Private property vs controlled airspace

Joined
Jan 16, 2018
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Age
26
Since navigational airspace begins at 500' is it legal to fly a drone on private property even if it is in controlled airspace?
 
Welcome to the site. We'll assume you're in the USA and you're a hobbyist. If it's class B, you're supposed to call the airport/tower and get permission. If you're within five miles of any airport, you're supposed to notify that airport/tower. Otherwise, you must be sure not to endanger the safety of NAS. See Part 101/Sec 336. Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Since navigational airspace begins at 500' is it legal to fly a drone on private property even if it is in controlled airspace?

You said fly ON private property...
I expect you meant Over???.
But just in case operating From private property is obviously a case-by-case basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Welcome to the forum.

Since navigational airspace begins at 500' is it legal to fly a drone on private property even if it is in controlled airspace?

Assuming you're from the USA (Colorado) let's address the main point of contention here:

Our National Airspace System (NAS) in the USA starts the moment the aircraft is no longer touching Terra Firma. Not 100', not 200', not 500'. While this has not been taken to court "recently", you can rest assured that the National Airspace System starts well below 500' AGL. This specific # comes up often because in many cases "Manned Aircraft" don't get below 500'AGL unless taking off and landing (and there are lots of legal and safe exceptions to this rule but that's for another debate). Because of this "Min Altitude" noted for manned aviation many people want to try and apply this to sUAS Operations and it just doesn't work like that. We operate almost exclusively in the 0' - 400' portion of the National Airspace System.

If you're standing on private property you must have the property owner's permission to stand, sit, fly from, land on etc that property. Once the aircraft is airborne, from an airspace perspective, the landowner has no say-so over the actual flight itself. That doesn't mean other legal issues aren't at play such as, Privacy, trespassing, reckless behavior, endangering the NAS and so on.

@Mark The Droner gave you excellent information in his reply above regards "Notification". It's not an option but a requirement to attempt notification.
 
Welcome to the forum.



Assuming you're from the USA (Colorado) let's address the main point of contention here:

Our National Airspace System (NAS) in the USA starts the moment the aircraft is no longer touching Terra Firma. Not 100', not 200', not 500'. While this has not been taken to court "recently", you can rest assured that the National Airspace System starts well below 500' AGL. This specific # comes up often because in many cases "Manned Aircraft" don't get below 500'AGL unless taking off and landing (and there are lots of legal and safe exceptions to this rule but that's for another debate). Because of this "Min Altitude" noted for manned aviation many people want to try and apply this to sUAS Operations and it just doesn't work like that. We operate almost exclusively in the 0' - 400' portion of the National Airspace System.

If you're standing on private property you must have the property owner's permission to stand, sit, fly from, land on etc that property. Once the aircraft is airborne, from an airspace perspective, the landowner has no say-so over the actual flight itself. That doesn't mean other legal issues aren't at play such as, Privacy, trespassing, reckless behavior, endangering the NAS and so on.

@Mark The Droner gave you excellent information in his reply above regards "Notification". It's not an option but a requirement to attempt notification.
A Very informative and a highly interesting post.Thanks as it sure answered many of my questions too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
BigAl nailed it.

As usual :)

Thanks BigA... more fodder for my notebook :cool:

Since navigational airspace begins at 500' is it legal to fly a drone on private property even if it is in controlled airspace?

Which class of airspace it is would also matter wouldn't it? And unless I'm wrong, technically all airspace over the US is 'controlled', as-in regulated by the FAA.
 
Assuming you're from the USA (Colorado) let's address the main point of contention here:

Our National Airspace System (NAS) in the USA starts the moment the aircraft is no longer touching Terra Firma. Not 100', not 200', not 500'. While this has not been taken to court "recently", you can rest assured that the National Airspace System starts well below 500' AGL. This specific # comes up often because in many cases "Manned Aircraft" don't get below 500'AGL unless taking off and landing (and there are lots of legal and safe exceptions to this rule but that's for another debate). Because of this "Min Altitude" noted for manned aviation many people want to try and apply this to sUAS Operations and it just doesn't work like that. We operate almost exclusively in the 0' - 400' portion of the National Airspace System.

If you're standing on private property you must have the property owner's permission to stand, sit, fly from, land on etc that property. Once the aircraft is airborne, from an airspace perspective, the landowner has no say-so over the actual flight itself. That doesn't mean other legal issues aren't at play such as, Privacy, trespassing, reckless behavior, endangering the NAS and so on.


Thank you BigAl!! Gonna tattoo that to my forehead for the sake of those folks I encounter who believe they work for the FAA, but don't actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
While I whole heartedly appreciate your kind words and compliments I want to stress one point.. I'm just a random guy on the internet who happens to be deeply immersed in UAS operations. This gives me no legal authority or anything other than just "I told you so". Just because I say it doesn't make it the gospel fact (but pretty close LOL) so always run any legal questions by an aviation attorney or your local FSDO. What they say can be "quoted"...

@RunningWithScissors that's going to be one heck of a tattoo LOL
 
Well, BigAl, like my father used to say, "get it in writing because that tends to end the discussion fairly quickly". As for the size of the tatoo, you are correct. Hadn't considered that little detail. I guess my options are to shrink it so it all fits on my forehead, or have the tatoo stretch around my entire head, or tatoo half of it on the forehead and the rest on the back. I kinda like the idea of shrinking it to all fit on my forehead, and then just tell folks to, "read the fine print". As always, that's just my two cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Thanks you guys for the informative post above. Well this is interesting.

I just became aware of our local city adopting a drone ordinance middle of last year. Link below and my question has to do with this section:
" C.

..... No person shall takeoff, land, or operate a UA on or over private property without the written or electronic consent of the property owner, if the property owner is a person other than the UA operator. When consent to operate a UA is required to takeoff, land, or operate a UA on or over private property, UA operators must have on their possession a copy of the written or electronic consent from the owner of the property, or properties, over which they takeoff, land, or operate a UA. "

Can our city regulate air space over private property? I am taking off from a public right of way and flying over private property. Seems like they are regulating air space that I thought is the FAA's responsibility to regulate in the USA. Is a city allowed to regulate air space beyond the scope of the FAA?

I would like to rebuttal this "flying over private property restriction". By the way, I am flying over undeveloped open space. Thanks for your anticipated feedback.

Municode Library
 
Can our city regulate air space over private property?....

....I would like to rebuttal this "flying over private property restriction".

I'm no expert, but just my opinion - Yes, the city can pass laws that the local LEOs then have to enforce.

When you say you want to rebuttal this do you mean hire a lawyer and take action now to try and get the ordinance revoked, reversed, or revised - or just go fly irregardless of the law?... in which case, you'll have to hire a lawyer anyway - if you get caught. Not trying to be contentious, just curious. :)
 
Last edited:
Just became aware of this. I thought air space could only really be regulated by FAA. It appears I can fly from public right away and over such as long as it’s unrestricted air space.
 
Thanks you guys for the informative post above. Well this is interesting.

I just became aware of our local city adopting a drone ordinance middle of last year. Link below and my question has to do with this section:
" C.

..... No person shall takeoff, land, or operate a UA on or over private property without the written or electronic consent of the property owner, if the property owner is a person other than the UA operator. When consent to operate a UA is required to takeoff, land, or operate a UA on or over private property, UA operators must have on their possession a copy of the written or electronic consent from the owner of the property, or properties, over which they takeoff, land, or operate a UA. "

Can our city regulate air space over private property? I am taking off from a public right of way and flying over private property. Seems like they are regulating air space that I thought is the FAA's responsibility to regulate in the USA. Is a city allowed to regulate air space beyond the scope of the FAA?

I would like to rebuttal this "flying over private property restriction". By the way, I am flying over undeveloped open space. Thanks for your anticipated feedback.

Municode Library


They can create law & enforce them in regards to where you takeoff and land (land use laws). They, currently, can not create Airspace laws. This will have to go to court to be tried though.

Keep in mind that SAFETY and PRIVACY laws are well within the scope of a city/county to create and enforce. It's a slippery slope and be careful, once you're on the radar you are ON THE RADAR for anything and everything you do.
 
They can create law & enforce them in regards to where you takeoff and land (land use laws). They, currently, can not create Airspace laws. This will have to go to court to be tried though.

As always, BigAl, your input and wisdom are greatly appreciated. With issues like this that have potential to impact many of us, and the sport in general, would it behove us to have formal legal counsel versed in these matters on staff to address these concerns? Just asking.
 
As always, BigAl, your input and wisdom are greatly appreciated. With issues like this that have potential to impact many of us, and the sport in general, would it behove us to have formal legal counsel versed in these matters on staff to address these concerns? Just asking.

Well it sounds like this one has already got the cart out in front of the horse. From my limited experience with such instances, once a council creates something like that they will fight tooth and nail to NOT get proven wrong. This is why that one may have to go to court to get it proven.

If you live in an area that does NOT already have Drone Regulations on the board then reach out to your representatives and create an open (and friendly) dialog with them. We did this very thing a few years ago and in 2015 (maybe 14) there was an issue with someone flying a sUAS outside the courthouse windows spying in. Even though they already had "Privacy" laws in place that would have handled this, some people wanted DRONE laws enacted. I was called in as a "Subject Matter Expert" and we sat down and wrote a fair "Land Use Ordinance" that protected those needing protection but did not hamper my company from being able to safely and legally operate in the area. Once the county Board of Commissioners understood the laws already enacted and what they could NOT do they worked with us and everyone is protected and working. Education is key but you've got to have more than "This is what I read on a forum". You've got to get your ducks in a row and know your stuff inside and out.
 
There is a power plant in my area that closed down last year. They have recently started dismantling it. A few weeks ago I took a bunch of photos and a couple of videos. They were very popular after I posted them online. A few days later I received a message to contact the attorney who represents the new owners of the property. He asked me to remove the photos that were taken in the airspace over their property. I complied.

What do you think?
 
There is a power plant in my area that closed down last year. They have recently started dismantling it. A few weeks ago I took a bunch of photos and a couple of videos. They were very popular after I posted them online. A few days later I received a message to contact the attorney who represents the new owners of the property. He asked me to remove the photos that were taken in the airspace over their property. I complied.

What do you think?
I think that I would have ignored the message and left them up. If he doesn't want photos or videos taken from the air by anyone with a UAV, in a rented plane or even a hotair balloon he needs to stop sending messages and go buy some tarps to cover whatever he wants to keep so private.
 
I don't like any stress in my life. From the research I've done and the good info posted in this thread, I don't see anything that says I should have taken the photos down. But... what could happen if I didn't? I'd be dealing with a company that has big dollars to spend on a team of attorneys, I could probably find the free attorney of the day at a court house. See what I mean?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,054
Messages
1,467,297
Members
104,919
Latest member
BobDan