USA rules on private land?

[saboken]

Is there a point you can fly before it’s considered airspace? Say if your on private property and don’t go above 50’ I know the rules say it’s a 400’ ceiling and not to fly at night! But say I wanted to make a movie and everyone was a participant could I fly at night if I kept It at say 10’-20’ above everyone? I’m not planning this just inquiring where airspace starts? Like my house in Pennsylvania I don’t own the mineral rights so I only own the ground down to a certain depth then it belongs to someone else that can do whatever they want for mining etc! Is the airspace similar? Obviously a manned aircraft shouldn’t be 50’ above the ground unless it’s landing or taking off!

 

[beachcombing]

Are you flying for hobby/recreation or Part 107?

Are all the people actually participating in the acutal flight operation? (Not just being in the video.)

Being on "private property" doesn't change the airspace regulations.

The airspace starts as soon as you leave the ground. Some people will argue that an old court case determined that a person "owns" the airspace up to 80 (or 83) feet above the ground. But others will argue that that's not what that case determined.

 

[saboken]

Are you flying for hobby/recreation or Part 107?

Are all the people actually participating in the acutal flight operation? (Not just being in the video.)

Being on "private property" doesn't change the airspace regulations.

The airspace starts as soon as you leave the ground. Some people will argue that an old court case determined that a person "owns" the airspace up to 80 (or 83) feet above the ground. But others will argue that that's not what that case determined.

Ok that’s what I Thought it’s all in the interpretation

 

[sar104]

Ok that’s what I Thought it’s all in the interpretation

You may have misunderstood that reply. The issue of how high above the ground a land owner has control over has been in regard to trespass laws, not whether an aircraft is subject to airspace laws.

As far as the FAA is concerned there is no ambiguity - unless you are flying indoors then you are flying in the NAS and subject to regulation under 14 CFR. The scenario that you describe would fall under Part 107, so would require a remote pilot license, a waiver for night flying (§ 107.29) and, potentially, a waiver for flying directly above people (§ 107.39), depending on the exact situation. How high or low you fly makes no difference to those requirements provided that you stay below 400 ft AGL and are not in controlled airspace.

 

[saboken]

You may have misunderstood that reply. The issue of how high above the ground a land owner has control over has been in regard to trespass laws, not whether an aircraft is subject to airspace laws.

As far as the FAA is concerned there is no ambiguity - unless you are flying indoors then you are flying in the NAS and subject to regulation under 14 CFR. The scenario that you describe would fall under Part 107, so would require a remote pilot license, a waiver for night flying (§ 107.29) and, potentially, a waiver for flying directly above people (§ 107.39), depending on the exact situation. How high or low you fly makes no difference to those requirements provided that you stay below 400 ft AGL and are not in controlled airspace.

I didn’t misunderstand it they laws are about interpretation! That word is thrown around a lot! If I had a circus tent outside and it’s was 30, high I would be considered indoors just because of a canvas sheet over me! Or if I was in a empty stadium say a super dome one judge would say it’s inside dome open or closed! Because it’s still inside a structure (as long as the drone stayed below the edges!). But another judge might say if the dome was open it’s outside regardless of the height flown! It’s all interpretation and until cases are made there’s no real rule set in stone! I know there will be as people keep doing stupid $Hit with drones

 

[saboken]

I didn’t misunderstand it they laws are about interpretation! That word is thrown around a lot! If I had a circus tent outside and it’s was 30, high I would be considered indoors just because of a canvas sheet over me! Or if I was in a empty stadium say a super dome one judge would say it’s inside dome open or closed! Because it’s still inside a structure (as long as the drone stayed below the edges!). But another judge might say if the dome was open it’s outside regardless of the height flown! It’s all interpretation and until cases are made there’s no real rule set in stone! I know there will be as people keep doing stupid $Hit with drones

Also I know of a restaurant in Jacksonville Florida that had a unusual situation it actually sat on US government land, there was a Military base right next to it (its since been decommissioned) they were renting the property and the laws were Military not civilian especially the airspace above it (it was a Apache repair and maintenance facility) drones didn’t exist when the base was still open but I know that airspace had specific rules pre and post 911 I don’t know if a drone could legally be flown on that property because it was technically a Military Airspace!? So again it’s interpretation the restaurant was a public business but it was on Military property open to the public! It’s probably still considered military even with the base closed I don’t think they sold it just cut back and sent everybody home permanently

 

[tcope]

The airspace starts as soon as you leave the ground. Some people will argue that an old court case determined that a person "owns" the airspace up to 80 (or 83) feet above the ground. But others will argue that that's not what that case determined.

Funny...'cause it's pretty much spot on and as simple as could be said. Kudo's for a nice post.

I'd argue that Causby outlines a property owners _easement_ to use their land a it was intended. A person cannot interfere with that. It's not ownership... it's more of an easement. I'm not posting for a debate, only because (for some odd reason) I liked your post.

 

[saboken]

Also I know of a restaurant in Jacksonville Florida that had a unusual situation it actually sat on US government land, there was a Military base right next to it (its since been decommissioned) they were renting the property and the laws were Military not civilian especially the airspace above it (it was a Apache repair and maintenance facility) drones didn’t exist when the base was still open but I know that airspace had specific rules pre and post 911 I don’t know if a drone could legally be flown on that property because it was technically a Military Airspace!? So again it’s interpretation the restaurant was a public business but it was on Military property open to the public! It’s probably still considered military even with the base closed I don’t think they sold it just cut back and sent everybody home permanently

It previously served as a joint civil-military airport hosting an Army Aviation Support Facility and helicopter units of the Florida Army National Guard prior to their relocation to nearby Cecil Field following the latter facility's inactivation as a naval air station

The United States Navy's Blue Angels performed their first airshow at Jacksonville Executive at Craig Airport on June 15, 1946

So it’s not Military anymore they either sold it or leased it to the public I haven’t been there since 2003 the fence around the base had signs “US Government Property “ the business had a strange relationship with the local government because of the location!

 

[saboken]

So it’s not Military anymore they either sold it or leased it to the public I haven’t been there since 2003 the fence around the base had signs “US Government Property “ the business had a strange relationship with the local government because of the location!

And I know a drone there would be illegal it’s less that 5 mil for a a airport I don’t think the FAA would even issue a permit to a person. Not directly linked to the airport.

 

[trriley5]

And I know a drone there would be illegal it’s less that 5 mil for a a airport I don’t think the FAA would even issue a permit to a person. Not directly linked to the airport.

Actually you can fly there legally [emoji106]

 

[trriley5]

Actually you can fly there legally [emoji106]

Do your research, it would take some pre planning but is possible

 

[sar104]

And I know a drone there would be illegal it’s less that 5 mil for a a airport I don’t think the FAA would even issue a permit to a person. Not directly linked to the airport.

I really don't think that you understand either Part 101 or Part 107.

If you are flying Part 101 then you can fly within 5 miles of an airport as long as you notify the operator and tower (if there is one) beforehand.

If you are flying Part 107 then all that matters is airspace class - if it's uncontrolled airspace (Class G) then you can fly, and the proximity to an airport is irrelevant. If it's controlled airspace then you need an authorization or waiver.

This particular location (KCRG) is not military airspace (I assume that you meant special use airspace) - it is part time Class D surface - 2500 ft (1100 - 0400Z Monday - Friday, 1200 - 0300Z Saturday - Sunday) and at other times Class G.

 

[saboken]

I really don't think that you understand either Part 101 or Part 107.

If you are flying Part 101 then you can fly within 5 miles of an airport as long as you notify the operator and tower (if there is one) beforehand.

If you are flying Part 107 then all that matters is airspace class - if it's uncontrolled airspace (Class G) then you can fly, and the proximity to an airport is irrelevant. If it's controlled airspace then you need an authorization or waiver.

This particular location (KCRG) is not military airspace (I assume that you meant special use airspace) - it is part time Class D surface - 2500 ft (1100 - 0400Z Monday - Friday, 1200 - 0300Z Saturday - Sunday) and at other times Class G.

It was Military but has been decommission since I lived there.

 

[cubanmetal]

I have a related question, if not feel free to delete... I was flying near my neighborhood and then my MP just fell from the sky. It fell onto a large private property and I can see exactly the tree it hit/crashed (18 satellites locked on) in my flight log. when I contacted the home owner she said she looked for it but did not see it. And will not let me on the property to look for it, which I guess I understand...but I’ve told her I know exactly where I should be. Do I have any legal recourse because this is my property? Or am I just screeewed? Thanks in advance!

 

[tcope]

I have a related question, if not feel free to delete... I was flying near my neighborhood and then my MP just fell from the sky. It fell onto a large private property and I can see exactly the tree it hit/crashed (18 satellites locked on) in my flight log. when I contacted the home owner she said she looked for it but did not see it. And will not let me on the property to look for it, which I guess I understand...but I’ve told her I know exactly where I should be. Do I have any legal recourse because this is my property? Or am I just screeewed? Thanks in advance!

You certainly have civil remedies, meaning you could file suit to reclaim your property. You could contact the police to see if they might be of assistance but they can't make the person allow you access.

 

[locoman]

I have a related question, if not feel free to delete... I was flying near my neighborhood and then my MP just fell from the sky. It fell onto a large private property and I can see exactly the tree it hit/crashed (18 satellites locked on) in my flight log. when I contacted the home owner she said she looked for it but did not see it. And will not let me on the property to look for it, which I guess I understand...but I’ve told her I know exactly where I should be. Do I have any legal recourse because this is my property? Or am I just screeewed? Thanks in advance!

Didn't you just post this on another thread. Looking for a different answer. I suppose you could always trespass and get your drone, hope she doesn't have any big guard dogs or call the police. There really is no FAA rule about flying over private property so long as you don't invade someone's privacy, in other wards, don't hover over their property and don't film them, don't disturb them, unless there is a local ordnance which prohibits it.