US v. Causby (1946) and what altitude can you legally fly at over someone's property

[iReviewFrozenDinners]

This sometimes comes up on the /r/drones subreddit that I help moderate and wanted to get your guys' thoughts and maybe even some clarification from people smarter and more knowledgeable than I.

Some people are claiming that people have ownership of airspace above their property, more specifically the 83 feet above their land quoting the Supreme Court United States v. Causby decision from 1946. Another user claims that "the owner's airspace...includes anything they can reasonably use or build upon, plus a buffer zone to enjoy it."
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't make much sense to me that a case from 75 years ago regarding airplanes flying over a farmer's property scaring his chickens to death much applies to modern drone operation and it seems to me that the FAA ultimately controls and regulates the airspace and aircrafts flying through it. Obviously common courtesy states that you shouldn't hover in someone's backyard and that might actually be against some privacy or harassment laws, but what is the actual law or consensus here?

You can check out the post that started it here if you're interested. I posted this question over at the Commercial Drone Pilots forum as well. Thanks in advance,

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Oh boy this question has always got my attention. LOL It is amazing just how many different answers you will get.
Like this: "the FAA's definition of aircraft to include what were generally considered model aircraft affects the definition of navigable airspace. Previously, navigable airspace had always been considered with regard to manned aircraft. How much more airspace is navigable with unmanned aircraft is not clear but the argument can be made that that a lot more of it can be considered "navigable"."

 

[Rich QR]

The law isn't totally settled here. The FAA had claimed jurisdiction down to the surface, but the Supreme Court said that a landowner has at least some rights to airspace slightly above his land. But they didn't say exactly where the line is drawn; just that it at least included the airspace in question in that particular case.

The Supreme Court generally doesn't get the easy cases; those are usually settled in the lower courts.

For a somewhat related issue, look up the term "avigation easement". Landowners can and sometimes do sell to an airport the right to overfly the landowner's property. This is usually related to noise complaints.

Drones don't make nearly as much noise as jet airliners, but they can sometimes disturb some people's quiet enjoyment of their property, either because of the noise and distraction, or because of (sometimes perceived, sometimes actual) issues around invasion of privacy. Will there ever be avigation easements for drones? If the package delivery by drones ever becomes widespread (I'm not suggesting it will), and if landowners are sufficiently annoyed by the overflights, we might see someone suing Amazon and demanding they pay for the right to overfly...

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Sounds like a interesting book to read.

Book Review: Who Owns the Sky? – Utne

Nowadays, aviation law isn’t something the average person thinks about, but when the Wright Brothers stunned the world in 1903 the phrase “aerial trespass” popped into the lay person’s lexicon—and trespass suits by worried landholders claiming control of their skies were soon to follow....

www.utne.com

 

[Meta4]

Some people are claiming that people have ownership of airspace above their property, more specifically the 83 feet above their land

Those people didn't understand the Causby case.
It did not say that.

 

[Vic Moss]

Final answer:

Causby sued the gov't over his suicidal chickens.

The Army was continually flying aircraft during WW2 low over his farm (legally) since it was less than 1/2 from Lindley in North Carolina. So much so that his chickens reacted in such as way that many were killed.

He sued stating that those flights constituted an illegal "taking" of his property under the Fifth Amendment by denying his right to not only enjoyment but use it as well. The Supreme Court agreed, and granted Mr. Causby value of his land. The 83' comes into the story because that was the lowest flights recorded. I have no idea how the recorded that. The Justices were quite clear that number only represented Mr. Causby's case, and we in no way a hard number for future precedent. Each future case must be judged on it's on merit.

Additionally the rules found that the government does not possess the airspace to ground level. However, and this is incredibly important, possess and control are two entirely different things. The FAA controls the NAS.

SCOTUS also found that the old adage of indefinite ownership of airspace from the ground up by landowners has no place in the modern world.

Normally I'm not a huge fan of referencing Wikipedia, but in this case it's a good reference. It changes now and again (for instance the "Cujus est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" reference has been removed, but a link to it at the bottom of the page is now there).

But more info and actual SCOTUS Justice language can be found here: United States v. Causby - Wikipedia

 

[dan.utinske]

I frequently fly over my neighborhood but I avoid flying directly over someone's house especially their back yard. I have hovered over a home where the home owner asked that I take a photo of his property. But key word here; I never loiter over anyone's property without specific permission. I fly past going to my predetermined destination and do the same on the return to home which is usually significantly higher then my departure altitude. My purpose for flying out of my neighborhood is convience and I have clear airspace with zero restriction for several miles around. I have told using a social media site that I plan to flying frequently from my yard and thus far it has kept the peace in my tiny part of Oklahoma.

 

[Droniac]

This sometimes comes up on the /r/drones subreddit that I help moderate and wanted to get your guys' thoughts and maybe even some clarification from people smarter and more knowledgeable than I.

Some people are claiming that people have ownership of airspace above their property, more specifically the 83 feet above their land quoting the Supreme Court United States v. Causby decision from 1946. Another user claims that "the owner's airspace...includes anything they can reasonably use or build upon, plus a buffer zone to enjoy it."
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't make much sense to me that a case from 75 years ago regarding airplanes flying over a farmer's property scaring his chickens to death much applies to modern drone operation and it seems to me that the FAA ultimately controls and regulates the airspace and aircrafts flying through it. Obviously common courtesy states that you shouldn't hover in someone's backyard and that might actually be against some privacy or harassment laws, but what is the actual law or consensus here?

You can check out the post that started it here if you're interested. I posted this question over at the Commercial Drone Pilots forum as well. Thanks in advance,

I only briefly saw this/these posts very briefly and although sad, and on a bit of a tangent… But where I live if I had claim to a fractional bit of airspace It would be on my tax bill. Lol. ?? I also recognize laws get grossly outdated as per my ex father-in-law who was an attorney and had a position in the Supreme Court in queens NY, that there is still a law buried in the books from Texas called “he needed killin”. He enjoyed finding these ole’ laws. (Made for great dinner convo). If this holds water maybe it semi applies. Simply stated, It was my understanding that we don’t own airspace. Looking forward to reading the other posts. If I’m redundant to any. I apologize. Godspeed

 

[iReviewFrozenDinners]

Final answer:

Causby sued the gov't over his suicidal chickens.

The Army was continually flying aircraft during WW2 low over his farm (legally) since it was less than 1/2 from Lindley in North Carolina. So much so that his chickens reacted in such as way that many were killed.

He sued stating that those flights constituted an illegal "taking" of his property under the Fifth Amendment by denying his right to not only enjoyment but use it as well. The Supreme Court agreed, and granted Mr. Causby value of his land. The 83' comes into the story because that was the lowest flights recorded. I have no idea how the recorded that. The Justices were quite clear that number only represented Mr. Causby's case, and we in no way a hard number for future precedent. Each future case must be judged on it's on merit.

Additionally the rules found that the government does not possess the airspace to ground level. However, and this is incredibly important, possess and control are two entirely different things.

SCOTUS also found that the old adage of indefinite ownership of airspace from the ground up by landowners has to place in the modern world.

Normally I'm not a huge fan of referencing Wikipedia, but in this case it's a good reference. It changes now and again (for instance the "Cujus est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" reference has been removed, but a link to it at the bottom of the page is now there).

But more info and actual SCOTUS Justice language can be found here: United States v. Causby - Wikipedia

Thank you, I thought as much.

 

[WW5RM]

You can install a Tower 200ft AGL and NOT have to notify the FCC or FAA. As long as you are not in restricted airspace and even then I believe you can get permission. Depending on the type airspace.

Numerous Hams have 199ft tall towers. No notification. Nothing.

83ft? Pfffft! I have pine trees here that are well over 92ft tall. One across the street I know is close to 95ft.

Anything with in 100ft I consider intrusive! I always fly above 100ft anytime Im near or above homes, yards .....etc. Anywhere people might be. Lower than that and you are up to no good!

Give people their space and they won't have an excuse to complain! Although I know some will but when you stay in your space they won't have a leg to stand on!

If you drop below 100ft over someone's personal property or home they should have the right to blow your toy out of the sky!

WW5RM

 

[Merrill277]

Where I live I can only fly 50 ft. AGL or above building height due to FAA regulations so this issue at least in my neighborhood hits closer to home, no pun intended. However there are many places including neighborhoods where you can legally fly 400 ft. AGL. And with zoom capabilities, a drone can fly not all that high without any disturbance or even knowledge that they are flying above and zoom in on what is happening below.
When you bring your drone in for a landing and you look up in the sky, even a couple of hundred feet you can barely hear it or even see it. I think its pretty much a non-issue, for those flying higher above homes.
And while I would never think of doing such a thing, there will be those who will fly their drone right next to someone's window for a peak inside. If someone were caught sneaking around and looking into someone's window they would definitely be punished and rightfully so. I've personally have seen it happen to someone I knew. So when it comes to it, and it will, the drone flyers doing the same thing should be punished as well. If it ever becomes a serious problem, I wouldn't be surprised to see people put up nets around their windows, yards, etc. to capture problem drones.
Extending that thought further, as this issue progresses, new law may allow people to be able to purchase devices to identify and record drone information including the owner's name and ID along with a video recording of the event, if within a certain range. Just like everything else, the works of the bad people of the world help create laws and tools to protect the public.

 

[Ron Caballero CAP]

The law isn't totally settled here. The FAA had claimed jurisdiction down to the surface, but the Supreme Court said that a landowner has at least some rights to airspace slightly above his land. But they didn't say exactly where the line is drawn; just that it at least included the airspace in question in that particular case.

The Supreme Court generally doesn't get the easy cases; those are usually settled in the lower courts.

For a somewhat related issue, look up the term "avigation easement". Landowners can and sometimes do sell to an airport the right to overfly the landowner's property. This is usually related to noise complaints.

Drones don't make nearly as much noise as jet airliners, but they can sometimes disturb some people's quiet enjoyment of their property, either because of the noise and distraction, or because of (sometimes perceived, sometimes actual) issues around invasion of privacy. Will there ever be avigation easements for drones? If the package delivery by drones ever becomes widespread (I'm not suggesting it will), and if landowners are sufficiently annoyed by the overflights, we might see someone suing Amazon and demanding they pay for the right to overfly...

I generally fly no lower that 150' over property. That is ideal for mapping. On occasion, I do fly lower at the property owner's request. I have quite a few friends who have asked me to photo their homes from the air. Sometimes, that is actually quite low to get the exterior walls. One neighbor told me, with a grin on his face, that I had scared the shxx out of his cats who clawed at the door to get inside.

 

[LenSavage]

You can install a Tower 200ft AGL and NOT have to notify the FCC or FAA. As long as you are not in restricted airspace and even then I believe you can get permission. Depending on the type airspace.

Numerous Hams have 199ft tall towers. No notification. Nothing.

83ft? Pfffft! I have pine trees here that are well over 92ft tall. One across the street I know is close to 95ft.

Anything with in 100ft I consider intrusive! I always fly above 100ft anytime Im near or above homes, yards .....etc. Anywhere people might be. Lower than that and you are up to no good!

Give people their space and they won't have an excuse to complain! Although I know some will but when you stay in your space they won't have a leg to stand on!

If you drop below 100ft over someone's personal property or home they should have the right to blow your toy out of the sky!

WW5RM

I'm an FAA part 107 licensed professional and there are times when shooting for film, TV or construction that I have no way around flying lower than 100 ft. above people's property.
I do not fly a toy; my drone is a tool-of-the-trade. If some a-hole shoots my drone, he will get to explain his actions to a Judge - and pay for my equipment and lost productivity.
I doubt that anybody will ever be judged to have the 'right' to destroy a drone because they 'think' it may be a spy or alien or any other form of backwater paranoia.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Florida man shoots down Sheriff’s Office drone investigating possible burglary

A drone belonging to Lake County Sheriff’s Office in Florida met an untimely death from midair shoot down this week. Here's why...

dronedj.com

 

[BigAl07]

Ok gang.... this thread went down the expected Rabbit Hole. . .. it's a very heated topic with a bit of Grey Area!

The #1 mandate for our forum is BE NICE! Feel free to argue/banter/debate all you want but being NICE is required. The moment you make it personal or ugly it comes back to you!! We are better than this!!

Back on topic and BE NICE!!

 

[Chaosrider]

You can install a Tower 200ft AGL and NOT have to notify the FCC or FAA. As long as you are not in restricted airspace and even then I believe you can get permission. Depending on the type airspace.

Numerous Hams have 199ft tall towers. No notification. Nothing.

83ft? Pfffft! I have pine trees here that are well over 92ft tall. One across the street I know is close to 95ft.

Anything with in 100ft I consider intrusive! I always fly above 100ft anytime Im near or above homes, yards .....etc. Anywhere people might be. Lower than that and you are up to no good!

Give people their space and they won't have an excuse to complain! Although I know some will but when you stay in your space they won't have a leg to stand on!

If you drop below 100ft over someone's personal property or home they should have the right to blow your toy out of the sky!

WW5RM

I did my own "noise abatement study" using my Mini-2, and I concluded I was going to use 200 ft AGL as my minimum for transiting over my neighbors houses.

Not much of a restriction, since I have very few neighbors, and I hardly ever fly in that direction anyhow!

There are many many pine trees in my neighborhood that are over 100 ft tall. "Tree climbing" is one of the fun things I do with my Mini-2. I'll scoot over to a tall pine tree, and then slowly increase my altitude, as I slowly mover closer to the tree, until I'm hovering directly over the tip.

I look forward to doing that again, if the temps around here ever drop below the surface temperature of Venus...

;-)

TCS

 

[In The Zone]

Who to say that you're not hovering because your making adjustments on your flight on screen or fixing a problem before it becomes a big problem. You can't fly and navigate through the screen settings at the same time unless you hit RTH. With that being said, be respectful and don't hover over somebody else's property less than 100ft you should be able to make any on-screen changes in under 20 seconds. Besides if you really wanted to spy on somebody take it up to 400 feet and zoom in.

 

[GKomar]

In Florida:
(b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.

 

[Tankueray]

In Texas: GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 423. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

 

[Vic Moss]

In Texas: GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 423. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

That is currently being challenged. And TX will lose.