b-mccor8

My Feedback: (3)

Here is the situation. At our field the other day we had some new members start flying there.They fly 40%. During their flying a woman came up th the field complaining we were flying over her house. The house is about 3/4 a mile away you can't see the house nor can you tell from the field if you are that far out. we will do some studies to see if we are or not. She said that we are also flying over her property, (Corn field). I talked extensivly with her to settle the situation which worked well but here are my two questions. 1) how far must you be from a residence by the ama? 2) Are we allowed to fly over her corn field? I don't think we will have any further problems but I need to be prepared. Do they own the airspace? We only lease the property that we take-off and land on, approx 600ft x 200ft. Everything we fly over is someones property(fields). I know we don't want to be anywhere close to houses but I was wondereing what the ?????rule is. Thanks for all the help, If you find any of these rules in the ama can you please give me bi-law numbers. Thanks, Brenden

Crashem

I don't think that "airspace" can be owned any private individuals or organization I thought the FAA was incharge of the civilian airspace in this country.

famousdave

My Feedback: (61)

I believe that in most states the property owner owns a portion of the airspace - seems like that number is "up to and including 100 feet" above the owned property. The reason this law was passed was to eliminate people putting up huge antennas and such on their property. Airspace above that number is public airspace subject to government rules and can be ruled on appropriately.

I thought I read another thread on this site where a county slapped a cease and decist on a farmer who was letting modelers fly at his private field but since they were overflying other properties ( who's owners did not want them in near their "airspace" due to disturbing stock, etc) they were banned. The cease and decist even over-rode the 100 foot rule - it basically said NO FLYING of any kind. Pretty harsh, I'de say..

My guess is that you might have an issue if they want to get legal on ya....

It only takes one whiner and it all gets shut down in this liberal lawyer-run country that used to be free!

DP

scottrc

This is a fuzzy gray area that lawyers make lots of money on. Technically, the landowner owns the land from the center of the earth to the heavens. However, the government has dissected that right to exclude natural resources and routes of interstate commerce, thus airspace and waterways. However, a lawyer may argue that an RC plane is not a vehicle of interstate commerce, and hence, the property owner wins the lawsuit against the RCer.

J_R

Carl Maroney at the AMA had the AMA lawyers help in writing a document that is on target for your question. It is .pdf document #526 at http://www.modelaircraft.org/templat...-files/526.pdf

MODEL FLIERS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS
This article addresses issued concerning overflying the property of other people by AMA
members and the possible consequences of such overflying with respect to trespass.
The question of flying rights comes up periodically and it often hinges on the recovery of
a downed aircraft on a neighbor's land. Other aspects of rights are related to the airspace over the
land that borders our flying fields and the legitimacy of complaints from neighbors when we fly
over their property.
In order to give AMA members some more clearly defined guidelines, we requested that
our legal counsel prepare a brief on the general matter of trespass. It's important to note in all
actual legal cases that a LOCAL attorney needs to be consulted. This is necessary because local
attorneys have knowledge of local laws and precedents. The Academy can only provide general
information such as that which follows with the purpose of drawing your attention to matters that
can and do effect your hobby/sport of aeromodeling.
The law prohibiting trespass to land extends beyond uninvited entry onto
another's land on foot or in a vehicle. Trespass also occurs when there is an
uninvited entry into the airspace above the property of another or by burrowing
beneath the property of another. This follows the old common law rule that land
ownership allows the owner the right to use and enjoy the extent of his real
property "up to the heavens and down to perdition." Therefore, the flying of a
model aircraft into the airspace owned by another without the landowner's prior
permission is a violation of the landowner's right to the quiet use and enjoyment
of his property and does constitute a trespass. Prosser on Torts (4th Ed. 1971).
There are currently three theories of recovery available to landowners
seeking redress for trespass to their land. The applicability of these theories varies
from state to state. The first of these theories divides the airspace over one's
property into two "zones." The upper zone begins at an altitude which is beyond
the potential use of the landowner; high enough that the landowner's expected
enjoyment of his real property could not be disturbed by entry of another into it.
The lower zone is that portion of airspace that the landowner uses and is within
the area where the landowner has a reasonable expectation of quiet enjoyment.
Where there is an uninvited entry into this lower zone, an actionable trespass to
land has occurred.
The second theory of recovery is the recognition of an unlimited
ownership of upward space, extending indefinitely. This absolute ownership may
be disturbed only by those considered within the privilege of necessary flight. The
privilege of necessary flight is comparable to that given for navigable streams
running through the private property of another. Therefore, full scale airplanes,
rockets, and the like may pass over private property with immunity from an action
for trespass.
The final theory of recovery parallels the doctrine of nuisance as a means
of redress. This theory states that when there is a violation of the airspace over the
landowner's property such that his right of quiet enjoyment and use is harmed,
then the action of trespass shall lie. The emphasis of this practical test is on the
loss to the landowner of his quiet enjoyment, rather than the actual invasion of a
particular space. Therefore, this theory seeks to compensate for either diminished
value to the landowner or the actual damage created by the invasion across the
real property.
None of these theories makes any distinction between the intentional
versus the negligent entry into the landowner's airspace. The tort of trespass does
not need to be intentional to be actionable. Any violation of the rights arising out
of the ownership of real property resulting in an entry onto, over, or under the
land of another without invitation is a trespass and is therefore actionable.
The various states apply various theories of recovery to allow their
residents to recover for trespass. Yet, every state would consider the flight of a
model aircraft at ordinary altitudes over the land of another, without invitation, a
trespass. The second theory contained as a flight privilege is intended to aid
passenger craft and other such aircraft and could be interpreted as not allowing
any overflight by hobby models. Therefore, you should continue to urge the AMA
members to avoid any flight over property where no permission has been granted.
If flying into the airspace controlled by another is a trespass, then it
follows that the uninvited landing or crashing of planes onto the surface of the
land without invitation is also a trespass. In this connection, you have asked,
"What happens to the plane after the landing has occurred?" According to 75 Am.
Jur. 2d Trespass Section 44, the owner of the plane may not enter to recapture his
plane if the plane was deposited on the land of another due to the fault or
negligence of another without permission then he is committing a second act of
trespass. Therefore, the owner of the plane must gain the permission of the
landowner to enter and secure his plane.

On the other hand, the landowner has a duty to the owner of the plane, as
well. The landowner cannot keep the landed plane. That would amount to a
conversion of the flier's property and the landowner may be compelled to pay the
cost of the plane. The landowner may not intentionally damage the plane, as this
would be a trespass to the chattel of the flier. The landowner may ask to have it
removed by the flier. The landowner may move the craft himself if its location is
causing some harm to his enjoyment of his property, or is creating some other risk
of harm. If the owner of the plane does not remove it upon request, the landowner
may have the plane removed from the property such as one would have an
automobile impounded. In any event, the landowner may not deprive the AMA
member of his right to the airplane nor may he intentionally or recklessly cause
damage to the craft. If the landowner breaches this duty to the owner of the plane,
he exposes himself to liability for conversion, trespass to chattel, replevin, and
other forms of recovery designed to enable the AMA member to recover the plane
or its value.
Although probably not particularly persuasive in the heat of an immediate
confrontation between a landowner and a flier, Section 303(m) (1) (C) of the
Communications Act of 2934, as amended, gives the Federal Communications
Commission the "authority to suspend the license of any operator upon proof
sufficient to satisfy the Commission that the licensee has willfully damaged or
permitted radio apparatus or installations to be damaged." Millions of persons are
FCC-licensed radio operators, including Citizens Band users, Radio Control
licensees, Amateur and commercial operators. A flier may be able to have some
small effect upon the landowner by calling this section the Act to his attention,
although the principal value of Section 303(m) (1) (C) will probably be remedial,
rather than persuasive.
Finally, remember that any agreement involving or touching upon real
estate must be in writing or the agreement is unenforceable. So if you obtain a
landowner=s permission to use his property, have the landowner sign a paper that
grants you permission. It doesn’t have to be an impressive document. It can be
one sentence on the back of an envelope - just get his signature on it.
We hope that you will find the above information useful to you and your club in
understanding the rights of various people over flying activities. Please retain this document for
future reference. If you have any questions, please contact AMA headquarters in Muncie, IN at
765.287.1256, and ask for Carl P. Maroney, extension 250.
Remember that we work for you and welcome the chance to assist you.

scottrc

In otherwords, get signed grants for permission to overfly and retirieve from all the neighbors before setting up a flying field.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

that would be the smart thing to do.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Two items for your consideration. First, read post # 5 very carefully and follow it up with a view of #6 for more on the proper line of thought.

The second item is that you MUST find a workable solution for your neighbors, or they WILL elect to not be your neighbors. Once they make that decision, they tend to be relentless in closing down your flying field. They tend to out number your club, which counts for ONE entity when the 'powers that be' look at the complaints. Please read post #5 as it echos most of what I was going to say.

Good luck

Mike in DC

I'd be REALLY nice to her. She WILL win if you're actually flying over her property, which isn't hard to determine, but she can still make your life miserable if you're not by complaining about noise. Since you only control a small piece of land, the chances are you are violating noise ordinances that say how much noise you can spill over into adjoining properties.

Jim OHaver

This is a nicely stated recitation of the law.

Another version is this: Anything that leaves the ground is in federally controlled airspace. Be that as it may, your government (fed, state, county. local. whatever) can jerk you around to its heart's content and there ain't diddly you can do about it.

ps. I am that liberal lawyer guy referenced above. I have some news for you. The liberal lawyers are not running this country that used to be free. The conservative lawyers--who believe that Law & Order and the government's obligation to tell you what to do in every aspect of your lives, and put you in jail if you disagree--are running your country that used to be free. The liberal lawyers are the ones that challenged the government when they said you had to sit in the back of the bus if you were black. The liberal lawyers are the ones that say that your daughter should have as much money spent on her education as your son, when the state enacts regulations on funding athletic programs. The liberal lawyers are the ones who suggest, day in and day out, that if you are not essentially doing any one any harm, maybe the complainer should just be told to go pound sand, rather than have new laws enacted to regulate [ie, ban completely] whatever you are doing. In case you hadn't noticed, the AMA is a quasi-regulatory agency, since, if you want insurance coverage, all your flying will be done the way they say.

So much for today's civics lesson.
JGO

excaliber

Jim O
the reason for the way our country is going is APATHY. created by the folks that live here. ask anyone about any specific issue and the response will be "not too worry, the government will take care of it."
which is the same apathy that has been shown in all the past AMA elections.

.02

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Jim

I sure hope you hang around here more often. Your post is very poignant, balanced and refreshing to have read. It seems many have succumbed to the virtues of the apathy instilled by their complacency. Every once in a while they need a good swift kick in the arse and I think you have what it takes to get even some of the most lethargic motivated.

Your post made my day. Welcome!

tIANci

All I can say as an ex lawyer is that the lady will get your arse for nuisance, that is her best recourse, no need to proof she owns the air space or not. MUch easier if your planes are noisy and scaring her life stock. So just stay clear of her ... anyways how can you fly till you are like 3/4 miles away? That is bloody far! I think I stay within an area of 500-600 meters max.

iflyj3

My Feedback: (7)

I wanted a large plane because I thought I would be able to see it better. What I found is that you fly a plane until it is the same size in the sky before turning around regardless of its physical size. In other words, you fly a 1/2A ship and a 40% until they will appear to you to be the same size.

Due to this it is common to fly 3/4 mile away if it is a large plane. You said the newbies were flying 40%'ers. You may have to restrict the size of the planes to be flown at your field.

As others have said, work with the neighbor, you will lose if it ends at the courthouse.

bvmjethead

My Feedback: (10)

I'd say, if you want to keep your field for much longer you better not fly over her property anymore.

Mike in DC

Yea liberal lawyer! It's time we took control of the language, the debate, and finally, our country!

gittarpikk

I would not even get anywhere close to the property..ever. And I wouold make a very deliberate effort to make sure she knows beyond a doubt that you have made that a field rule. And while your at it...since there has already been a mention(neighbors talk) visit those neighbors and tell them you made the field rule..and if ANY of them sees it violated, to call your cell phone number immediately.

It took ALL of the above to pacify the remaining neighbors around the clubs first county field that was an R/C port for 15 years prior to an insane neighbor accross the street going ballistic everytime anyone would pull onto the field and start to fly (yes he was crazy...yes he was beligerant.. yes he was stupid..yes he was clearly in the wrong... and yes he eventually won in the battle of residence vs club when the widow of the deceased r/c field owner just "had enough"of his yelling and *****ing to the other neighbors)

Fields are real hard to come by and even harder to get back once lost... check out the Torri Pines case if you wnat to see how stupidly easy it is to lose one...and they were incredibly lucky to get it back

Mike in DC

Our club is facing the problem of how to keep flyers from flying over neighbor properties. Leaving aside the problem of guys that just don't care, there is the legitimate problem of how do you estimate the distance to your plane, and do you even know how far away the neighbor's property line is?

What the board has done, and I think it helps a bit, is to put up big orange triangles on the ground at the edge of the flight box. Unfortunately, much of the land slopes away from the runway and there are trees, so it's not possible to do that at each corner. They're also thinking of a huge pole, I guess like a telephone pole with the orange triangle, for areas where the land slopes away.

Anyway, you can see how seriously we take the problem.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

If your definition is correct, then the FAA definition is 500 feet.

As for the rest of your diatribe

b-mccor8

My Feedback: (3)

Well everyone, thanks for the input. We are going to do everthing possible to passify the people. WE live in a very rural area. It is nothing but field around us. The bad part is that these peolpe lived there and for years there was nothing but corn farm tractors and birds. Now you have cars and planes. OH MY GOD! [X(][X(] So THese people really have a problem with change. We want to keep our field. We worked hard to get it the way we want. We only have 25 club members and most of them don't fly. We are not hell raisers or law definant people, We are people looking to fulfill our lives with a hobbie.
So in light of all the political talk i still follow what I have always believed, Nothing is free. To be able to do the things in life you want will cost you something. So here it is. Hard work and perserverance will always pay off. And no matter how grimm the outcome go get out another plane and fly again!

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

My club has a flying site that has trees all around and high lines off one end. I tell students that IF they learn to fly here, they probably can fly anywhere. I have only seen (and flown) one 'tighter' field. That has forced me to address this issue and there ARE some tricks that work AND address flying over the neighbors. Let me share them with you. Read with patience and get a cheap 2 for 1.

I start out putting the beginner in the middle of the runway with shoulders parallel to the center line. I get the beginner to lift arms straight and look over the finger tips to see what easily identifiable object or point they are pointing at. Do this for both the left and right. Then we move to the flight station and repeat the exercise. This is where I point out that the arm is not parallel to the runway to point at the same object on the horizon. This is how I teach to stay on THEIR side of the runway. The next steps are the ones that apply to this discussion.

Then I describe take off, cross wind legs, downwind legs, base legs and turns to final. I tell the beginner that ALL have tunnel vision until they have been flying for a couple of years, so we practice some easily duplicated decision points that I then define. Take off is straight out until we see daylight under the fuselage. This avoids the trees and keeps us in this county. Now we turn cross wind and continue UNTIL THE PILOT'S NOSE IS 45 DEGREES TO HIS SHOULDERS (which are parallel to the runway). At that point we turn down wind. We continue down wind until the pilot's nose is 45 degrees to his shoulders which are parallel to the runway. This puts the downwind track between 300 and 400 feet out in front of the runway and the crosswind and base legs somewhere around 400 feet from the center spot of the runway. There is a road that is not 90 degrees to the end of the runway, so I have to modify the turn to base leg point to keep the planes from going over the road.

I think you might be able to use this to teach folks to say away from the property and lower the angst of your neighbors.

Good luck.

J_R

All the legal balogna aside, you seem to have a pretty good handle on the situation. Might be a bar-b-que where you invite all the neighbors over (especially the kids) might be a lot more productive than getting ready to do combat with them. Get the kids and adults up on a buddy box and you might get some converts. Making friends and not making enemies appears to be the name of the game... and you seem to be doing just that.

Jim OHaver

I'm not a guy that does any federal practice, so it's not my area of specializatrion, but it's my belief that the feds have preempted the regulatory field of what constitutes "airspace" as essentially anything off the ground. Most of what the feds do to is is based on an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Caluse in the constitution. But due to the benevolent despotism that is (y)our government, they choose to let you think you have control over some measure of your life, so they choose not to monkey with anything under 500 feet. But they can, if they want. Don't believe me? Go rent a Cessna for an hour and buzz a schoolyard, and see how long it takes the FAA to yank your license even though you're not above 500 feet. I doubt there is anything you or I could do about it were the feds to ban all model aircraft tomorrow--again, citing power to regulate anything that even tangentially related to interstate commerce.
JGO

Jim OHaver

Amen.

The problem with apathy is that it's really dificult to get anyone worked up about it.

JGO

Jim OHaver

Well, thx for the kudos. The guys who say "you can't fight city hall" never met me; I've been making my living at it for quite a while now. Most people want to believe the government is your friend. I tend to think that the government is your worst nightmare, and you're not allowed to wake up.


As formy presence around here, I pop in from time to time. I lurk around the scale stuff mostly. I'd really rather talk about the two things that are really the two most important things to every right-thinking person: (1) airplanes, (2) models of airplanes. The other quasi-political stuff is what I do as a necessary base from which to fund my studies of airplanes and models of airplanes. I have a passion for Russian stuff.
JGO