private property as well as neighbors in urban areas.

I'm glad more and more commercial operators are using drones.... when the nut jobs start shooting those down maybe, just maybe, that's when you will see the laws begin to get enforced.

 

[Desertdrone]

On slightly different note, just wandering (if not already) someone has sued Google "earth" for violating someone's privacy by taking areal and street photos of their property. Not that Google guy's are flying low but they can surely zoom in. Haha!
Cheers Mavic operators!

 

[chopcat]

Airspace for dummies says
A landowner owns as much of the air above the surface as she can reasonably use in connection with the surface. That isn’t a clear line, obviously. Land wouldn’t be useable at all if one didn’t own some of the air above the surface; almost any use of the land requires using some airspace above the surface.

which seems pretty sensible. reasonableness is key.

 

[cderoche]

On slightly different note, just wandering (if not already) someone has sued Google "earth" for violating someone's privacy by taking areal and street photos of their property. Not that Google guy's are flying low but they can surely zoom in. Haha!
Cheers Mavic operators!

Yep its been done already, more than once.

Google Admits Street View Project Violated Privacy

Quebec Woman Wins Lawsuit Against Google For Street View Of Her Breast

But when you're Google, you can easily shake off a $7,000,000 lawsuit and keep on trucking.