Illegal to fly under 400 foot?

[droneeye.co.za]

In South Africa there is CAA law which governs the skies. But you are also theoretically not meant to fly over anyone's property without their permission - period

 

[joe21]

I followed this thread for some time and feel it's time to forget it & move on.

Because, you seem to either want to selectively ignore, forget, or just don't want to comprehend that to fly over someone's property above 83 ft & below 400ft is not an illegal act, a crime or whatever. So long as you are NOT hovering and trying to focus on a certain subject on that property so as to assume invading their privacy.

1. Your response makes no sense in the context of the post you quoted/replied to.

2. You may have followed this thread, but obviously haven't read or understood what was written. I have not written what you have attributed to me.

3. There is nothing for me to "ignore, forget" or "want to comprehend." Your understanding of airspace above 83ft and below 400 feet is completely wrong.

4. Thanks for making me laugh with the "hovering" and "focus on a certain subject" comments. I would love to see the FAA rule or Federal Law that specifies those actions. The fact is, no such rule or law exists. . I guess you think you can walk through my yard as long as you don't stop and stare at me. Please refrain from misleading people with absurd, unsubstantiated comments.

Perhaps is it for the best that you decided to "move on." Have a great day!

 

[joe21]

One could easily construe that to mean the FAA has no say in the matter as long as you don't intrude into airspace that IS controlled.

I like the way you think. What you write makes a lot of sense and I don't disagree.

Again, my concern is with the above. With the fear of "drones' being propagated, the FAA/Congress could very well decide to expand what is controlled airspace. I think the FAA already wants to and is just looking for the legal loopholes to do so. Then, things get sticky.

Just look to registration. The FAA is not supposed to be making new rules for hobby/model aircraft, yet the legal opinions I have read on the subject seem to agree that drone registration is just that. I view that as a testing of the waters.

I think we both agree that this is going to be a wild and bumpy ride while this makes it way thru the courts!! It'll certainly be more exciting than the Super Bowl or World Cup ever was, since it will actually matter what happens (unlike pro sports)...

Absolutely. It's going to be interesting.

 

[Gary E]

...flying over private property below 400 foot, as well as confiscate my phantom and phone. Not to mention charge me with stalking if I recorded video or photos while doing so...

Same in Oregon. If someone complains, then the craft has to stay above 400' above their property. It hasn't been tested in court yet.

 

[richardtomcat]

In following this thread of 7-pages with but a few of my comments and allowing for a learning curve I understand that I can fly over private property and take all the pics and vids I want without legal repercussions. Sounds great .. I love my P3P. I see a lot of armchair attorneys. It will be our actions and behaviors that will shape future rules and regulations. I understand that if a person has a privacy fence around their backyard that the law says I can't use a ladder to scale the fence to take pictures of a nude person sunning in the privacy of their backyard. I am invading their privacy. However, it would appear that I can fly my UAS over their property and take my nudist pics that way. As long as we're below 400', simply because we can do what ever we want mean that we should?

 

[joe21]

I understand that if a person has a privacy fence around their backyard that the law says I can't use a ladder to scale the fence to take pictures of a nude person sunning in the privacy of their backyard. I am invading their privacy. However, it would appear that I can fly my UAS over their property and take my nudist pics that way. As long as we're below 400', simply because we can do what ever we want mean that we should?

You are right - just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should.

Note that the 400' limit is an FAA _guideline_. It is not a "rule" or a "law." (Although it is generally a good idea to follow that guideline).

I am curious... if your area has an actual law that prohibits someone from using a device such as a ladder to take a picture over a fence, why would you assume that taking that same photo with a UAV is not prohibited by the same law? Wouldn't holding a camera on a ladder or at the end of a long stick be functionally the same as hovering a camera in the same location?

 

[Droner412]

Hi all. I am new to the forum and from Pennsylvania USA.
I recently had a discussion with our chief of police who informed me he could charge me with trespassing for flying over private property below 400 foot, as well as confiscate my phantom and phone. Not to mention charge me with stalking if I recorded video or photos while doing so. He claims the Supreme Court has already decided that a landowner owns the airspace above their property up to 400 foot. Please help. I was flying well over 100 foot and doing nothing wrong.

What part of PA? If you don't want to say specifics toss me a PM... I'll go fly with you or in your area and set the PD straight if need be. I'm in Pittsburgh

 

[mmtphoto]

What part of PA? If you don't want to say specifics toss me a PM... I'll go fly with you or in your area and set the PD straight if need be. I'm in Pittsburgh

the OP answered me after I asked three times, he said "Northeast" which is probably some small town in the Poconos. Would be nice if it was a more specific answer since I'm curious where this actually occured.

 

[dirtybum]

Sounds like he's worried you might capture his car at an address of a young lady who is not his wife! Or maybe I just watch too much TV

 

[kirk2579]

I actually ran into this over the weekend while researching a local mayor running for a state office.
his small village set rules restricting drones last fall, one published rule was flying OVER 400'.

McDonald council to restrict drones - TribToday.com - News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Tribune Chronicle - Warren, OH


sounds familiar doesn't it, maybe the op's chief and this town read something that confused them I thought.

I emailed the village Saturday with my concerns and questions about 400 foot etc.

today about 2 pm , 5 minutes after I landed my newer p3s testing the camera on snow scape , the Mayor called.

we had a great 10 minute conversation and we agreed that they were trying to appease complainers somewhat while not really doing anything.....

He asked if I do commercial work, I said yes I do training and repairs etc but not photo / videos yet.
He was aware of 333 and restrictions etc. 400 foot recommendation etc.
I indicated I was not doing the 333 since I have no Pilot cert. and was looking to see what the FAA did wih the new rules coming.
End result was he said to enjoy and be careful and use common sense.

I left an offer to help with any questions or even if they needed help to call

I also gave several youtube links to my videos , including a flight demo to a similar village police dept.

I plan to call him when the weather breaks and go visit for a demo!

 

[m0j0]

Airspace is the sole jurisdiction of the FAA. Federal preemption prohibits a city, state or municipality from regulating airspace although many have enacted laws despite this. FAA regulations DO NOT protect you from local privacy and endangerment laws.

Most LEOs do not understand much of what I've just written.

Ummm Wrong! Most LEO's aren't going to write you for something they don't enforce or can't back up with a statute. Why... because they can be sued. How do I know? Because I am one. I work for an agency that everyone on here says will come to get you if you fly your drone where you shouldn't and I can tell you my agency currently has no control over airspace. We have no authority to investigate overflights. We have no statute to enforce so.... a prosecutor would laugh at us if we called and said we wanted to charge someone for flying to high... LOL.. not only do we not have a statute we have no training to judge flight height. We have no equipment to measure flight height. When it comes down to it we would get crucified in the courtroom... In fact it would never make it to the courtroom because no federal prosecutor is going to want to prosecute something that is not supported by this little thing called "EVIDENCE."

Personally, I could afford to pay a fine. I'd simply explain to the chief that he's incorrect, let him know I'm going to fly (when and where) and respectively invite him to be there to issue a citation.

I think that would be a bad plan. Why flip your nose at him. No need fly when you want and let them do their job. Trust me most police forces do not have the time to chase you down for flying a drone. That is about equal to a noise complaint... if they even have a statute to cite you on.

 

[ianwood]

Ummm Wrong! Most LEO's aren't going to write you for something they don't enforce or can't back up with a statute. Why... because they can be sued. How do I know? Because I am one. I work for an agency that everyone on here says will come to get you if you fly your drone where you shouldn't and I can tell you my agency currently has no control over airspace. We have no authority to investigate overflights. We have no statute to enforce so.... a prosecutor would laugh at us if we called and said we wanted to charge someone for flying to high... LOL.. not only do we not have a statute we have no training to judge flight height. We have no equipment to measure flight height. When it comes down to it we would get crucified in the courtroom... In fact it would never make it to the courtroom because no federal prosecutor is going to want to prosecute something that is not supported by this little thing called "EVIDENCE."

I am not sure what you are saying is wrong. And not knowing what agency you work for, I can only guess as to what you are talking about.

 

[m0j0]

Regarding privacy and photos, I also believe you have a misunderstanding of the laws involved. In public, people generally do not have an expectation of privacy. If you leave your drapes open and do something in front of your picture window, you would have a hard time arguing you have an expectation of privacy.

If, however, you build a high "privacy" fence or take other actions to shield your yard from public view, you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It wouldn't matter if someone climbed a tree, put a camera on a long stick to reach over your fence, or flew a UAV over your property... it is an invasion of privacy. To what degree you can can get in trouble will vary greatly on location and circumstance. The fact remains, however, that there is no exclusion for a UAV. The medium does not give you a free pass to skirt the law.

I don't know that this is an accurate statement. I would challenge you to provide me some legal support to back this statement. Remember that airspace is by definition public. Unless you build a dome over your house and property the pilot can fly in public airspace and take as many photos as he likes. You can build a fence as high as you like. That application would of course prevent people from taking photos from the ground because in order to take the photo they would have to encroach on your property. That is not so for a drone. Again, airspace is public and you have a right to use public airspace. Now, that doesn't stop municipalities/counties etc from enacting laws to curtail photography... I would argue that they are not constitutional and could be overturned because... these munincipalities/counties etc do not have the authority to restrict airspace. It is an interesting topic. I will be interested to see how it ends up.

Read this caselaw... related to helicopters, searches and overflight. It isn't exactly what we are talking about but the principles of public airspace are conveyed. The images in this case were used by the police to obtain a warrant... which is more evasive.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

 

[m0j0]

I am not sure what you are saying is wrong. And not knowing what agency you work for, I can only guess as to what you are talking about.

I work for a federal law enforcement agency.. that folks on here believe assists the FAA in governing airspace. We don't. We have no statute to govern airspace. No training and no authority to govern UAV flights. We would get laughed out of the office if we tried to present a case to an attorney...

and you said this.

Airspace is the sole jurisdiction of the FAA. Federal preemption prohibits a city, state or municipality from regulating airspace although many have enacted laws despite this. FAA regulations DO NOT protect you from local privacy and endangerment laws.
Most LEOs do not understand much of what I've just written.

I'm not trying to be an antagonist but I don't agree the last part of your statement.

I am saying you are absolutely wrong. Law enforcement officers absolutely do understand what you have written. Me being one of them albeit a federal officer. I know for a fact that the local officers are keenly aware of what they can and can't do by statute. They also know who can and can't enforce laws as it relates to the airspace. To say they/we don't is wrong and insulting.

 

[tcope]

Ummm Wrong! Most LEO's aren't going to write you for something they don't enforce or can't back up with a statute. Why... because they can be sued.

The person would lose as what would be their complaint? The police were enforcing a law? If the person were to sue they would sue the entity (city, county, state) that made the law claiming it's not lawful.

[/quote]I work for an agency that everyone on here says will come to get you if you fly your drone where you shouldn't and I can tell you my agency currently has no control over airspace. We have no authority to investigate overflights.[/quote]So.... no one can say anything to that as you don't mention the agency. I once saw something that everyone says does not exist.

All LEOs are asked by the FAA to document and bring possible infractions to their attention for possible action. This is simply a fact.

 

[ianwood]

I work for a federal law enforcement agency.. that folks on here believe assists the FAA in governing airspace. We don't. We have no statute to govern airspace. No training and no authority to govern UAV flights. We would get laughed out of the office if we tried to present a case to an attorney...

and you said this.

I'm not trying to be an antagonist but I don't agree the last part of your statement.

I am saying you are absolutely wrong. Law enforcement officers absolutely do understand what you have written. Me being one of them albeit a federal officer. I know for a fact that the local officers are keenly aware of what they can and can't do by statute. They also know who can and can't enforce laws as it relates to the airspace. To say they/we don't is wrong and insulting.

That's what I thought. What I meant was that your average officer on the street, the one who is most likely to deal with a drone situation, doesn't know about FAA regulations and what is/is not permitted nor would I expect them to. Nor would they be able to weigh in on Federal preemption in the situation where there are local laws. And as you say, they have no training for identifying altitudes, etc.

As for enforcement, my understanding is only the DOT and NTSB can act upon violations of FAA regs. So I think we're more on the same page than you think.

 

[m0j0]

That's what I thought. What I meant was that your average officer on the street, the one who is most likely to deal with a drone situation, doesn't know about FAA regulations and what is/is not permitted nor would I expect them to. Nor would they be able to weigh in on Federal preemption in the situation where there are local laws. And as you say, they have no training for identifying altitudes, etc.

As for enforcement, my understanding is only the DOT and NTSB can act upon violations of FAA regs. So I think we're more on the same page than you think.

I misunderstood and agree with your point.

 

[m0j0]

The person would lose as what would be their complaint? ..

First their complaint would be that they were detained illegally. Police can't enforce laws that they do not have the authority to enforce. That is all.

The police were enforcing a law?

Police officers can't enforce a law for which they have no statutory authority to enforce. That is all... Attempting to do so can result in civil suit.

If the person were to sue they would sue the entity (city, county, state) that made the law claiming it's not lawful..

They can and do sue both the city and the officer. I'll explain. I can't arrest someone for a traffic violation. My federal authority does not give me authority to arrest anyone for a moving violation. If I did, that would constitute an illegal arrest or seizure. I can personally be sued for making such an arrest. Officers are often times sued civilly (personally) for conduct that is outside the scope of their employment. The scenario I described could absolutely result in a civil suit. Which is why most LEO's, including myself, carry personal liability insurance.

So.... no one can say anything to that as you don't mention the agency. I once saw something that everyone says does not exist..

I haven't said because it isn't relative to the conversation. All that matters is that LEO's can't really do much for violations on which they have no statutory authority to enforce. It is a simple principle.

All LEOs are asked by the FAA to document and bring possible infractions to their attention for possible action. This is simply a fact.

In practice this means just about 0. It means they have no authority to take any action except to document a potential FAA violation. The absolute same authority that a private citizen carries. Unless of course you do something that violates a statute that they have authority to enforce e.g. endagering... etc.

I'm out.

 

[joe21]

I don't know that this is an accurate statement. I would challenge you to provide me some legal support to back this statement. Remember that airspace is by definition public.

I imagine I could do some research and provide more to back up my opinion. Frankly, it's too much work for the sake of a friendly discussion. If it was an issue that directly affected me, I would pay my lawyer to come up with the relevant case law.

Your premise is that "airspace is by definition public." That's where I would disagree. While I know it is repeating myself, I point to the Causby case. There, SCotUS specifically states the property owner "owns" some airspace. Based on this, at least _some_ of the space above your property is NOT public. I guess that counts as "legal support" to back up my statement. While the FAA currently seems to imply otherwise, I am unaware of any legal decisions that contradict the Causby decision on this point.

I do agree that exactly how much of that space is "private" is open for discussion (and will vary). In the case you linked to, the helicopter was at a stated height of 400 feet. It is interesting that the altitude is mentioned several times in this case. It seems that the "navigable airspace" terminology played an important part in the decision (much like in Causby).

To me that implies there is still some lower limit where the courts would decide the airspace becomes private. From the decision you linked, it appears that if the helicopter was flying too low the court may have decided differently.

I agree that it is an interesting topic and one which may turn out differently than any of us expect. There are rights that need to be balanced among the stakeholders. No offense to you or your agency, but the Federal Government seems to be more interested in growing their influence and control. This does not bode well for future rules, laws and court decisions in this area. (IMO)

Regarding the photography example and privacy issues... that's a different thing. The example used was one of someone flying in their own backyard (no trespass issues involved) to circumvent privacy measures and photograph someone. The comparison was to someone using a ladder or long stick to see over a fence.

I still maintain that if your locality has a law prohibiting using a ladder of other device to spy over a fence, that a drone would be the functional equivalent and thus bound by the same law. My point on this was that the lack of an FAA rule against it would not be an adequate loophole to skirt the intent of the local law. Besides, its creepy and unethical.

 

[richardtomcat]

You are right - just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should.

Note that the 400' limit is an FAA _guideline_. It is not a "rule" or a "law." (Although it is generally a good idea to follow that guideline).

I am curious... if your area has an actual law that prohibits someone from using a device such as a ladder to take a picture over a fence, why would you assume that taking that same photo with a UAV is not prohibited by the same law? Wouldn't holding a camera on a ladder or at the end of a long stick be functionally the same as hovering a camera in the same location?

Thanx. I do "note". As of today, the FAA is about guidelines which also include flying over people, buildings, cars, etc. It won't be long before there are rules and regulations. Obviously cities/towns will make the laws as witnessed in DC and recently in NYC. Didn't write anything about my "area" having a law and I did not assume the "UAV is not prohibited". I created a metaphor. Many comments in this thread mentioning "founding fathers", "patriotism", ad nauseam, regarding "our" rights as pilots with a plethora of armchair attorneys. Appears to be a fair share of pirates flying too. I've had my P3P since 6 December 2015. I'm new. I live in the Rockies and don't even have 10-hours of flight time. Your comment "You are right - just because you can do something, doesn't always mean you should." Being right was unimportant .. don't know if you have the credentials to decide that but nice that you agree with my opinion. My life moves with regard to my neighbor and I don't do what I want when I want with the impetuousness of a child. So, in my search for a worthy attorney's opinion I found Gregory McNeal. He has some credentials ...
"Gregory McNeal, a law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law and frequent contributor about drones for Forbes, says he’s dug through the New York City ordinances and hasn't found any specific language outlawing drones. But if the cops think you’re creating a public risk by flying your drone, you could be hit with a Reckless Endangerment charge, which can carry a penalty of up to seven years in prison. You may win your case if you challenge it in court, but you’d rack up lots of legal fees." Game of Drones
My opinion is that our pirate pilots will insure the continued creation and development of laws and NFZ's and many cities and towns saying no to drones.