TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

A flying friend, new to the hobby , told me a remarkable story about a $25k turbine model that was shot down for over-flying a farmers land.

So I asked around. Turns out the story is partially true. It supposedly happened about a year and a half ago. The story goes that a lawsuit was threatened against the farmer and he eventually paid for the damage to the model, (which was damaged but not crashed). Supposedly the farmers homeowners insurance paid the claim.

Some modellers are completely convinced that they have the right to over-fly his land if they wish, without his approval and with his protesting it.

I was shocked that anyone would think they could over-fly someone's property without permission. But now I find that many of the people around me seem to believe they can do that exact thing. What is the opinion here ? Do modellers have the right to overfly other people's property ?

Sport_Pilot

No you cannot fly over his property without permission.  The owner has air rights except for FAA certified aircraft which may fly over if they are withen the FAA's minimum altitude requirements.  In most cases that is either 500 or 1000 feet, except near airports.  Our models are not FAA certified aircraft and not generally flown over 500 feet.  However that probably does not give the farmer the right to shoot the aircraft out of the sky.  The farmer should have written a letter asking the modelers to stop.  Then if they did not sue.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Not sure about the legalities... but my opinion would be that even the US government should need to get my permission to overfly my land...even if a satellite...but of course, for the right reasons I'd have no problem with that or model flying...I am easy to get along with. LOL

But really, why should one person's desires supersede another's ...we allow full scale airplanes to transverse our air�space�... As for as I am concerned those passengers can just walk and pay whoever for the privilege of passage.

�Air rights� which is really “Space rights� should be similar to mineral rights...bought, sold or traded if wished...but it seems we sold out our “air rights� out a long time ago by being less than diligent in protecting our individual rights... With that being said, unless the aircraft, model or not, is causing harm then I guess it not any different than a crop duster flying over your land to facilitate a neighbor's agenda.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

So we can shoot down, or more realistically, sue the ultra light flyers for flying over our land? They are not certified by the FAA. There is more to it than that. I would guess that the fact that the FAA has rules and specifically regulates that type of flying that the precedent has been set to allow it. This is the biggest positive I can see coming out of possible regulation of model aircraft. Unless specifically forbidding the overflight of adjacent property it may give us legal right to do so if the written rules are followed. It may also alleviate the loss of fields due to the noise complaints if they write noise limits into the regs as well. I understand that the negatives may still far outweigh the positives, but we can hope.

KidEpoxy

CFI
Doh, you beat me to it.
p103 Ultralights do have overflight regulation in their 'unregulated' operations allowed by FAA,
but it is on the 'uncongested' / distance type like the Min Alt regs for GA, not property lines.



SPORT,
where in AC91-57/ASF400/G0801/07Policy
do you see any MA regulation/Guidance/Advice as to property rights overflight restrictions?
To say we really do have to obey some overflight rule kinda would also include we really have to obey any 400' cap that would be next to that overflight rule in that document

Sport_Pilot

Sport_Pilot

Sport_Pilot

Air rights vary from state to state, but generally they do not mention MA specifically.It is not mentioned by the FAA because they wan't you to think they on the sky to the ground but actually they only own it to the minimum altitude limits. This is governed by the states not the FAA.

Sport_Pilot

An interesting case about this.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1945/1945_630

Silent-AV8R

that is an interesting case, albeit a very old bit of case law (1946). It would be interesting to see how the current SCOTUS would view a similar case. The 1946 case pre-dates all of modern aviation and the current FAA. I suppose that there has not been a similar case brought since then and therefore no reason to review the case law.

obiwan12

My Feedback: (9)

...

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

I would question where does one look to find a definition of "air rights"?

Looking at Wikipedia, there is a discussion that "in the case of United States v. Causby, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain". Navigable airspace is defined by the FAA by the minimum altitudes and distances.

Further ""At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land". Doing a google search for the case found several other commentaries, but all essentially the same.

So the bottom line is that there is no clear line of demarcation between property owners rights and their enjoyment of the land and the public use of the airways. If you fly over a neighboring property, and the property owner can make a legitimate case that you're interfering with their right to enjoy their property, you might lose. On the other hand, the property owner doesn't have the right to damage your property or endanger others in enforcing his property rights (again, subject to court interpretation).

Now if you want to go through the process of getting a certified airframe and a special certificate from the FAA for UAV operations, and fly in the NAS, then you'll be able to fly over the neighbors property (subject to minimum altitude and distance). I'm sure the FAA will clear it up with the new SUAS regs.

Brad

Sport_Pilot

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

In a not seeing the forrest for the trees point of view.

If the person complains that you're bothering him, I'm sure he/she could have some kind of noise or public disturbance ordinance enforced (in many cases anyways)

Sport_Pilot

Very good point! Disturbing the peace or whatever.

cfircav8r

My Feedback: (1)

Can you get in trouble for mowing your lawn on a sat afternoon? No, but fly a model aircraft that is quieter and farther away and you can still be stopped for disturbing the peace. If however the FAA passed regulation with noise and distance limits that would effectively close that door. The same can be said for overflight operations.

Sport_Pilot

I think you are talking about a problem that exists in a few seperate local areas. In most areas neither flying a model plane with 98 Db muffler nor mowing the lawn would get you in trouble. So I would not want the FAA to take over. I would very much like the FAA and the rest of the Federal Government do less. In fact to disolve the Federal Government and leave us with 50 un-united states would be preferable, though someting in between would be better.

phakur

My Feedback: (13)

Well being a member of the club at which this happened, and actually having been at the field that day I can tell you there is much more to the story and it involves original ownership and runway approaches and much much more. There is not a simple answer or response about right and wrong here. I will say that the police were involved. Now the point is moot because the county has provided a new area and a new field (with a huge 800 ft asphalt runway) and at present it would be very difficult to fly over anything other than the county's property.

Funny-this "shoot down" occurred on my very first visit to the field as a prospective member having decided to get into the hobby and meeting my pilot trainer.


Yes-I still went ahead and got into this fun hobby.

Larry

tacx

My Feedback: (1)

Has anyone considered what you are going to do when your expensive plane dead sticks or comes down in that persons property because of mechanical or TX/RX problems? (AND WE ALL KNOW IT HAPPENS).

bradpaul

Of course our RC aircraft are controlled by the FAA.......... everybody remember good old AC 91-57?

U.S. v Causby is the controlling precedent, a landowner may think they own the airspace but they do not. Trespass of airspace is a fiction and in any case federal law (U.S. v Causby) and regulation would apply.

The remedy for the landowner is as it always was to sue for damages.......... just try to get a lawyer to take that one one anything other then a fee for services basis. For the landowner to destroy or damage an overflying plane (even RC) can put the landowner in jail, not the RC pilot. Of course if you land or crash on his land, now you are SOL.

Brad

phakur

My Feedback: (13)

In response to a couple of other things:

The jet was destroyed. Not much left.
The jet was not over the farmer's property when it was "hit" but it had flown in that direction previously.

On several occasions we have had dead stick/crash landings on the farmer's property and generally, he would provide permission when asked to enter his land and retrieve the plane.

There is plenty of argument regarding who has "air rights" which i suspect will continue forever, but note that the farmer's home was no where near the runway or approach.

Larry

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

The landowner owns the airspace above the land, subject to an easement for air travel (the Causby case). There is no authority at all for extending this easement to model aircraft. The arrival of the UAV revolution will necessarily extend it to some unmanned aircraft, but it hasn't happened yet; when it does, it may not include hpbbyists. So nobody has a legal right to fly a model over someone else's property. As for remedies, it is not the case that the owner's only response is an action for damages; injunctive relief (which means in practice that if you do it again you go to jail for contempt of court) is possible. In practice, what annoyed owners usually do is go to the zoning authorities and get the club's right to use its field pulled.

Tommygun

My Feedback: (2)

Yep, this case brought up the exemption for aircraft to the Ad Coelum Doctrine, which "relates to the common law rule that a landlord owns everything below and above the land, up to the sky and below the earth to its core. This doctrine applies to all minerals in the land as well. This doctrine includes ownership of hard minerals such as coal, but not volatile minerals such as oil and gas." To uphold the ad coelum doctrine would adversely effect air commerce, and ultimately all air transportation since every landowner could demand tolls for overflight, or require some sort of diplomatic clearance for overflight. This would make air travel impracticle/impossible. However, the intent is for AIR TRANSPORTATION/AIR COMMERCE, not model aviation, which as someone brought up typically operates below 500 AGL. Anything above that, you the landowner have to accept a blanket aviation easement. No such easement afforded to model aircraft. But think about it, what are the odds of a model airplane crashing into someone's home vs a certified, properly maintained and registered aircraft? Pretty good I'd say, all things considered.

lopflyers

My Feedback: (12)

One of the clubs I belong to has this problem. It is in the center of a big neighborhood.
So one of the main rules of the club is to keep your airplane within the confines of the club. BTW there is no gas flying allowed because of the noise and size.
I happen to live in the neighborhood and in spite of the rule I have seen a couple of strays flying over my house. Since I recognize most of my friends airplanes I usually tell them, in a good respectful way. The club is being there for almost 2 years now and have had no problems with HOA yet.
It is a catch 22, we want to fly in the city, without having to drive 20-30 miles but on the other side an airplane flying out of control can easily hurt our children playing in the street. AMA insurance cannot return bad bodily injuries.
I also belong to a club in the middle of no-where. There is no way you can hurt (other than cattle) anybody while flying in this club.

davidhand

One state, Kansas I believe, filed suit to stop airlines serving alcholic beverages while overflying the state. The suit failed.