How much airspace do I "own" on my property?

[JKru]

Found this article, very entertaining read thought I would share:

If You Own Land, How Far Above and Below Do You Own?

I guess I own approx 500 feet (for now)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PatR]

Not quite. That still hasn't been fully settled on in a federal court. The last "as much space as they can use" ruling still stands. That was the 1945 ruling and it loosely put that airspace at less than 100' without specifically stating it. Bear in mind the article in your link is referring to UK law, not U.S. Most private property owners in the U.S. do not own the mineral rights under the surface of the property below a depth much under 6'. Then we have those "privacy" laws to contend with, and the U.S. Constitution does not have the right to privacy as one of the Bill of Rights. Unless the particular state one resides in has a privacy law, we don't have any.

 

[JKru]

Not quite. That still hasn't been fully settled on in a federal court. The last "as much space as they can use" ruling still stands. That was the 1945 ruling and it loosely put that airspace at less than 100' without specifically stating it. Bear in mind the article in your link is referring to UK law, not U.S. Most private property owners in the U.S. do not own the mineral rights under the surface of the property below a depth much under 6'. Then we have those "privacy" laws to contend with, and the U.S. Constitution does not have the right to privacy as one of the Bill of Rights. Unless the particular state one resides in has a privacy law, we don't have any.

Well the article was in response to a Individual asking how much airspace does he own in America. The response was "Likewise, the United States has a similar estimation of about 500 feet, though this has never been officially ruled on by the Supreme Court." As you indicated.

Government going to take my airspace!!! From my cold dead hands! ;-) j/k




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PatR]

Gotta be careful with those UK articles. Some of those Brits write like they still own this place

 

[JKru]

Lol

I am originally from Canada, know the feeling!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steve Carr]

The only one who has control over air space is the FAA. If you argue that you own it up to 500' by testing that theory, it will get very costly very quickly. While the exact altitude isn't written in law, the control aspect is well established and tested.

 

[CC Rider]

I have a specific question with regards to this matter. I'm assuming no one here is an attorney, but do you think observing one's own land and property using a drone would qualify as work and require further FAA clearance? Or do you think observing ones own land and whatever is upon it falls within the rights that every drone owner would have? It would not be work for hire; it would be work done for myself and my own purposes upon my own private property.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SoCalDroner]

I have a specific question with regards to this matter. I'm assuming no one here is an attorney, but do you think observing one's own land and property using a drone would qualify as work and require further FAA clearance? Or do you think observing ones own land and whatever is upon it falls within the rights that every drone owner would have? It would not be work for hire; it would be work done for myself and my own purposes upon my own private property.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You would be fine in my estimation.

 

[PatR]

As long as "consideration" is not obtained from the exercise you might as well call it a hobby activity. You would be doing it for fun, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CC Rider]

In truth, partly for fun, yes. But I could also utilize the drone for the maintenance of my land as well. Again, no money would exchange hands or anything like that; it would be done purely for my own benefit and purposes.

One of the things I am responsible for, for example, is the maintenance of certain trees on my property. Instead of just relying on the paid eyes of a tree expert, with the typhoon H I was planning on being able to get a close-up look at trees and then determine what needs to be done with them.

Also, I would like to be able to record the conditions of my rental properties upon my land, for a variety of reasons. Again, no money would exchange hands nor would any files go to anybody. I retain all land rights to my property and would be using the H strictly on my own lands in this regard. This is riverfront property in a very rural setting, which I know has no bearing upon the laws in question, but I'm trying to give you a feel for the place.

I don't believe I'd be guilty of any violations of the FAA regs to use my drone as described. But I sure as heck don't want to find out I'm wrong the hard way.

 

[SoCalDroner]

Again, you would be fine. You are not receiving any consideration (compensation) from others. If you have doubts, call the FAA and ask.

 

[CC Rider]

Me? Call the FAA? Hmmmm....let me think about that for a second.....nah, I think I'll just go with YOUR opinion instead!!

All kidding aside, I think you are totally right, anyway. I would not be doing any work for hire or for any consideration whatsoever; it would strictly be for my own personal use. Utilizing the Typhoon H in this way would just be another personal land management tool I'd be using for my own land, my own trees, etc., to observe my own property with and to capture images of it and what is upon it. No different than somebody using a drone to capture themselves in their new car on private land or even public lands for that matter, I guess. No reason for me to overthink it. It is literally not even a blip on anyone's radar screen. Thanks for the input.

 

[PatR]

Just don't use any of the images in some real estate listing for rentals...

 

[CC Rider]

Gotcha. Thanks for that. I can see where doing that would clearly be overstepping the line and getting into the "commercial field" or business category that definitely IS addressed and overseen by the FAA's rules & regs.

I'm VERY respectful of anything that has excessive power, especially something in the hands of other people. As Forum Moderator Steve Carr alluded to in an earlier post here, taking on the FAA would be a daunting, overwhelming task to say the least. And when it comes to Government, I handle it the same way I handle fire and electricity: with deep respect, great care, and as rarely as I have to.

 

[Windluv]

I have read previously that you own your airspace at the level of the tallest structure on your property.

Of course this was Internet knowledge, not the Holiday Inn expert knowledge.

 

[Airtography]

In my research -- 1) you don't own airspace, you have domain over it up to 385'. 2) It's a felony to stop drones from flying in that space. See research findings below:

The Supreme Court rulings and space treaties are clear. In 1946 -
• A Landowner's domain extends at least up to 385 feet in rural areas. Causby v US (1946),
• Property owners may waive (or purchasers may be required to waive) putative notions of "air rights" near airports in future real estate transactions to avoid lawsuits over nuisance claims over low flying aircraft. Called “navigation easement” and requires FAA compensation for 'taking' property interest.

However - In 2016 the FAA "allowed" drones to fly below 400’ to prevent interference with planes, and makes it a felony for a landowner to block drones flying through the lower altitudes regardless of ownership. (F.R. 2016 6-28-2016 Pgs 42063- 42214 DOC #: 2016-15079)

FAA Part 107 enables flight to 400' above the tallest structures as long as you're within 400' of that structure. Be careful -- as that could legally put you within airspace used within airport approaches (let's say a 900' building and you're 400' above that = 1,300'. If you're within controlled airspace around an airport (of any class), you may find trouble in that space and it's always best to get ATC clearance before going to those altitudes.

 

[AngusAir]

You guys are awesome.
I don't allot much time watching videos so I really appreciate the knowledge found in this forum. Have one senerio question. Highly speculative but can I give a picture of video to a friend or colleague of their property at no cost. (Just a kind gesture). I think the answer is yes.
Then that friend takes that pic and later (maybe years later) and uses it as a picture to list their house.
Reason I ask is because I did think about giving those types of gifts, but do not want to invertentley and unintentionally break any law.
Thanks again to everyone trying to make our world better.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

 

[CC Rider]

Again, I'm no lawyer, but INTENT has a lot to do with legal interpretation and prosecutions. If your intent today is to give a friend an aerial shot of their property, then you have no intent in breaking the law. As you said, it's just a kind gesture, not work for hire or compensation, so no laws broken thus far.

If years later someone else were to use that photo for THEIR own intentions, i.e., as a rental shot, then I do not think any Court would find you culpable of breaking FAA regs or rules. It would not, in my mind at least, retroactively make you guilty of breaking any laws when you took the photo. Going after you would be like going after a gun manufacturer instead of the idiot who used it to kill someone.

I also do not think the person utilizing the photo as stated would face any prosecution, either. Obviously I could be miles off here, but I do not think I am, and I don't think it would even raise any eyebrows. Having said that, Government is Government.

 

[PatR]

One needs to be very careful in interpreting the adjudication of the Causby case. Many legal interpretations place the private property use limit at the low end, or 86', of what is referenced in the decision. It has not been clearly defined.

When referencing Part 107, one must consider the law is written for commercial purposes, not for recreational users. The two are not the same and are bound differently under the CFR.s

Remember that in less densely populated airspace a manned aircraft only needs to maintain a separation of 500' between structures or people. If the terrain and type of airspace permits, that aircraft does not need to be 500' from the ground, it might be flying only a few feet from the ground. The airplane does not care if the ground is privately or publicly owned.

It's best to consult with an attorney specializing in several types of law before making a blanket airspace ownership/control statement. I think you'll find that altitudes of private airspace control are quite a bit in limbo.