---

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot



Intresting article how drones will erode our privicy by their use by journalists. A few things about this does not see quite right, but not sure where the regulations sit right now.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...r-journalists/

Seems drones are limited to 400 feet, but models are not? If flying less than 400 feet and over property they would be trespassing. Seems those writing this don't know this. Wonder when the first big lawsuit is in the news.</p>

---

---

ORIGINAL: bogbeagle

Here is the problem ... if that is the correct term.

Your image does not belong to you. It belongs to the person taking it.

---

---

ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk


Where do you get it that models are not restricted?

Regards
Frank

---

---

ORIGINAL: bogbeagle

Not sure that a machine can commit any offence. If I take a picture of you as I walk past your house, can you prosecute my camera?

If my machine flies over your house and takes your picture ... where is the harm or loss?

You don't own the sky above your property ... so you don't have any exclusive right to its use, afaics.


Dunno about the US, but in the UK, trespass is not a criminal offence. You can't be arrested or prosecuted for trespass ... only for the damage that you cause. Most often, any such damage requires a civil remedy, rather than a criminal one.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot



You would not be commiting trespassing as you did not cross the property boundry. That boundry line extends up to the minimum altitude limits of the FAA.

Yes you do own the air above your property. Do a search on AIR RIGHTS.

---

---

ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

? Minimum altitude limits of the FAA? Where is it written that the FAA has "minimum altitude limits&rdquo; when it comes to air traffic? With the exception of class A airspace FAA control starts at the surface and extends to FL 600.

Regards
Frank

---

---

ORIGINAL: bogbeagle

Our 500 foot rule is just that. Imagine you are in a bubble of 500 foot radius.

You can fly right down to one millimetre from the surface, provided you stay 500 feet clear of people vessels or structures. You have to be both VFR and VMC, of course. Done it many hundreds of times.

Now, in reality, it is almost impossible to be sure that there isn't someone taking a pee behind a hedgerow ... and a fence is technically a structure (maybe) ... and someone could claim that you caused his horse to miscarry its foal ... but so long as you are acting reasonably, you won't get nicked. AFAIK.

With the permission of the land-owner, there is no barrier to your making a landing, either. (I'm talking non-commercial flights, here) But, even if you do land without permission, the worst you can be acccused of is trespass, with its attendant requirement that the property owner shows the harm or loss which he has suffered.

Your rules may differ.

---

---

FAR Part 91

Sec. 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. 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.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

I am refering to section 91.119 which limits the minimum altitude. This defines the navigable airspace and the limits of property air rights as it pertains to overflying aircraft. When you are flying a UAV below 400 feet you are, in most places, flying in non navigable airspace and thus trespassing the property you are overflying.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Wonder when the first big lawsuit is in the news.</p>

---

---

Texas has the most property protecting laws of any state in the US. A landowner or renter in Texas is allowed to use deadly force if he finds someone on his property without permission no matter what they are doing.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn

So if you see a little kid cutting across your back yard you can shoot him dead? Somehow, I doubt it. How about a cite to this supposed law?

---

---

ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk

I quoted 91.119 in its entirty and I did not read it saying anything about it "defining the navigable airspace and the limits of property air rights as it pertains to overflying aircraft." It only talks to minimum safe altitudes. How does one fly (navigate) in "non navigable airspace"?:eek:

Regards
Frank

---

---

ORIGINAL: eddieC

SP, calling you out on this. Please stop posting based on supposition and a poor understanding of the regs. First, it's totally legal to operate aircraft below 500' above ground in sparsely inhabited areas as long as you're more than 500' from a person or structure and you pose no hazard. Buzzing a lake is one example. Having been a CFI over 30 years, I'm well acquainted with what is and isn't allowed.<div>You shot yourself in the foot over 'air rights', as it's more of a real estate/property development concern. Property owners have no claim on any airspace above their property beyond what they can 'reasonably use'.</div><div><span>From wikipedia: "The first legal limits placed on air rights came about because of theairplane. Eventually, owners only had rights toairspacethat they could reasonably use. It would be impractical for the development of air travel for individual landowners to own all the air above them, because airplanes would be constantlytrespassing."</span></div>

---

---

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

And besides we are talking UAV's not full scale aircraftt.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

"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."<sup class="Template-Fact" sizset="false" sizcache08639037385570287="38 105 56" style="white-space: nowrap">["</sup>

---