Do you own the air space above your property?

[pbharvey]

Some guys shot down a private drone, essentially a little RC spy helicopter, that flew over their property. Now I'm not advocating shooting down aircraft but it made me think, do you have the right to keep someone out of your air space?

 

The drone folks say what they were doing was legal. That sounds a little creepy to me. Can I fly a little helicopter over my neighbor's back yard and see what's going on?

 

Shooting it down seems a little creepy too but less so.

 

Article

[Mike]

Interesting question. Air rights are not unlimited in the USA, allowing for reasonable air navigation over one's property. However, as opposed to someone overlying the land in his Cessna, this was a little RC aircraft, with, perhaps, the object of interfering with the legal use of the owner's property. If someone had a low-altitude "drone" buzzing over my head with the purpose of harassing me on my property, it might suffer an operational failure resulting in a total loss of the airframe.

 

However, on a strictly legal note, it's questionable whether destruction of another's property is within the legal rights of a landowner. But, how do you distinguish this sort of thing from a pigeon?

[steve404]

 

The local airport authority offered to install attic insulation and insulated windows in some houses near my house. Part of the agreement was to give them the space above the property.

I now live a bit further from the airport but I have a neighbor that sort of buzzes my property in his helicopter when he is down here for weekends. I don't dare even point a laser pointer at it.

[Gregori]

I think you own up to about 500 ft or so, in most places.

 

It seems apparent from your link that the activists were asked not to fly, and did so anyway - with the specific intent to harass the landowners.

 

While I don't agree with the position of either party in that particular dispute, I will say that the activists pretty much asked for it, and got what they deserved.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

This might be of interest.

[Glenn Reed]

Some guys shot down a private drone, essentially a little RC spy helicopter, that flew over their property. Now I'm not advocating shooting down aircraft but it made me think, do you have the right to keep someone out of your air space?

 

The drone folks say what they were doing was legal. That sounds a little creepy to me. Can I fly a little helicopter over my neighbor's back yard and see what's going on?

 

Shooting it down seems a little creepy too but less so.

 

Article

 

Interesting topic.

 

In reading the article that Brian linked, when the helo was shot down, it was not over the property, it was over a highway, which it landed on after being hit by gunfire coming from the property.

 

The article Mitch linked to says that originally a property owner owned the airspace up to anywhere from 500 to 1000 feet above their property. This was then modified as such "The court laid down a new rule: you've got air rights only insofar as they're essential to the use and enjoyment of your land."

 

From a legal standpoint, it would have been helpful if the property owners had allowed the helo over the property and then sued the helo owner to keep them from using any of the video therefrom. I am not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV, but it seems to me that if the activity they were engaged in is legal (a pigeon shoot) then having an RC helicopter flying over would keep them from the "use and enjoyment of their land" and they would have a case that it was therefore illegal for the copter to be there.

 

Not a situation where you get to dispense your own justice though, and in this case firing shots in the vicinity of a highway does not seem responsible.

 

From a PR standpoint though, it seems the property owners were trying to avoid publicity because there are folks who do not approve the pigeon shoot. I don't know enough about this to have a position, but that's my take.

[Ohio48]

Time to break out my old super soaker!!!

[upflying]

Cops will need a search warrant to fly over your backyard with a drone. Civilians, no.

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

I see a business opportunity, legitimate for once, for the Iranian military.

 

At least, until someone can invent a charged particle beam that takes the 1.21 gigawatt output of a flux capacitor.

[barryd]

This is interesting, yet another case where technology has overtaken law and social norms.

 

I've heard many anecdotal stories of pilots getting in trouble for spending too much time overflying sun bathing women and such, or flying too low to get a better look.

 

I don't know what the rules say, but if there are such restrictions it would seem to apply to these remotely piloted aircraft too.

 

There are certainly minimum altitude requirements for aircraft, but if these things are considered models, for example, then altitude restrictions probably don't apply.

 

OTH, there are laws about taking potshots at aircraft too.

 

Interesting can of worms.

 

 

[lkchris]

OTH, there are laws about taking potshots at aircraft too.

 

And you really can't legally shoot somebody just standing on your property, either. And don't shine a laser light in a pilot's eyes, either.

[upflying]

This is interesting, yet another case where technology has overtaken law and social norms.

 

I've heard many anecdotal stories of pilots getting in trouble for spending too much time overflying sun bathing women and such, or flying too low to get a better look.

 

I don't know what the rules say, but if there are such restrictions it would seem to apply to these remotely piloted aircraft too.

 

There are certainly minimum altitude requirements for aircraft, but if these things are considered models, for example, then altitude restrictions probably don't apply.

 

OTH, there are laws about taking potshots at aircraft too.

 

Interesting can of worms.

 

You are correct, the FAA, NTSB and the Department of Transportation do not regulate RC aircraft equipped with video. At most it's a violation of privacy..handled in civil courts.

[Rocer]

It might not be just your neighbours RC that you shoot down.

[Skywagon]

 

Can't speak to RC. Don't think a drone would be considered an RC. Per the FAR's you can see the regulations below. Basically over a house need to be a minimum of 1000ft. If the drone can't safely land with engine failure, needs to be higher than that.

 

If you think the FAA can't get their nickers in a wad over RC, go fly your RC near an airport... I don't know the rules for that even though I have veen an RC guy for 20 years

 

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

top

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

 

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

 

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about air rights.

[chrisd]

The Supreme Court says it does. U.S. v. Causby

[aterry1067]

This is a scenario where laws are certainly not able to keep up with technology.

 

The technology available to the general public that could be carried on an RC helicopter is one thing (although that is advancing faster and further by the day). A real UAV is something totally different, and should not be taken lightly.

 

[Mister Tee]

Can't speak to RC. Don't think a drone would be considered an RC. Per the FAR's you can see the regulations below. Basically over a house need to be a minimum of 1000ft. If the drone can't safely land with engine failure, needs to be higher than that.

 

If you think the FAA can't get their nickers in a wad over RC, go fly your RC near an airport... I don't know the rules for that even though I have veen an RC guy for 20 years

 

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

top

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

 

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

 

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

 

 

With respect to airspace "ownership", one can argue that ATC (FAA/U.S. Government) "owns" all airspace to the surface except for class G airspace, of which there is not a whole lot in the continental U.S.

 

This http://www.flytandem.com/airspace.htm provides a simplified breakdown for those unfamiliar.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

This might be of interest.

 

interesting

 

typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground.

 

you've got air rights only insofar as they're essential to the use and enjoyment of your land.

 

So basically, a drone which when used for it's intended purpose of spying on the uses of said private land strays over the property at an altitude of less than 500 feet, it is indeed violating the air space of the property owner.

 

Now the question begs, would you rather defend yourself from a lawsuit after shooting down the aircraft, or sue the offenders for invasion of privacy?

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

Now the question begs, would you rather defend yourself from a lawsuit after shooting down the aircraft, or sue the offenders for invasion of privacy?

 

Thanks for the idea Boney!

 

Sir, my autonomouse aircraft was enjoying my airspace over my property when it accidentally ran into, and destroyed, the ROV that was intruding on my airspace. Must have been one of those hardened steel blades that it hit. Since it landed on my property, it's mine now....or was until it fell into the outdoor fireplace.

Sometimes, things happen.

[upflying]

IIRC, Ca drug agents used aircraft to do aerial surveillance of property of suspected marijuana growers. Courts eventually ruled the flights illegal and any evidence of growing seen from the air as inadmissible.

A search warrant solves the dilemma.

 

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

IIRC, Ca drug agents used aircraft to do aerial surveillance of property of suspected marijuana growers. Courts eventually ruled the flights illegal and any evidence of growing seen from the air as inadmissible.

A search warrant solves the dilemma.

 

Is this not what CAMP does on the North Coast on a regular basis?

[upflying]

IIRC, Ca drug agents used aircraft to do aerial surveillance of property of suspected marijuana growers. Courts eventually ruled the flights illegal and any evidence of growing seen from the air as inadmissible.

A search warrant solves the dilemma.

 

Is this not what CAMP does on the North Coast on a regular basis?

Yes, but I need to clarify. Flying to look for a pot farm you know is on Pothead's property and can only be seen from the air would be inadmissible in court.

It is legal to fly over someones property and you just happen to spot a pot farm.

[Gregori]

So, if one shoots down an unidentified drone over one's property - how would THAT play out? ("Gee, I didn't see it said 'police' on it until I picked up the remains...")

 

 

[moshe_levy]

So to revive this... Today I got my March issue of Playboy - I get it for the articles, of course! Anyway there is a blurb in there by Joseph Vacek, Assistant Prof of Aviation @ University of North Dakota. In commenting on Miami-Dade PD's new drones, he lists a bunch of other agencies which operate drones as well (see "Red River Regional Air Support Unit, et. al.). Apparently there is precident in law that police can spy into your backyard from a plane (this is a Supreme Court decision from 1986).

 

The last line is why I'm bringing this up. Vacek summarizes, to the point of this thread: "So could the cops legally orbit a drone equipped with visual and infrared cameras over your house 24/7? Absolutely. Would we tolerate it as a society? Probably not."

 

Interesting stuff. But enough with this - Lisa Seiffert, the Australian model, is Miss March - so with all due respect, this is the extent of the attention I'm going to devote to Prof. Vacek for the remainder of my reading of this magazine!

 

-MKL

[upflying]

Lot's of agencies use aircraft to patrol cities 24/7. What they see in your backyard while flying over you is legal.

It is not legal if they use aircraft to see what is in a specific backyard if flying is the only way to see into the yard.

[pbharvey]

Interesting

U.S. opening up airspace to use of drones

[DiggerJim]

Interesting

U.S. opening up airspace to use of drones

Hmmm....wonder how long before we'll see Drone Jammers? Something that either floods the UAV radio control spectrum (not too hard for close high power transmission) or some laser based optic blinding system using handheld laser pointers.

 

Of course they'd be illegal, but so are laser jammers & radar detectors in many jurisdictions.

[EddyQ]

Interesting

U.S. opening up airspace to use of drones

Hmmm....wonder how long before we'll see Drone Jammers? Something that either floods the UAV radio control spectrum (not too hard for close high power transmission) or some laser based optic blinding system using handheld laser pointers.

 

Of course they'd be illegal, but so are laser jammers & radar detectors in many jurisdictions.

 

A jammer would likely be quite simple. But likely illegal. I like the concept of blinding the optics.

How about over ride the RC signal and land it in your own back yard. Then take ownership of it or heavily charge the owner for its return.

[hANNAbONE]

...iS tHE aIR above "real property"??

 

When you buy or inherit land, that land with or without improvements on it is considered "real property"

 

I don't see that the air space above it would be considered "owned".

 

Knocking down a drone 100 ft above my back yard is no difference than taking down a jet 35000 ft above my backyard then??

 

hmmm....

[MT Wallet]

The original article indicated that some self appointed activist group had decided to target a "hunt club" because they didn't agree with killing critters. If I were to have some knuckle head harassing me over my own property I don't think I'd have much trouble ridding myself of the annoyance in plain view of the harassers. I'd hold it for ransom. It's one thing for a legitimate law enforcement activity to use a drone while it's quite another for activist knuckleheads to decide they have some moral right to f**k with me.

Now having said all that we had a situation about 35 miles from here where a military drone was used during a stand off with a family who allegedly rustled some cows. They refused to submit to the local authorities and held them (cops) off for I beleive several days. Use of this drone was a little shocking and perhaps overkill. The authorities ultimately waited them out.

We have a big drone mission based at the Grand Forks AFB that has been threatened with reduced funding. I think we'll see an expansion of the use of the big predator type drones in an effort to "find a job" for them "demonstrating their value." Where I'm going to have some trouble is differentiating small private from legitimate law enforcemnt drones. Just have to sort it out in court I guess. I shoot clay pigeons in the back yard. Sometimes I hit the clays and other times--I just can't seem to hit what I shoot at. Drones beware!!

[ghaverkamp]

Lot's of agencies use aircraft to patrol cities 24/7. What they see in your backyard while flying over you is legal.

It is not legal if they use aircraft to see what is in a specific backyard if flying is the only way to see into the yard.

 

Under California law and the California constitution.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees.

[Glenn Reed]

The original article indicated that some self appointed activist group had decided to target a "hunt club" because they didn't agree with killing critters. If I were to have some knuckle head harassing me over my own property I don't think I'd have much trouble ridding myself of the annoyance in plain view of the harassers. I'd hold it for ransom. It's one thing for a legitimate law enforcement activity to use a drone while it's quite another for activist knuckleheads to decide they have some moral right to f**k with me.

Now having said all that we had a situation about 35 miles from here where a military drone was used during a stand off with a family who allegedly rustled some cows. They refused to submit to the local authorities and held them (cops) off for I beleive several days. Use of this drone was a little shocking and perhaps overkill. The authorities ultimately waited them out.

We have a big drone mission based at the Grand Forks AFB that has been threatened with reduced funding. I think we'll see an expansion of the use of the big predator type drones in an effort to "find a job" for them "demonstrating their value." Where I'm going to have some trouble is differentiating small private from legitimate law enforcemnt drones. Just have to sort it out in court I guess. I shoot clay pigeons in the back yard. Sometimes I hit the clays and other times--I just can't seem to hit what I shoot at. Drones beware!!

 

Personally, I agree that if it's over your property, a shot and a miss while shooting the clays would be a reasonable response.

 

However in the original incident, the drone was over a public highway and the hunters shot it down anyway, shooting across the highway to do so. That I cannot agree with.

[MT Wallet]

I realize the incident allowed the drone to come down on a public highway. This wasn't well planned out in my view. It was totally unsafe. Like I mentioned, I'd do it (without cowardice-my take on it), on my property and in plain sight not out over a highway as it left the property. Pull!!

[pbharvey]

Finally, something useful for a drone!

 

 

[MT Wallet]

Love it! Send the Dorito shells!