Where do I stand

[AUGENBLICK]

I appreciate your problem having had a similar experience. I was accused of having flown onto a next door neighbours property, but was able to prove from the DJI Telemetry that I had not, and had not "violated" anybody else's airspace. It's not worth a "verbal fight" ! If people have an issue with drones/drone pilots - you ain't going to change their minds, and "pain in the neck" that it is - I would advise finding somewhere else to fly - as difficult as that maybe, and however annoying . Drones are like flying aeroplanes - you need continual practice, and aeroplanes have airports and airspace. Unfortunately, drone pilots have to find their own airspace, and that''s not easy ! For me - it is an on-going problem !

 

[WV. Rootman]

There is a huge amount of hype around England following the closure of Gatwick airport due to a drone flying too near it. Since then drones seem to have become a no no!!

I thought in the end there wasn't any drones at all. How dumb can people be?

 

[Trackerputnam]

How about going to the neighbor before hand and letting them know you are going to be flying. Show them the equip and offer to let them fly it. You can show them what you can and can not see. And you can show them it’s for fun or that your objective is capturing some video for their neighbor. I have never yet had a problem when I have first walked up to the neighboring property owners and had a chat with them. Laughs and smiles learning to fly a drone “Trump” frowns and arguments later.

 

[joelet]

Field B can’t tell you what air space you can fly in unless it controlled air space. The FAA is the only authority that can tell what air space you can fly. If you have your part 107 you can fly as long as it’s not controlled air space.

 

[Nightwolf]

How dumb can people be?

Have you met "people"?

 

[cheddarman]

I thought in the end there wasn't any drones at all. How dumb can people be?

In the end it was established that some of the drones spotted were actually Police ones that nobody knew were up there!!

 

[WV. Rootman]

Have you met "people"?

Yes I am one. lol

 

[WV. Rootman]

I figure the persons that wrote it up was too lazy to do the work they should have and did a quick copy and paste. It maybe just be a case of incompetence. I don’t think anyone on this forum with the knowledge we have would have written such a thing. By the government releasing such trash, sends a bad message to the people on how they feel about the importance of the issue.

 

[John Decker]

What country you flying in? Lot of people from different places here and rules are different.

Yep, totally illegal to overfly B in those circumstances in New Zealand at any height

 

[jimlips]

My understanding is the issue of airspace above private property hasn't been completely settled. The airspace at 500' and above is navigable airspace according to the FAA (Congress). There was a court decision that required the military to pay a farmer compensation for flights that were 83' above his property.

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

That say there was no clear defining of where private property rights ended...

"The Court of Claims granted respondents a judgment for the value of property destroyed and damage to their property resulting from the taking of an easement over their property by low-flying military aircraft of the United States, but failed to include in its findings of fact a specific description of the nature or duration of the easement."

My understanding was the judgement was for the farmer because the low-flying military aircraft were "stressing" out his chickens. He was reimbursed for lost income because his chickens weren't laying as well, due to the noise from the aircraft. It would freak me out, too. 83 feet?

I'm with others on this, if you go up to 300', they won't even notice you, esp. if you make a bee-line for it. Just be prepared if you have a failure and your drone goes down on the property you are flying over.

 

[2edgesword]

My understanding was the judgement was for the farmer because the low-flying military aircraft were "stressing" out his chickens. He was reimbursed for lost income because his chickens weren't laying as well, due to the noise from the aircraft. It would freak me out, too. 83 feet?

I'm with others on this, if you go up to 300', they won't even notice you, esp. if you make a bee-line for it. Just be prepared if you have a failure and your drone goes down on the property you are flying over.

The government didn't just pay for property damage but for taking an easement over the property...

"The Court of Claims found that the Government had taken an easement over respondents' property, and that the value of the property destroyed and the easement taken was $2,000; but it made no finding as to the precise nature or duration of the easement."

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is this is a recognition that the government was taking an easement in property (airspace at 83') that belonged to the farmer. Maybe a lawyer on the forum familiar with easements can clarify.

 

[Osmosis]

If you take-off and on land that you have permission to be on and you fly within non restricted airspace and within FAA rules and regs - you can fly over all of those without their permission. Airspace is controlled by the FAA - ONLY.

 

[2edgesword]

If you take-off and on land that you have permission to be on and you fly within non restricted airspace and within FAA rules and regs - you can fly over all of those without their permission. Airspace is controlled by the FAA - ONLY.

That's the FAA's position but the court ruling in Causby says otherwise...

"Holding 'a landowner's domain includes the lower altitude airspace, but that property does not extend "ad coelum" (indefinitely upward)."

" The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the land, is part of the public domain."

""ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this State is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath"

"We think that the landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to it and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions of the surface."

The FAA does NOT control all airspace.

 

[cheddarman]

Today in the UK thanks to the Civil Aviation Act of 1982, the generally accepted amount of air above one’s roof a person is entitled to is approximately 500-1,000 feet, though again this isn’t a hard definition. Likewise, the United States has a similar estimation of about 500 feet, though this has never been officially ruled on by the Supreme Court.

 

[skymonkey]

So is this airspace that the landowner is entitled to apply to landowners inside of class B, C, and D surface area airspace? How much airspace is a landowner untitled to who lives on the approach path of an airport where GA planes fly over at 200’ or less? Should airspace disclosure be part of a real estate contract when such property lies in such airspace? Is this airspace right given to land owners only apply to sUAS’s?

 

[cheddarman]

There are an awful to of grey areas in this drone flying business. So I own the airspace over me house but I can't use it because there are houses either side of me, so wha's the point? There is a field behind my house but a neighbour but one has said it made her nervous to see the drone over the field! I don't think that can stop me flying there can it! However out of courtesy I will keep my end of that filed!

 

[2edgesword]

So is this airspace that the landowner is entitled to apply to landowners inside of class B, C, and D surface area airspace? How much airspace is a landowner untitled to who lives on the approach path of an airport where GA planes fly over at 200’ or less? Should airspace disclosure be part of a real estate contract when such property lies in such airspace? Is this airspace right given to land owners only apply to sUAS’s?

I think with the advent of drones these questions to one thought much about are becoming relevant. If a drone flies in the airspace above my backyard, I'm on a ladder trimming trees and knock it down with my 14' long tree pruing shears is that a crime or do I have a legal right to stop the invasion of that airspace above my backyard? There is a lot of gray area the legislature and courts will have to clarify.

 

[cheddarman]

So according to "the rules" I "own" the airspace over my property so can fly in it up to a certain height, but then the rules say I can't fly within 150m of buildings. I have neighbours either side so this cancels out the airspace over the house

 

[Satellite Aerial View]

No one owns airspace so if that was me I would over his land and nothing he can do. The FAA and other organisations in other countries control airspace from the ground up.

 

[2edgesword]

No one owns airspace so if that was me I would over his land and nothing he can do. The FAA and other organisations in other countries control airspace from the ground up.

The problem is there is conflicting information on the airspace ownership issue. The court decision says some level of airspace immediately adjacent (above) the property is in fact owned by the property owner. If a drone comes flying three feet above the ground in your backyard and you smash it with a broomstick I doubt you would be charged with anything. The question is where exactly does the height above ground level cease to be in the control of the property owner. Ee know 500 feet and above is controlled by the FAA (Congress and court decisions). For the most part beow 500 feet has been still viewed ad FAA domain BUT with the advent of drones there is some question mark about the airspace immediately above private property. There needs to be a clear defining of "immediately". Is it up to ten feet, up to the tree line (I have 50' trees in my backyard) or some other height. The language in the Causby decision and a common sense understanding of common law would indicate not ALL airspace above private property is controlled by the FAA.