How far above property is legally owned?

Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
207
Reaction score
97
Location
Belmont, NC USA
I've been under the impression that an inch above the structure begins NAS.
There have also been court cases that result in NAS starting somewhere between 80 and 500'.
Sectional charts show NAS for certain classes SFC to an upper limit.

So the question is, where does NAS really start? If one flies 75' above a home, is that trespassing?
I'm unable to find a definitive answer in writing on the FAA site.
 
I thought I read somewhere that for private property you have to be 30 meters away or you will be trespassing.
 
Public airspace begins where the land ends. As far as trespassing... that is still open for interpretation by the courts. However, there is one case, Causby, on the books from a national court in which planes were ruled as causing damage to the property owner at 83 feet.

The short of the case... US airplanes were flying over Causby's chicken farm and causing his chickens to wig out and kill themselves by flying into walls. Lower court ruled planes were in public airspace so no cause of action. Appeals court ruled that a property owner has the right to use their property as it was intended. Is this "trespassing"? I guess you could call it that. However, I don't know if it's considered criminal trespassing as this has not been tried before.

So again, this is the big debate as it's not yet been fully tested.

My recommendation, don't fly so low as to invade someone's right of privacy and not so low as to prevent them from enjoying their property. This means no buzzing 10' over their property or hovering 20 or 30 feet above their property, etc. Again, this is a personal opinion and cases will ned to be tried for more info.

If in KY... increase everything by 200'... 'cause it appears in some areas people can legally shoot down your drone if they want (stupid judges).

United States v. Causby - Wikipedia
 
I've been under the impression that an inch above the structure begins NAS.
There have also been court cases that result in NAS starting somewhere between 80 and 500'.
Sectional charts show NAS for certain classes SFC to an upper limit.

So the question is, where does NAS really start? If one flies 75' above a home, is that trespassing?
I'm unable to find a definitive answer in writing on the FAA site.

Technically the NAS begins at ground level, however there have been court cases at the state and local level that put it starting at the height of the tallest structure an a property. Right now Senator Feinstien has a bill proposal that would require drones to operate no lower then 200' AGL. Personally I avoid private property and unless I have a dedicated operating area, I like to stay above 100' AGL.

For the record - the lowest fixed winged aircraft could operate is 500' AGL in sparsely populated areas. In urban areas 1000' AGL.
 
Technically the NAS begins at ground level, however there have been court cases at the state and local level that put it starting at the height of the tallest structure an a property. .

Land ownership does not extend into public airspace. It used to, about 75 years ago. If I fly 100' over a building with a 200' steeple, it's not trespassing. If you can provide information on this, I'd love to read it. There is a forum of an easement, as commented about in the Causby case. But this is not ownership.
 
As far as what would be considered "trespassing", that's likely to vary depending on where you live. It's a developing area of law as it relates to drones, but it has nothing to do with NAS in a direct sense.
 
For the record - the lowest fixed winged aircraft could operate is 500' AGL in sparsely populated areas.
I've had people recite this to me and imply that it applied to UAS as well. I know that's not the case, but in the absence of any officially written rule, it's hard to dispute. Obviously if the FAA says a UAS should not fly above 400', it considers NAS below 500'.
I think this is important because even while responsible UAS pilots look first to avoid issues, things will come up and it's good to know one rights. I think this also extends to someone shooting down your UAS.
 
Land ownership does not extend into public airspace. It used to, about 75 years ago. If I fly 100' over a building with a 200' steeple, it's not trespassing. If you can provide information on this, I'd love to read it. There is a forum of an easement, as commented about in the Causby case. But this is not ownership.
And I agree, but some folks don't see it that way and it will vary state to state. There's another thread going about a proposed Texas law that puts drone flights at 400' AGL
 
I've had people recite this to me and imply that it applied to UAS as well.

When I said fixed winged I should have said manned fixed wing.

For the record;

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b)Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d)Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
 
Technically the NAS begins at ground level, however there have been court cases at the state and local level that put it starting at the height of the tallest structure an a property. Right now Senator Feinstien has a bill proposal that would require drones to operate no lower then 200' AGL. Personally I avoid private property and unless I have a dedicated operating area, I like to stay above 100' AGL.

For the record - the lowest fixed winged aircraft could operate is 500' AGL in sparsely populated areas. In urban areas 1000' AGL.

You are incorrect. The lowest that fixed wing airplanes can operate in sparsely populated areas is on the deck; zero feet.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b)Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d)Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA;
 
You are incorrect. The lowest that fixed wing airplanes can operate in sparsely populated areas is on the deck; zero feet.
And you are correct and I stand to be corrected - HOWEVER, for our purposes here, especially in urban areas, are we ever going to see that? I've was involved with a violation case over an aircraft operating at 500' vs 1000' and a "sparsely populated area" was argued. The NTSB judge at the time stated that one person in a 20 miles radius expels the "sparsely populated" arguement.
 
And you are correct and I stand to be corrected - HOWEVER, for our purposes here, especially in urban areas, are we ever going to see that? I've was involved with a violation case over an aircraft operating at 500' vs 1000' and a "sparsely populated area" was argued. The NTSB judge at the time stated that one person in a 20 miles radius expels the "sparsely populated" arguement.
Well, that judge should be admonished. While I have never found a definition of sparsely populated, I, (and many others) have flown for 40+ years at treetop level and below, following creeks etc., in rural sparsely populated areas. The legal key to that type of flying is to never bust the 500' minimum horizontal distance from persons, vessels, vehicles or structures.
 
Well, that judge should be admonished. While I have never found a definition of sparsely populated, I, (and many others) have flown for 40+ years at treetop level and below, following creeks etc., in rural sparsely populated areas. The legal key to that type of flying is to never bust the 500' minimum horizontal distance from persons, vessels, vehicles or structures.
Agree all the way around!
 
And I agree, but some folks don't see it that way and it will vary state to state. There's another thread going about a proposed Texas law that puts drone flights at 400' AGL

State and local law does not trump US Code, which gives the FAA and _only_ the FAA the ability to regulate public airspace. laws are made every day that are 100% illegal and are only used to harass people into capitulation.
 
State and local law does not trump US Code, which gives the FAA and _only_ the FAA the ability to regulate public airspace. laws are made every day that are 100% illegal and are only used to harass people into capitulation.
And agree as well but what you'll find is the FAA will only flex their muscle against state and local laws when 1.They have the resources to do so, 2. Directed to do so by court order or some sought of other legal instrument or 3. When the conflict catches the eye of someone high up on the totem pole at the region or national level. This isn't the first time local and state legislators have tried to circumvent the FAA (or the CAA back in "ole days")
 
And at the Federal level (discussed on another thread)

New Senate Drone Bill Would Give Power to States and Local Governments

"The proposed Drone Federalism Act would let local municipalities decide how hobbyists and businesses can operate their drones below an altitude of 200 feet, but also seek assistance from the FAA.
The bill proposes that the FAA chose up to ten state, local, and tribal governments to create pilot programs lasting two years during which the governments would work closely with the agency to create their own individual drone rules. During these pilot programs, the FAA would provide technical assistance to the local governments, determine with the governments how to enforce the rules, and act as a middleman between the local governments and NASA, which is trying to create a national drone air traffic management system.
After the two-year pilot programs conclude, the FAA would submit to Congress a public report of best practices about how the FAA and local governments should work together."
 
Proposals are just that and don't address the OP's question of ownership.

Within consideration of local zoning statutes laws withstanding, You have claim to the airspace you can reasonably use.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers