Another angry neighbor

I believe the Air Commerce Act of 1926 stated that a property owner has rights to only the airspace that can reasonably be occupied. So, as I read it, if the property owner has a 100' tree on his property, you should not fly below 100' while over his property.. He is reasonably occuping that space.

The Property Rights of Airspace
By Alan R. Romero from Property Law For Dummies
In property law, owning land includes owning the earth under the surface and air above the surface. While ownership under the surface theoretically extends to the center of the earth, ownership of the air above the surface doesn’t extend endlessly into space.

Defining boundaries in the air
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.

Certainly building any kind of structure on the surface occupies airspace. Because you have the right to reasonably use your land as long as you don’t unreasonably interfere with others doing the same, you have the right to reasonably use both the surface and the air above it unless you thereby interfere with someone else’s use of property.

So even though you may occupy only 20 feet of the air for a long time, under the common law principle, you can later decide to build a 200-foot building unless it would be a nuisance.

Although the upper limit of an owner’s airspace isn’t clearly defined, it certainly doesn’t extend into navigable airspace. The upper airspace belongs to the public and is open to air travel.

Using and protecting airspace
Ownership of airspace is just like ownership of land. The owner can use and enjoy it reasonably. Zoning and other statutes often restrict the height of buildings. Such statutes don’t actually declare the unused airspace to belong to the public, however; they merely restrain the owner’s use of that space. So landowners may own more airspace than the law allows them to use.

Not only can the landowner use and enjoy the airspace, but she can also convey it to others. For example, a condominium may divide up airspace among individual unit owners. An owner can also give another party, such as a utility company, an easement to use some of the airspace.

An entry into another’s airspace is a trespass even if the trespasser doesn’t touch the surface of the earth. Airplanes may trespass by flying low over a person’s property, for example. An airplane trespasses by flying low enough over the surface to interfere with the owner’s reasonable use and enjoyment of her surface.

Of course, if the airplane doesn’t fly over a person’s surface, just nearby, the airplane’s interference with the surface because of noise and light wouldn’t be a trespass — but it could be a nuisance. And if the government’s flying the plane, the landowner could only seek just compensation for the government taking an easement through her airspace.
 
Calm down... If people are coming here to get legal advice they are idiots to begin with. You're right I could have worded it different. The point is... If you video while you fly you now run the risk of some boob suing you. That is the case. Yes... You can fly your camera drone without taking pictures or video... You win. But if we're honest with ourselves most of us are trying to get cool video or photos...so this law does materially change the game. I should have added the video and photography part... My bad

I am calm, don't get defensive. My point stands and that is there is a lot of misconception regarding what is legal and what isn't. Coming here for legal advise or not, look at the reaction to what you originally posted. I wasn't saying you specifically are the problem. ;)
 
I am calm, don't get defensive. My point stands and that is there is a lot of misconception regarding what is legal and what isn't. Coming here for legal advise or not, look at the reaction to what you originally posted. I wasn't saying you specifically are the problem. ;)

Point taken... Not trying to be defensive... Just know that I a forum people don't always make perfect statements... Like I said, I misspoke and should have mentioned the video/photography thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jlo
Point taken... Not trying to be defensive... Just know that I a forum people don't always make perfect statements... Like I said, I misspoke and should have mentioned the video/photography thing.

No doubt, I walk around with one foot in my mouth pretty much all the time. :D
 
--- SB 766, prohibits the use of aerial drones to capture images that could infringe on the privacy of property owners or occupants. The law allows people to initiate a civil action against a person, state agency or political subdivision that violates the prohibitions. However, the prohibition doesn't include agencies countering the risk of terrorist attacks, police who obtain search warrants that authorize the use of drones, property appraisers making tax assessments, and utilities maintaining their facilities.

So basically any government agency is allowed to spy on us and use drones, but we little people may not fly our drones at all (or very restrictedly)

Flying over somebodies backyard though should be avoided imho, it's common sense. I wouldn't want to have a stranger's drone flying over my backyard.
 
So basically any government agency is allowed to spy on us and use drones, but we little people may not fly our drones at all (or very restrictedly)...........
Now you're beginning to get it......................... the usual exemptions for .gov to not have to abide by the laws they pass.
 
I believe the Air Commerce Act of 1926 stated that a property owner has rights to only the airspace that can reasonably be occupied.

May be it is true, but attracting attention of your neighbor flying over his property not a clever choice. He will be freaking out and you would do the same if you have no idea what kind of flying **** is that
 
I'm so happy I'm on Fire & Rescue and fly around for "official training purposes". Phew! [emoji8]
 
"Yeah this is no longer true in Florida... They just passed a law making it illegal to fly over someone's property without permission. "

That quote is the problem...people are going to interpret it exactly the way you said that, when that is totally not the case...at all.

It seems like ignorance is seen on both sides of this topic, as you quite rightly pointed out, Jlo.
 
Calm down... If people are coming here to get legal advice they are idiots to begin with. You're right I could have worded it different. The point is... If you video while you fly you now run the risk of some boob suing you. That is the case. Yes... You can fly your camera drone without taking pictures or video... You win. But if we're honest with ourselves most of us are trying to get cool video or photos...so this law does materially change the game. I should have added the video and photography part... My bad

Then I would respectfully request you learn a valuable lesson here. Don't make all encompassing remarks. It isn't that someone may more may not think your statement is "legal advice" so much so that it hampers the hobbyist enthusiasm in my great State of Florida. Or ever worse, someone with an ax to grind looks up drone flights in Florida and your post comes up. As a representative of our hobby, there are WAY too many people who will simply run with your statement.

If only we were as demanding of ourselves as we seem to be of everyone else.
 
Then I would respectfully request you learn a valuable lesson here. Don't make all encompassing remarks. It isn't that someone may more may not think your statement is "legal advice" so much so that it hampers the hobbyist enthusiasm in my great State of Florida. Or ever worse, someone with an ax to grind looks up drone flights in Florida and your post comes up. As a representative of our hobby, there are WAY too many people who will simply run with your statement.

If only we were as demanding of ourselves as we seem to be of everyone else.

I've already clarified my statement like 4 times. You are ALL right... I misspoke. I'm sure I'm not the first... And I'm sure I won't be the last.
 
I've already clarified my statement like 4 times. You are ALL right... I misspoke. I'm sure I'm not the first... And I'm sure I won't be the last.

Sorry for beating a dead horse. My browser hadn't updated with following posts when I wrote mine. It has been open for a couple of hours. ;)
 
I don't think most people realize that if you WERE going to spy on someone, a large white flying object with flashing lights that sounds like of swarm of killer bees that basically screams "hey look at me!" is not the way to do it.

People who are creepers would use a smartphone, or binoculars, or a camera with zoom capabilities, etc.
 
Sorry for beating a dead horse. My browser hadn't updated with following posts when I wrote mine. It has been open for a couple of hours. ;)

Thanks for writing this... To be honest, I try to be careful and accurate. I slipped here. I even went back to my original post and made an edit to clarify
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackHawk388
As much as anything we could blame the military and federal government. I used to work on OH-58D helicopters. While not a drone the "R2D2" on top of the rotor is the same as found on military drones. I worked on the electronics of the bird to include the imaging system, it was utterly amazing to sit in the pilots seat and test the imagers. You could see clearly miles away. When the military and government show videos from drones of chases of cars and people and terrorists the general public get it in their head that drones can do the same thing. Not all drones are created equal I can tell you. Having worked in the military industrial complex as a photographic technologist, I can say a huge pile of money can build you a camera that is unbelievable. The Phantom 3 has an very nice imaging system but is is no drone with a 1.8-gigapixel Autonomous Real-Time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance Imaging System. Anytime my neighbors call my Phantom a "drone" I always correct them by saying "It's a quadcopter, drones are what the government uses to kill people". lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: dalebb
To me it is all about respect. I wouldn't want someone flying over my back yard filming my daughters playing. When I fly over other peoples property I am usually about 300 - 400 feet, and with the wide angle lens of the P3 people look like little ants so it would be impossible to tell one person from another. I want to be a respectful neighbor.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,600
Members
104,980
Latest member
ozmtl