Dropping a drone flying over your property

[TC215]

Some of it probably does. While we no longer own the common law "to the heavens" airspace, parcels will still include some air rights above the surface. Parcels have to include air rights because that's the only way to build structures on land. Since the structure extends into the air, that air has to be included in the parcel.

Is the right to build really what we’re talking about here?

The FAA owns all “navigable” air pace. There have been court decisions where this starts at 500 feet, but that was before the proliferation of drones. With a drone, nearly all airspace is navigable. An airplane is supposed to remain 500 feet from any person, vessel, structure, etc except as necessary for takeoff and landing. A drone does not have this restriction.

I realize there have never been clear answers and decisions on this (I’m guessing that will change sooner rather than later because of drones), but at the end of the day, Class G (uncontrolled airspace) extends from the surface up to the controlled airspace above it, per the Federal Aviation Regulations.

[Blades]

And inform the pilot that his drone was spotted and may be targeted in the future. I believe the naval equivalent is the shot across the bow.

Where I live I doubt the wreckage would be found.

The little play drone I have the camera is small. I doubt I could hit it with a laser pointer on purpose. Accidentally? Yes, my twitching and weak fingers can’t hold my phone steady while I type this. LOL

[TheRoland]

In this day of terrorism, stalking taking down a drone on your property would seem a precaution but is it legal ?

Does your suburban town get targeted by a lot of terrorists?


I think this entire discussion is pretty silly as a practical matter.

[joshs]

Is the right to build really what we’re talking about here?

That's how SCOTUS has looked at it in the past:

"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land." United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 264 (1946).

I realize there have never been clear answers and decisions on this (I’m guessing that will change sooner rather than later because of drones), but at the end of the day, Class G (uncontrolled airspace) extends from the surface up to the controlled airspace above it, per the Federal Aviation Regulations.

People often cite Causby as creating a bright line rule of at least 83 feet above the surface, but I'm not totally sure that's an accurate reading of the case. The Court actually applied a multi-factor test to determine if the air travel interfered with the owner's usage and enjoyment of the land.

[CraigS]

Wow, this is much more serious than I realized. Never had much interest in a drone so never looked into the legalities. I assumed there would be some restrictions re; someone flying one over my house and property but so far it doesn't seem so.

[1slow]

Your neighbor can erect and climb a 10 foot ladder and gander all he wants.

But then he can't call the police and accuse you of indecent exposure.

Well....he can, but that isn't going to go anywhere. And he may open himself up to charges like voyeurism, depending on state/local statutes.

My point which I evidently have not made clear is:

If in the middle of my land , large area, I have a 8’ privacy fence surrounding whatever, if you come up to the fence to peep over it you are on my land and thus illegally there.

If you are off my land and erect a tower to look over my fence you are within your rights.
If you use a drone that is not over my property, you are still line of sight but not over my property kind of like the tower.

By using a drone over my land you are violating my space in a way that would be illegal if you were there in person.
This is a problem that needs addressing in some fashion. I am not sure how.

[TC215]

That's how SCOTUS has looked at it in the past:

"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land." United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 264 (1946).



People often cite Causby as creating a bright line rule of at least 83 feet above the surface, but I'm not totally sure that's an accurate reading of the case. The Court actually applied a multi-factor test to determine if the air travel interfered with the owner's usage and enjoyment of the land.

I’m familiar with the Causby case, and 1946 was obviously a long time ago, before the proliferation of drones and before the current airspace system. It comes down to “navigable airspace,” Class G airspace, etc, which the FAA owns. It will have to be decided via court case or new regulation.

[TC215]

By using a drone over my land you are violating my space in a way that would be illegal if you were there in person.
This is a problem that needs addressing in some fashion. I am not sure how.

How is this different than an airplane or helicopter?

[1slow]

Drone can be a lot closer than FAA regs would let an aircraft overfly.

Plane or Helo is not in your yard looking in your window.

FAA
An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

[joshs]

I’m familiar with the Causby case, and 1946 was obviously a long time ago, before the proliferation of drones and before the current airspace system. It comes down to “navigable airspace,” Class G airspace, etc, which the FAA owns. It will have to be decided via court case or new regulation.

What do you mean by the FAA "owns" airspace? They have authority over it, but they certainly don't own all of Class G airspace. If a new FAA reg tries to define airspace down to a very low level as "navigable," then they'll be dealing with a lot of takings claims.