...Trespass is NOT possible in US Airspace because of the enabling acts of the FAA ie the "Federal Aviation Act of 1958" which has as the basis for its legality the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
ie the FED owns ALL airspace from the ground up, period.. this is established law in both statute and case.
State laws nor local have zero legal jurisdiction over federal airspace at the present time ....
NPS can only prevent you from using the lands NPS administer's for takeoffs and landings.. takeoffs and landing NOT on NPS property but overflights over NPS properties are the FAA's and at present legal.
Very interesting stuff. Thanks. Makes me wonder...
On the subject of trespass in
airspace, I wonder if that is separate from trespass to a real property owner who may be lawfully entitled to the enjoyment of his/her property. It's hard to imagine, for example, despite the fact that the federal government may own the airspace, that a property owner would have no redress should somebody hover a helicopter 5' above his/her rooftop. I mean, maybe the homeowner could not sue over an airspace issue but there may be other issues unrelated to airspace, per se.
As to the NPS (National Park Service), they can set any rules they want, of course. Whether or not those rules have any force in law might be another matter.
Aviation: Unmanned Aerial Systems | U.S. National Park Service reads, in part "Each superintendent was directed 'to use the authority under 36 CFR 1.5 to close units of the National Park System to launching, landing, or
operating [emphasis added] unmanned aircraft…' " I don't pretend to understand too awful much law. 36 CFR 1.5 (whatever that is) says, in part "...Closures and public use limits. ...based upon a determination that such action is necessary for the maintenance of public health and safety,
protection of environmental or scenic values [emphasis added], protection of natural or cultural resources... Establish, for all or a portion of a park area, a reasonable schedule of visiting hours, impose public use limits, or
close all or a portion of a park area to all public use or to a specific use or activity..." Taken with case law precedent regarding property owner's rights such as the Supreme Court case States v. Causby, this would seem as if it may be contrary to opinions saying the NPS cannot close parks to drone overflights. The NPS may have no say so as to the airspace itself, but how things that occur in that airspace effect the use of NPS lands may be separate. In other words, the NPS might not be able to tell us that we can't fly over the parks from the perspective of the use of airspace, but they might be able to stop people from flying because it interferes with the enjoyment of the parks by the public, poses a risk to the environment, etc. I am not saying which is right or wrong, what is or what isn't. I'm just taking it all in and speculating.
It's all very interesting and it seems to me an area of law that appears to be evolving rapidly. Googling around one comes across all manner of related tidbits, some such as
http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/02/RULE.pdf from Boston University from which I quote these snipits: "The growing interest in domestic drones is drawing new attention to
unresolved [emphasis added] questions regarding the scope of landowners’ rights in the airspace above their land." and "Existing aerial trespass and takings laws, which were formulated prior to the advent of modern drone technologies, are ill-equipped to handle conflicts between domestic drone operators and landowners. To establish claims under these laws, landowners generally must prove that an aircraft flew within the nebulous “immediate reaches” of the airspace above their parcels and substantially interfered with their use and enjoyment of their land.
The indefinite nature of landowner airspace rights under these rules is already generating confusion and controversy [emphasis added], hindering growth in the fledgling domestic drone industry." I found the stuff on pages 166 through the top of 172 really interesting and informative.
