Another point, depending where you are in California there may be City or County regulations governing where you can fly from. As has been said, the airspace is pretty much a federal domain. but where you stand is a local issue.
Air Space over Private Property
- Thread starter Prylar Bek
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 23
It's not negative. Cshaw is correct. We keep loosing our rights to these large corporations that just keep pushing. I have a crowd where I go and I am a good ambassador. At 0600 I'm not gong it harm anyone! End of story. Tired of the PC
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 23
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 23
Turkey is late. Wife is bitter. Batts won't charge. Oh well maybe I'll fly at home. Chill. Have a happy thanksgiving
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 23
According to this article the airspace above 83ft. is not private property:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dr ... 73451.html
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dr ... 73451.html
liketogethigh said:
Given all the other inaccuracies of that article I'm not sure I'd put much faith in that 83 foot number.
I wonder why the '83' number keeps getting used as a height restriction. 83 feet is how high the military aircraft were flying over the Causby's farm from the famous case of United States v. Causby (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/256/case.html )
One notable section reads as follows...
"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that, if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it."
Another relevant case is Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport ( http://www.leagle.com/decision/193683984F2d755_1600 )
"When it is said that man owns, or may own, to the heavens, that merely means that no one can acquire a right to the space above him that will limit him in whatever use he can make of it as a part of his enjoyment of the land. To this extent his title to the air is paramount. No other person can acquire any title or exclusive right to any space above him.
Any use of such air or space by others which is injurious to his land, or which constitutes an actual interference with his possession or his beneficial use thereof, would be a trespass for which he would have remedy. But any claim of the landowner beyond this cannot find a precedent in law, nor support in reason.
It would be, and is, utterly impracticable and would lead to endless confusion, if the law should uphold attempts of landowners to stake out, or assert claims to definite, unused spaces in the air in order to protect some contemplated future use of it. Such a rule, if adopted, would constitute a departure never before attempted by mankind, and utterly at variance with the reason of the law. If such a rule were conceivable, how will courts protect the various landowners in their varying claims of portions of the sky? How enforce a right of ejectment or restitution? Such a rule is not necessary for the protection of the landowner in any right guaranteed him by the Constitution in the enjoyment of his property. If a right like this were recognized and upheld by the courts, it would cause confusion worse confounded. It is opposed to common sense and to all human experience."
Just remember, being right is easy but proving your right can be a long hard road to travel. Choose your path wisely my friends.
One notable section reads as follows...
"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that, if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it."
Another relevant case is Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport ( http://www.leagle.com/decision/193683984F2d755_1600 )
"When it is said that man owns, or may own, to the heavens, that merely means that no one can acquire a right to the space above him that will limit him in whatever use he can make of it as a part of his enjoyment of the land. To this extent his title to the air is paramount. No other person can acquire any title or exclusive right to any space above him.
Any use of such air or space by others which is injurious to his land, or which constitutes an actual interference with his possession or his beneficial use thereof, would be a trespass for which he would have remedy. But any claim of the landowner beyond this cannot find a precedent in law, nor support in reason.
It would be, and is, utterly impracticable and would lead to endless confusion, if the law should uphold attempts of landowners to stake out, or assert claims to definite, unused spaces in the air in order to protect some contemplated future use of it. Such a rule, if adopted, would constitute a departure never before attempted by mankind, and utterly at variance with the reason of the law. If such a rule were conceivable, how will courts protect the various landowners in their varying claims of portions of the sky? How enforce a right of ejectment or restitution? Such a rule is not necessary for the protection of the landowner in any right guaranteed him by the Constitution in the enjoyment of his property. If a right like this were recognized and upheld by the courts, it would cause confusion worse confounded. It is opposed to common sense and to all human experience."
Just remember, being right is easy but proving your right can be a long hard road to travel. Choose your path wisely my friends.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I am pretty sure that if you fly over the property for the sake of transiting from one end to the other, you should be fine. If however, you are flying over it to capture images of the property and/or the people using it, you could be subject to California Civil Code 1708.8.
If it was 82 ft then it could be explained. 82 ft = 25m, a much nicer number.
But then, 83 is almost twice the meaning of life, the universe and everything.
But then, 83 is almost twice the meaning of life, the universe and everything.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 23
Ca CC 1708.8 has to do with capturing images etc of PEOPLE. IM sure the trees In question won't be harmed. Besides I'm not trespassing I'm staying at the Hotel. I've yet to see anything written that declares this area off limits. Just been told the following... No games allowed. Eg. Football. Baseball etc. no dogs no playing of music. No blankets etc etc etc. I call BS and the last time I stay at a Hyatt. These people are living in another century
Hotels are strange places, people have heart attacks in hotels all the time and no one knows until the maid or security opens the door. They maintain liability insurance to cover most things like tripping, falling, getting hit in the head from a falling plant...the usual. They do not have insurance for smacking someone in the head with a quad, so they would be paying for that themselves.
They don't know if that could happen or not (nor do they care), and they don't know you (again, don't care).
Why would they assume that kind of risk?
They don't know if that could happen or not (nor do they care), and they don't know you (again, don't care).
Why would they assume that kind of risk?
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 23
True. But still that's the business they have choosen. A business with people. They allow dogs. Dogs bite people. Bet more people got bit by dogs then hit by drones. True or no? That's why they have insurance. I'm sure not feeling sorry for Hyatt hotels. They make the rules sure. Doesn't mean I have to like them
Hyatt Hotel has absolutely ZERO legal right to prevent you from flying your bird over their property and taking video. Every single privacy law in all 50 states clearly state that laws only protect people where there is "reasonable expectation of privacy". A hotel property is considered a public area and therefore no privacy laws will be enforceable. Customers walking around a hotel parking lot and grounds have ZERO expectation of privacy under the law. Now if you creep on up to a hotel window and peek in, then you are busted. The law is very simple if you just use some common sense.
And if the hotel called the cops on you, tell them the law and stand your ground. Remember, our Founding Fathers fought a war to estabish America as a government FOR the people and protection of the people's rights --- not exclusively for the rights of large hotel chains and other corporate weasels. If people want to live in a country where the government protects corporations more than people, then China or North Korea would be a better place to live.
And if the hotel called the cops on you, tell them the law and stand your ground. Remember, our Founding Fathers fought a war to estabish America as a government FOR the people and protection of the people's rights --- not exclusively for the rights of large hotel chains and other corporate weasels. If people want to live in a country where the government protects corporations more than people, then China or North Korea would be a better place to live.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 23
Well said!!!! And you are correct. Like an earlier post. We need to stand our ground on these issues. And I intend to. I'm not some creep poking around. I'm showing my special needs brother the joy of flight. Petiod
MadMitch88 said:
ANd then here is what happens next:
You "stand your ground"
Cop says "fine, you are under arrest for disturbing the peace" and off to jail you go.
I had a run in with a City cop in Orange County for standing on a sidewalk and flying over a huge empty field (2,800 ft by 3,000 feet) with a 550 helicopter. When I "explained" the law to him I got the above response. I decided to land and pack it in for that day.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 765
- Reaction score
- 23
You did the right thing. I most likely would have done the same thing. BUT if Hyatt affects a citizen arrest they are in big trouble. My avocation is such that I know a lot about liabilitiy issues associated with these arrests. We will see later when I fly
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
The hotel wouldn't attempt to stop you themselves. They'd likely ask you to stop and call the police as a last resort. They will kick you out of the hotel.
Pretty sure 1708.8 has been applied to photographers attempting to take pictures of people staying at hotels. Expectation of privacy is not a black and white issue. It has a lot of nuances and butts right up against the first amendment. And even if you aren't there for the express purpose of filming people, that's not always apparent. If I were staying at that hotel, I wouldn't like it.
Bottom line is you are photographing a private property not only without their permission but with their expressed disapproval. It's one thing to do it and ask forgiveness. That's already toeing the line. It's another to be told not to do it and do it anyway.
Pretty sure 1708.8 has been applied to photographers attempting to take pictures of people staying at hotels. Expectation of privacy is not a black and white issue. It has a lot of nuances and butts right up against the first amendment. And even if you aren't there for the express purpose of filming people, that's not always apparent. If I were staying at that hotel, I wouldn't like it.
Bottom line is you are photographing a private property not only without their permission but with their expressed disapproval. It's one thing to do it and ask forgiveness. That's already toeing the line. It's another to be told not to do it and do it anyway.
I don't recall the OP saying anything about photo or video of the property. Just flying.ianwood said:
BTW - 1708.8 is aimed for the Paparazzi.
- Status
Similar threads
