<span style="font-size: larger; "><span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; ">You may not own the airspace above your property, but if you have the funds, you can make damn sure no one else can use it.... including the gov't.

</span></span>http://www.delmartimes.net/2011/02/0...oon-companies/<span style="font-size: larger; "><span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'; "><br type="_moz" /></span></span>

Afraid so, since you've worked your way into a corner. Could you give an example of 'non-navigable airspace' ? Does it include uncontrolled airspace, is it off an airway...,? Since it doesn't seem to exist in any text or regulation I've ever read, I'd be interested in where it can be found and how it's defined so I know if I'm ever in it.

C'mon, this is a toy airplane site. Only us nerds read this stuff.Just admit you're making it up.

That serves as good example... A nation of laws=good... A nation of endless laws=bad...We've made it there now and people are just about afraid to do anything anymore...

The point you are missing is that it's legal to fly above someone's house.

Not making it up. Non-navigable airspace is simply that which is not navigable airspace, simple english. I gave you the US code that defines navigable airspace. It is not used for aircraft control, but is used for towers and other structures because you have little or no restrictions when erecting in non navigable airspace.

As far as not seeing any reference to navigable airspace, its right there in the title of part 77 "SAFE, EFFICIENT USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE ."

No, flying a model airplane at any altitude is trespassing. Only certified aircraft can fly over other people's property, and then only when flown within navigable airspace. Aircraft are even mentioned in many trespassing laws.

Non is a prefix indicating negation: nonexistent

How does one fly (navigate, maneuver, move about, whatever you wish to call it) in non-navigable airspace? Please provide an example of flying in this non-navigable airspace.

YOU THINK THATS FUNNY? CHECK THIS LINK- http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/...179983451.html

Not clear how low the ballons were, I think they farm got an agreement that the ballons would fly above a certain altitude, but was the altitude they were following anyway.

Not sure about that but I think the farm got the worst of it.

So now you want to argue semantics and the english language? This is getting ever further off topic.

My point was that flying a UAV over someones house to take pictures is illegal. Do you agree or not? I don't think you even stated if it would be legal or not.

Don't bother with a reply.

NO. I do not agree with your statements and YES I'm arguing semantics (the study of meaning) because of your misuse of the English language. Now I've answered your question, can you answer mine?

Regards

For the moment let’s get back to the basics. Do you agree that according to the FAA I can fly within feet of the surface if I so desire as long as I maintain 500 foot separation from any person, vehicle or structure?

Regards
Frank

Yes, but it does not negate the "reasonable use" clause of the Causby VS US ruling.

True, as long as you're not creating a hazard. (... and it's in 'non-navigable airspace'. )

Your attempts at rationalizing a made-up term are laughable. Trying to come off as an expert isn't your strong suit, guy.

I almost shot coffee out my nose on that one! SP, you should change your sig to Mr. Mxyzptlk from Bizzarro World. (Anyone remember Superman comics?) You get everything warped or backwards. 

No if the aircraft is allowed to fly there it is nagigable airspace. You will find definitions of 500 feet as the lower limits, but that is not true. It can be higher near towers and down to the ground in rural areas.

Ok you are allowed to fly as low as you want to in rural areas, and in many of these areas controlled airspace is down to the ground. Are you contending that flying onto someone else's property, landing, and doing nothing else is not trespassing?

Would flying under 500 feet not be trespassing? What if the plane was noisy and caused a prize horse to jump and break its leg. Does that mean the owner cannot sue because you are in an aircraft?

Ireally don't know what you are claiming other than you don't understand that non navigable is the opposite of navigable.

Well Iwon't argue that, except to say that engineers and lawers will call it that to mean the airspace that is not considered navigable. You can look it up on the web and see the word used in exactly the way I intend.

Oh, Ichage my mind. Non is latin for NOT. It is used in front of words and can be taken as literally not navigable. When taken in the legal context it means it is illegal to navigate through. Not that it would be physically impossible to do so.

Again with the obfuscation,,,.   AFAIK, UAS (drones) must meet the same FAA requirements as full-scale, as they are considered aircraft. What does 'higher near towers' define? Towers are structures, so 500'. I'm not aware of higher limits for one structure versus another.

I wasn't aware we're concerned with the terms engineers and lawyers use. 

Most rural areas are in uncontrolled airspace.  For those who want a clear understanding of airspace, phlpsfrnk has a great attachment in post #10.

No. You're bringing in landing into the discussion?  Are you off your meds?

"taken as literally not navigable" as in a mountain is not navigable. "When taken in the legal context it means it is illegal to navigate through." OK, it’s illegal to navigate through a mountain. Thank you for clarifying that. I don't think that's a law I will be challenging anytime soon.

Regards
Frank

Plenty of people still try it, though!

Well its more relevent because this is about air rights and trespassing laws. You are trying to make it an FAA issue.

This has nothing to do with controlled airspace.

Well in some controlled areas such as near airports the FAA control is to the surface. So why does that not exempt the pilot from trespassing?

Maybe drive a nail through your head to provide a place for knowlege to soak through. I think it is clear that Iam saying you may be able to fly through "air space that is classified as navigable" (does that suit you?), but cannot legally do so.

Is that what they mean when they say "pound sand"?

Cumulo-Granitus.

The pilot (and UAS operation) is never exempt from trespassing, which is a civil matter and could become an FAA matter. I have worked with a drone R&amp;D program, and we would operate it as if it were manned (except for the crashing part).

Interesting story....amazed that the uav pilot freely admits he is repeatedly overflying the private club. If you deny a property owner their legal right to enjoy their property then you have no footing and it doesn't matter if your 400 feet in the air or standing on the ground. Pilot's actions, while presumably noble, are actually criminal...surprised the landowner hasn't sued him.