What are FAA rules for ultralights taking photos or videos over private property and parks?

[Jean Tessmer Maui Hawaii]

Ultralights and hang gliders usually fly low over properties and parks. Are there any FAA privacy restrictions that apply to Ultralights and Hang gliders using videos or cameras?

 

[N017RW]

Please don’t start multiple threads on the same subject.

 

[mossphotography]

The FAA does not make privacy rules. As long as you're not flying over people, and not in restricted airspace, the FAA doesn't care.

Privacy is a state issue, and even a local issue at times. But I can tell you the the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that there is no "reasonable expectations of privacy" while someone is in their backyard.

 

[Jean Tessmer Maui Hawaii]

Frank, Thanks for the recommendation on multiple threads. Sorry about that.

Mossphotography thanks for the SCOTUS info.

 

[Propsontop]

Cool info about SCOTUS's rulings. Makes me rethink the cost of that 8 foot privacy fence.

 

[Jean Tessmer Maui Hawaii]

Hello all. Thank you for this opportunity.
This is what I found after reading the Causby v US case and a number of legal opinions. I am also including some links below.
•These statutes confirm that the public right to fly does not extend down to ground level.
•Case law, Governing statutes and Agency procedures acknowledge that the airspace at lower altitudes vests with property title as defined by the two-dimensional metes and bounds of a deed to lands.
•Because public flyover rights are limited to the terms of the original easement outlined by the 1958 Act, any right to fly below 500 feet, or in an aircraft other than a plane, cannot be presumed to preempt the property rights of the landowner.
•Any continuous and adverse use of this airspace constitutes a compensable taking of a property interest.93 (from the Causby case)
Therefore Drones flying below 500 feet while above private lands violates the constitutionally protected rights of a the landowners.

By the way in the Causby case the US had to pay the Chicken Farmer $2000.00 fine because there was a finding of taking of property rights. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/aero/drones/documents/1946 takings decision.pdf - Takings Decision Causby case
What was $2,000 in 1946 worth in today's money? - Adjusted for inflation, $2,000.00 in 1946 is equal to $27,608.02 in 2019. - Calculate the value of $2,000 in 1946. How much is it worth today?

Canada as of June 1, 2019 requires all drone flyers to have certification to fly.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Link to Canadian Drone Law

Air rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can I declare a “no-flight zone” over my house?

www.straightdope.com

If You Own Land, How Far Above and Below Do You Own? - property how far above and below my house do I own
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1915&context=jalc - Low Altitude Air Space No Mans Land

Ownership of Airspace Over Property – Aviation

aviation.uslegal.com

Do You Own the Air Above Your Home?

National Geographic photographer George Steinmetz was arrested for trespass on June 28 after circling his paraglider over a Kansas cattle feedlot,...

slate.com

 

[mossphotography]

•These statutes confirm that the public right to fly does not extend down to ground level.
•Case law, Governing statutes and Agency procedures acknowledge that the airspace at lower altitudes vests with property title as defined by the two-dimensional metes and bounds of a deed to lands.
•Because public flyover rights are limited to the terms of the original easement outlined by the 1958 Act, any right to fly below 500 feet, or in an aircraft other than a plane, cannot be presumed to preempt the property rights of the landowner.
•Any continuous and adverse use of this airspace constitutes a compensable taking of a property interest.93 (from the Causby case)
Therefore Drones flying below 500 feet while above private lands violates the constitutionally protected rights of a the landowners.

.

Definitely some bad info here. Especially that last sentence.

There is no way that the Causby case can be summarized into "flying below 500 feet while above private lands violates the constitutionally protected rights", because those rights don't exist. Which is the entire premise of the work of the ULC's Tort Law Relating to Drones Committee (Tort Law Relating to Drones Committee - Uniform Law Commission).

Much of the information in the referenced articles above are conjecture, and even disagree within their own article.

There has been no (as in ZERO) court case on the use of UAS and what constitutes "navigable airspace". The common exception is also the airspace necessary for take off and landings. So even if we use manned aviation guidelines, UAS have full use of any airspace. Of course there are some private property rights that come into play, and common sense (which is unfortunately very uncommon these days), but the use of the 500' mark as a constitutionally protected airspace for land owners is pure fiction.

Property possessors have the use of the airspace above their land only in as much as is reasonable. The Causby ruling stated it thusly, the land possessor (owner in their words) has use of “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” Therefore anything above that is not under control of them, but the FAA.

Fly smart and fly friendly, and you don't have to worry about being prosecuted. And privacy will never play a role under the eyes of the FAA anyway.

 

[Jean Tessmer Maui Hawaii]

Hello Mossphotography,

Thank you for your information, I appreciate your input. I did see the last June 2019 memorandum from ULC with the proposed 200' air space for drones over private property. I realize the ULC has nothing to do with FAA and more to do with land owners and low altitude air space rights.

For your information, none of the info contained in the comments I sent were of my own thinking on this issue. I am laying out these findings to have thoughtful discourse that could apply to all recreational drone flyers while waiting for interim state local legislation and tort laws to evolve on private property and air space. Its not the FAA I am worried about. All the land I want to fly over have owners.

I am seeking advice on drone aerial video and photography to understand the best practice when flying outside the metes and bounds of the property I live on.

I think this discourse may be helpful. What I am doing is asking each property owner permission to fly over their property if necessary in FAA G classified air space.

I am a pole photographer (see PolePixie.com) I hoist my cameras up 24' on pole extensions to take aerial photographs. I have recently began to use a Phantom 4 pro and really like the RX100 1" Sony Sensor on the camera. I am new at flying but a seasoned photographer.

FYI I have had a recent experience with a hang glider landing in a tree above my head as I walked to the restroom building at park. He weighed a lot more than a Phantom 4 pro.

Thanks again for your supportive hearty response.

 

[umanbean]

Frank, Thanks for the recommendation on multiple threads. Sorry about that.

Just curious but... how did you know his first name? Did you look up his N-number?

 

[Jean Tessmer Maui Hawaii]

Frank signed his blog back with his name - last line of his first response to me.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."
Frank Zappa 1940-1993

 

[Meta4]

Frank signed his blog back with his name - last line of his first response to me.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."
Frank Zappa 1940-1993

Frank hasn't signed much at all in the last 25 years.

 

[N017RW]

Frank signed his blog back with his name - last line of his first response to me.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."
Frank Zappa 1940-1993

Jean,
Frank Zappa was a musician with an unusual sense of humor. I enjoyed much of his work.

My first name is Robert.

 

[umanbean]

Doh!

I get it now - the signature line! lol

p.s. Don't eat the yellow snow

Gene

 

[Jean Tessmer Maui Hawaii]

Thanks for all the good humored comments. Boy am I embarrassed. Thanks for the clarification.