US FAA regulation reference minimum height

[High_Order1]

I'm reviewing my state's laws again (Tennessee)

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405
Criminal Trespass

(d)
For purposes of this section, “enter” means intrusion of the entire body or when a person causes an unmanned aircraft to enter that portion of the airspace above the owner's land not regulated as navigable airspace by the federal aviation administration.

Where exactly is that? What's the FAA regulation I can cite for that?

edit to add underlining

 

[mavic3usa]

I'm reviewing my state's laws again (Tennessee)

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405
Criminal Trespass

(d)
For purposes of this section, “enter” means intrusion of the entire body or when a person causes an unmanned aircraft to enter that portion of the airspace above the owner's land not regulated as navigable airspace by the federal aviation administration.

Where exactly is that? What's the FAA regulation I can cite for that?

That would be whatever the TN authorities deem it to be while they are investigating you. It will be the perfect time for them to bring up something about chickens when they go to arrest you.

 

[High_Order1]

Yeah,
I'm familiar with aerial curtilage, but the concept of a 'taking' is new to me.

Apparently, there is civil case law on the idea of nuisance aircraft related to fields, I guess that's where that piece of legislation originated.

I haven't heard of non-navigable airspace, either, and my google-fu isn't helping.

 

[CadrePilot]

Following with interest, as I'm also in TN.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I'm reviewing my state's laws again (Tennessee)

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-405
Criminal Trespass

(d)
For purposes of this section, “enter” means intrusion of the entire body or when a person causes an unmanned aircraft to enter that portion of the airspace above the owner's land not regulated as navigable airspace by the federal aviation administration.

Where exactly is that? What's the FAA regulation I can cite for that?

edit to add underlining

As a foreigner, I'm finding this fascinating. Firstly, the wording clearly suggests that Tennessee State Law supersedes Federal Law, then goes on to suggest that a National Asset (airspace) directly over a set area of land has become privately owned Sovereign Territory.

In Britain, a local government decision to implement such a legislation would immediately be open to a forced Judicial review to rule whether it was ultra vires (beyond that Local Governments scope and remit to enforce). Here, the whims of County and Borough government do not trump National Law, especially where established National legislations have already set the precedent.

 

[FLDave]

Yeah,
I'm familiar with aerial curtilage, but the concept of a 'taking' is new to me.

Apparently, there is civil case law on the idea of nuisance aircraft related to fields, I guess that's where that piece of legislation originated.

I haven't heard of non-navigable airspace, either, and my google-fu isn't helping.

It is for "non-regulated" not "non-navigable". Wording does matter. Class G is uncontrolled airspace.

 

[Cafguy]

Public navigable airspace is the airspace above a certain minimum altitude, including that needed for safe takeoffs and landings, over which the U.S. government has exclusive sovereignty and the public has a right of transit. Administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), this airspace is defined by federal law and regulations and extends from the ground up for the purpose of safe and efficient flight operations.

 

[High_Order1]

It is for "non-regulated" not "non-navigable". Wording does matter. Class G is uncontrolled airspace.

it literally says " not regulated as navigable airspace"

I took that to mean non-navigable. You are saying it means simply not regulated.

The FAA says right on their 101 for drones page:

FAA rules apply to the entire National Airspace System -- there is no such thing as "unregulated" airspace.

So, I agree that words have meaning. To me, following you, they remain unclear.

 

[High_Order1]

Public navigable airspace is the airspace above a certain minimum altitude, including that needed for safe takeoffs and landings, over which the U.S. government has exclusive sovereignty and the public has a right of transit. Administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), this airspace is defined by federal law and regulations and extends from the ground up for the purpose of safe and efficient flight operations.

That last sentence I bolded is what I understood before I found the relatively new addition to my state's trespass law.

So, is it from the ground up? Or is it a minimum? I can't find the minimum in the FAA. But I am also not doing an effective keyword search.

It's... a mess. I do know my state says if they catch you within 250 feet of critical infrastructure, it is a serious felony.

I just want to know how many feet is safe off of people's houses, I am surrounded by them where I live, and I don't typically fly 'high'.

 

[mavic3usa]

it literally says " not regulated as navigable airspace"

I took that to mean non-navigable. You are saying it means simply not regulated.

The FAA says right on their 101 for drones page:


So, I agree that words have meaning. To me, following you, they remain unclear.

That's what I read. I read it like this:

The FAA is 100% in charge of "navigable airspace" meaning such space can only be regulated by the FAA exclusively.

All other airspace is open for some amount of regulation and the state of TN has dibs on any airspace that is not regulated as navigable airspace. Right or wrong, they are claiming the airspace in and around the windows of your house and just over the top of your swimming pool and just outside your garage door over the driveway is airspace with is "not regulated as navigable airspace."

There is no way the state of TN believes all airspace starting from one inch about the ground to the heavens is 100% regulated by the FAA as navigable airspace. The FAA never should have written "above a certain minimum altitude" for the states to take advantage of it.

This gives them to ability to arrest you for flying a drone over someone's house and looking into their windows. Ordinarily peeping tom laws applies but if you have a nasty ambiguous drone law to support it, make it even easier slam dunk.

 

[High_Order1]

I'm not 107 certified yet, but I am studying.

All pilots have told me over the years that the FAA is in charge of everything from the tips of the grass blades up.

If I am not mistaken, there is lettered airspace that states it goes to the ground.

If it is true that some of the airspace is considered not safe to operate a manned aircraft in, then what is the issue with allowing drones near airports the authorization to fly in that space?

I'm sorry, it's just very confusing to me.

 

[mavic3usa]

If it is true that some of the airspace is considered not safe to operate a manned aircraft in, then what is the issue with allowing drones near airports the authorization to fly in that space?

Drones *are* allowed to operate near airports with authorization.

All pilots have told me over the years that the FAA is in charge of everything from the tips of the grass blades up.

Many states are challenging that idea. The FAA doesn't seem to put up a robust defense to that challenge. In fact, the FAA pronounces confusing and misleading language that indicates it might be ok to share some of that space depending on how it relates to the regulation of aircraft safety.

I'm sorry, it's just very confusing to me.

As it is meant to be and the only way to *start* to sort it out is to challenge it and go to court(s) in front of a judge(s). Involved would be time, money, and of course your freedom.

 

[High_Order1]

The only thing I can debate there is that I read on here with regularity people having issues flying their drones anywhere near a flight path. I have read people trying to get permission and the app denying them as well... I think. lol

my point stands, if a 737 can't concievably be occupying that space, why so many hoops for toy airplane usage?

I thread slide my own post for the purpose of saying this reminds me a lot of the beginning of paramedics. Doctors did not want anyone else encroaching their space in any capacity, at all. Now look at where we are. Citizens doing CPR.

I got some things to do, I'll check back in. If anyone can find a reg or circular or whatever that better describes this nebulous area, I'd be appreciative. Otherwise, I may have to ask... pilots. (shrugs)

 

[mavic3usa]

The only thing I can debate there is that I read on here with regularity people having issues flying their drones anywhere near a flight path. I have read people trying to get permission and the app denying them as well... I think. lol

my point stands, if a 737 can't concievably be occupying that space, why so many hoops for toy airplane usage?

I thread slide my own post for the purpose of saying this reminds me a lot of the beginning of paramedics. Doctors did not want anyone else encroaching their space in any capacity, at all. Now look at where we are. Citizens doing CPR.

I got some things to do, I'll check back in. If anyone can find a reg or circular or whatever that better describes this nebulous area, I'd be appreciative. Otherwise, I may have to ask... pilots. (shrugs)

I don't have an answer to the why the FAA feels the need to control the airspace which a 737 cannot occupy. If you can fly a toy drone in that airspace and that toy drone disconnects and flys off, will it not possibly interfere with a 737 flying high in the NAS?

In controlled airspace in and around an airport, there are many zero grids where no drones are allowed in and around the runways and their flight paths. Just beyond those (but still in controlled airspace), drones are free to fly safely using LAANC. I think it's important we make that distinction because so many people believe that restricted airspace = a no fly zone for drones.

 

[Bad Santa]

Many many years ago (2003) I was having to deal with building height.
There was a regulation about how high one could build and it had to do with "airspace".
The rule at the time, as it was stated to me, was that one could not build higher than 30 feet above the top of anything that was within a certain radius.

Arguably, they were stating that "airspace" was 30 feet above "structure" whether it was a radio tower or the ground.

An anecdote to that was the argument that someone could build a tower 30 feet above the ground and then build another 30 feet higher and keep going until there was one 300 feet if they wanted.

 

[High_Order1]

I have friends that have had that issue with ham towers and flagpoles.

Hope yours turned out ok, few people I like dealing with less than municipal code people. All have their own version and none are ever wrong and you better have some balls and funds if you want to stick to your guns.