Keep out of our airspace says ski area
- Thread starter spankybear
- Start date
This case uses the "under the safe minimum altitude"... There's a double edge sword there... with the 400 foot rule... and if so may just not allow us to fly anywhere under the safe minimum altitude. Could get sticky...
Well, if the "property owner" owns the air space upto 500 feet, the FAA regs say we can only fly 400 feet and below. Guess we can't fly over the ski resort.....lol
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 24
What I'll never understand is the need to do garbage like this.. if told not to do something some people feel the need to go do it anyway. Sort of like telling a 5 year old to not touch the stove its hot so they do anyway.
You (generic) sit here & ***** & moan about the idiots that have gotten us to the point of registration & possibly something worse still to come but yet you feel the need to go "teach someone a lesson" by flying over their property?
Some of you are stupid & reckless, hope you enjoy dealing with the FAA then.
You (generic) sit here & ***** & moan about the idiots that have gotten us to the point of registration & possibly something worse still to come but yet you feel the need to go "teach someone a lesson" by flying over their property?
Some of you are stupid & reckless, hope you enjoy dealing with the FAA then.
That really depends on what is being told and if it is lawful.
History is rife with civil disobedience. Imagine if Rosa Parks just sat where she is told.
At best it is murky who has the jurisdiction of air space above private properties. FAA or owner?
According to a WSJ article "The FAA says the advent of drones has extended “navigable airspace”—and thus the FAA’s authority—down to the ground. As long as private drones don’t endanger people, the agency says, they can legally hover just above private property in the U.S."
Drones Boom Raises New Question: Who Owns Your Airspace?
So Maverick, as long as you don't buzz the tower and keep your altitude high enough (but still within FAA guidelines) to not endanger people, you are within regulations. A person or company can't establish a personal and private NFZ over "their" property that involves the FAA jurisdiction of navigable airpspace...
The advent of the airplane obsoleted the concept of land ownership also including the airspace above the land "up to the heavens"...
Drones Boom Raises New Question: Who Owns Your Airspace?
So Maverick, as long as you don't buzz the tower and keep your altitude high enough (but still within FAA guidelines) to not endanger people, you are within regulations. A person or company can't establish a personal and private NFZ over "their" property that involves the FAA jurisdiction of navigable airpspace...
The advent of the airplane obsoleted the concept of land ownership also including the airspace above the land "up to the heavens"...
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2015
- Messages
- 341
- Reaction score
- 77
I am pretty sure that is incorrect. But if you would post a link where you read it I would like to read it.
Property owners are granted the easement, not the public. The Property Rights of Airspace - For Dummies
That's just the point. Over someones property in not "their" property. While I'm sure there are people who don't like the idea of a drone over their property, there is no law against it being there. Hey, I don't "like it" when a car drives down the street and its headlights shine into my dining room while eating. It doesn't give me the right to close off the street. If someone doesn't like a drone over their home, buy land big enough so a drone can't reach it.
To be absolutely clear, I understand a persons wish to have the airspace above their home designated a NFZ but the laws, as they exist today, do not require me to honor it.
Here's a movie quote I think fits the topic.
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours"
Last edited:
Woooooooooohoooooooo...this is getting to be an awesome thread. It is so good to see people debate an issue(s), and not resort to calling each other names. This so far has been a very informative thread, with a little humor thrown in at times. I wish I new more about the discussion. But it does make for good information and reading. Thanks guys or gals if needed. I really do enjoy reading this.
I wanted to take some drone footage of my son snowboarding down the slopes of the ski resort we used to buy season passes for. So I tried to do the right thing and spoke to representatives of the resort. I ended up meeting and speaking to the head of the resort's ski patrol (according to him he is responsible for the safety of everyone on the resort's slopes and therefore has the final go / no go decision authority).
I could tell I wasn't the first person to ask for permission by the scripted nature of his response:
1. I needed to provide proof of insurance with $2m in personal injury coverage.
2. I need to give the resort at least a week notice before the day of filming.
3. This was the tipping point, I need to rent the slope that My son would be riding on while I fly/film. Basically, they would close off the slope for just our use. This would have costs thousands.
Given these requirements I just decided not to pursue snowboarding footage of my son via a phantom. Sure I could probably sneak a phantom in but I don't want to be "that guy" that doesn't respect the wishes of property owners. By analogy, I can buy tickets to see the SF Giants or I can hang out near the stadium in mccovey cove with my boat. There is no law that prohibits me from flying near or over the stadium but it is still prohibited by the property owners so I don't do it. Plus like the ski slopes there are always a lot of people around which increases the risk that someone will be hit by a drone. I think I could get away with it at the larger resorts but the ones I go to seem to have a lot of employees monitoring the lifts and on the slopes, it would suck to get kicked out to the resort, especially early in the day
I could tell I wasn't the first person to ask for permission by the scripted nature of his response:
1. I needed to provide proof of insurance with $2m in personal injury coverage.
2. I need to give the resort at least a week notice before the day of filming.
3. This was the tipping point, I need to rent the slope that My son would be riding on while I fly/film. Basically, they would close off the slope for just our use. This would have costs thousands.
Given these requirements I just decided not to pursue snowboarding footage of my son via a phantom. Sure I could probably sneak a phantom in but I don't want to be "that guy" that doesn't respect the wishes of property owners. By analogy, I can buy tickets to see the SF Giants or I can hang out near the stadium in mccovey cove with my boat. There is no law that prohibits me from flying near or over the stadium but it is still prohibited by the property owners so I don't do it. Plus like the ski slopes there are always a lot of people around which increases the risk that someone will be hit by a drone. I think I could get away with it at the larger resorts but the ones I go to seem to have a lot of employees monitoring the lifts and on the slopes, it would suck to get kicked out to the resort, especially early in the day
As of yesterday I have permission to fly our local resort but it required lots of meetings and answering lots of question. Plus I had to show:
Pilot Cert (current)
Medical Cert (current)
Proof of Insurance (current)
Section 333
COA
and do a demo flight for the Ski Area Manager to demonstrate I can fly in a safe and controlled manner.
I have to file my NOTAM no less than 24hrs and no more than 72hrs prior to the actual flight but I don't have to rent the slope and only have to call the Ski Area Manager in advance of the flight. Other than that I have free reign to fly/film so long as I'm safe and fly within my Exemption (which will be a feat in and of itself LOL).
Pilot Cert (current)
Medical Cert (current)
Proof of Insurance (current)
Section 333
COA
and do a demo flight for the Ski Area Manager to demonstrate I can fly in a safe and controlled manner.
I have to file my NOTAM no less than 24hrs and no more than 72hrs prior to the actual flight but I don't have to rent the slope and only have to call the Ski Area Manager in advance of the flight. Other than that I have free reign to fly/film so long as I'm safe and fly within my Exemption (which will be a feat in and of itself LOL).
Similar threads
