Have you read this.
http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/02/RULE.pdf
I think we should just lie to the un washed masses as I am and tell them they are laws! Hmmm...
Thanks for the link. I just spent an hour reading it, and I would give the writer a "D" for starting his "analysis" with a preconceived conclusion.
He makes the same mistake that a lot of local amateur legislators make, that "Navigable Airspace" is defined as starting at 500 ft. He references the FAA Act of 1958, which in Section 307(a)
Use of Airspace says that "The administrator is authorized and directed to develop plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of the navigable airspace; and assign by rule, regulation, or order the use of the navigable airspace under such terms, conditions, and limitations as he may deem necessary in order to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace. He may modify or revoke such assignment when required in the public interest.".
Navigable airspace is not defined anywhere in this act of Congress - it's left up to the FAA administrator. But the writer goes on to assert: " Federal regulators then defined “navigable airspace” to include most airspace over 500 feet above ground level."
Here's the problem for the writer. The FAA act of 1958 was the creation of the FAA from the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) after the mid-air collision between a TWA and United airliners over the Grand Canyon in 1956. The act empowered the FAA to take control of all navigable airspace over the United States for both civilian and military purposes. The writer erroneously conflates "controlled airspace" with "navigable airspace". There is no hard-coded definition of "navigable airspace". Controlled airspace mostly starts at 500 ft, but can be higher or lower depending on the location. 14 CFR §91.119(d) 'Minimum safe altitudes' does say that 500 ft is the minimum safe altitude for airplanes, but helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft may operate as low as they wish as long as the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. It can be argued that a multi-rotor aircraft is a helicopter.
His next error is assuming that tree branches over a property line results in the same trespass as a low-flying drone. Completely ignoring that the tree branch is not in flight, where federal law is the jurisdiction:
49 USC § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a)Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
He further misstates the purpose of an avigation easement. He thinks the avigation easement provides for the ownership of the air over a property, which is incorrect. An avigation easement is used to
restrict a property owner's use of the airspace over his property. Avigation easements are only used in the trapezoidal shaped safety zones extending from the end of a runway for a few thousand feet and usually up to 500 ft AGL. Property owners near an airport really do not like an airport sponsor taking an avigation easement. The writer and many clueless local lawmakers read this as evidence that airspace below 500 ft is not generally navigable.
The writer also spent an inordinate number of pages describing trespass in the 2D world and unconvincingly expanded those same references into 3D space.
I am certain that the writer made other errors, but these three are pretty significant.