Owning Airspace

[Dmcvey]

Thoughts on this? Basically says you own down and up ( Heaven to ground )on your property. FAA has granted "easement" for flights over property.

 

[MS Coast]

Legal advice is often worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[karlblessing]

So... He gonna sue every company that he thinks orbited a satillite directly over his house?

Only thing you can control I'd imagine is anything that has to touch your property to be there.

 

[Mavic Merrick]

ALL airspace is public unless otherwise specified by the FEDERAL AVATION ADMINISTRATION! Property owners are not allowed to destroy drone unless it has LANDED on their property. And, it is a federal felony to destroy a drone because you are destroying private property in public airspace, drones are protected under that exact same rule as shooting a manned aircraft out of the sky.

 

[Mavic Merrick]

Can’t stop airplanes, helicopters, balloons, satellites, etc… going over your property, why should drones be treated differently? Well, the short answer is that they are no different than any of those things and they have full right to fly over your property unless they are being used to ram into people or ram into your house

 

[karlblessing]

Can’t stop airplanes, helicopters, balloons, satellites, etc… going over your property, why should drones be treated differently? Well, the short answer is that they are no different than any of those things and they have full right to fly over your property unless they are being used to ram into people or ram into your house

I imagine the only time it would make a difference, being unrelated to the airspace is if used for harassment (like just hovering a helicopter over a house for the sake of annoyance).

But there are already laws in place against that kind of behavior and would be redundant to restrict airspace for it.

 

[Mavic Merrick]

Thoughts on this? Basically says you own down and up ( Heaven to ground )on your property. FAA has granted "easement" for flights over property.

Hmmm… you are a lawyer… a BAD one too!

 

[Skywatcher2001]

ALL airspace is public unless otherwise specified by the FEDERAL AVATION ADMINISTRATION! Property owners are not allowed to destroy drone unless it has LANDED on their property. And, it is a federal felony to destroy a drone because you are destroying private property in public airspace, drones are protected under that exact same rule as shooting a manned aircraft out of the sky.

I completely agree . . . this YT Video Guy will get you arrested. Building code also dictates how high you can build (in commercial and in residential zones). Nobody owns the airspace. Heaven and ****are religious identifiers and cannot be defined. There is also 'Space Law' that he's COMPLETELY ignoring. At some point, the moon and planets will align over someone's property (not to mention stars), then Maritime Law applies.

He's after clicks, subs, views, likes, shares and follows !

 

[Chip]

I imagine the only time it would make a difference, being unrelated to the airspace is if used for harassment (like just hovering a helicopter over a house for the sake of annoyance).

But there are already laws in place against that kind of behavior and would be redundant to restrict airspace for it.

Yes, there are already state laws governing reckless endangerment, harassment, invasion of privacy, trespassing and voyeurism which may apply which is exactly why the FAA is not the sole authority on use of “airspace.” Let us take your example of someone who is hovering their drone 10 feet in the air over your backyard and it bothers and annoys you. Does anyone think the only recourse is to call the FAA and complain?

 

[Skyryder]

But what if the shots I get from hovering over your backyard are of Karen in her leopard print tube top? Can I sue for the damage it did to my eyes?

 

[Mavic Merrick]

But what if the shots I get from hovering over your backyard are of Karen in her leopard print tube top? Can I sue for the damage it did to my eyes?

ABSOLUTELY!!! No possible way for you to lose that lawsuit. Are you referring the person who made that video as “the Karen in a leopard tube top”? I would be if I were you.

 

[Chip]

Can’t stop airplanes, helicopters, balloons, satellites, etc… going over your property, why should drones be treated differently? Well, the short answer is that they are no different than any of those things and they have full right to fly over your property unless they are being used to ram into people or ram into your house

I think if you read the case you will see that the US Supreme Court said the very opposite in Causby v United States. The court concluded that flights of US military aircraft over private land were so low and frequent that they interfered with the property owner's use and enjoyment of his land so as to amount to a "taking" of property requiring compensation under the US Constitution. This has nothing to do with ramming into people or houses. The court expressly rejected the government's argument that no one owned the air and its pilots could fly as low and loud as they wanted with no regard or concern for any private property owner.

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

United States v. Causby

supreme.justia.com

 

[Vic Moss]

Don't confuse ownership with control. Just because you own the airspace, you don't necessarily control it.

Also, there will be 3 or 4 of use on Ken Heron's show talking about this guy and his video. I'll post a link once we tape it. It'll be a week or so before we all have free time to tape it.

 

[spsphotos]

Besides, for most people they don't own their property...bank does. .

 

[FromBerlin]

I think if you read the case you will see that the US Supreme Court said the very opposite in Causby v United States. The court concluded that flights of US military aircraft over private land were so low and frequent that they interfered with the property owner's use and enjoyment of his land so as to amount to a "taking" of property requiring compensation under the US Constitution. This has nothing to do with ramming into people or houses. The court expressly rejected the government's argument that no one owned the air and its pilots could fly as low and loud as they wanted with no regard or concern for any private property owner.

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

United States v. Causby

supreme.justia.com

Best "READ" the court´s decision. They explicitely say "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. Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." So, if you fly low and look for Karen, this is clearly an appropriation. If you pass at adequate height, no lingering, no harassment - you are within the law and will not incur any "partial taking"

 

[Mavic Merrick]

Yes, there are already state laws governing reckless endangerment, harassment, invasion of privacy, trespassing and voyeurism which may apply which is exactly why the FAA is not the sole authority on use of “airspace.” Let us take your example of someone who is hovering their drone 10 feet in the air over your backyard and it bothers and annoys you. Does anyone think the only recourse is to call the FAA and complain?

The right path to take at that point is to call your local police and tell them the situation. The FAA wants nothing to do with it and they aren’t able to always send an officer. Also, do not try to shoot or destroy the drone in any way shape or form because it is a federal felony to do so. Basically, call the police and tell them the situation, if you destroy the drone the police will be getting you in trouble instead of the drone pilot.

 

[Mavic Merrick]

Besides, for most people they don't own their property...bank does. .

The house is owned by the bank and the land is owned by the government, “property tax” is no different than paying the government to rent the land.

 

[karlblessing]

The house is owned by the bank and the land is owned by the government, “property tax” is no different than paying the government to rent the land.

I saw it more as rental of the public services provided to that region/area, rather than the land itself. (The more amenities provided to the public of the area, typically the higher the property tax).

But course not like the government couldn't just practice eminent domain anyways.

 

[spsphotos]

Best "READ" the court´s decision. They explicitely say "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. Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." So, if you fly low and look for Karen, this is clearly an appropriation. If you pass at adequate height, no lingering, no harassment - you are within the law and will not incur any "partial taking"

I disagree...simply flying "low" and looking for "Karen" is not within the opinion of the ruling. It has to be low and "frequent" AND interfere with the enjoyment and use of the land. A drone, unless it does it every day, does not constitute all the requirements. And to top that, if you are harassing a landowner with a drone, there are many other laws that come into play.

 

[Lets Fly]

Thoughts on this? Basically says you own down and up ( Heaven to ground )on your property. FAA has granted "easement" for flights over property.

1, you have to stop moving your right hand when talking on a video. 2, you could have given that answer in three minutes. 3, the earth moves around the sun at about 18 miles a second, so every second the space you claimed you owned before is gone. Your going to have to write that into the silly law. After all the talk, you never came up with an easement height.
I wouldn't fly ten feet off my neighbors property, but I'll fly 100 or 200 feet. So what's the answer?