Flying Over Private Property is Illegal?

[stitch0852]

There is no reasonable expectation to privacy when in the public areas (including public areas of stores). Driving or walking down the road you can be seen by security cameras, dash cams, street cameras, traffic cameras, ATM cameras, cell phone cameras, law enforcement body cams, and even satellite cameras. BUT! Attach that camera to a quad copter and the wingnuts come out of the floor boards demanding privacy.

Restrooms, etc you expect reasonable privacy and they are not included in this. IN PUBLIC there should be no expectation of privacy.

A news helicopter can fly over your property filming, no problem. They hold better cameras with zoom capability and high definition cameras. Yet attach that camera to a remote flying machine and the rules get radically stupid.

I can sit in my car, snap photos on a public road all day long. No problem. I can fly my quad copter in the same area, not over people or cars and people freak out. Why?

Why does attaching it to a flying machine cause the rules to change so drastically?

I know that my quad can fly up, but not stealthily, they can hear it.

The majority of us are not paying attention to the common fellow, we are looking for that panoramic shot, sunset, etc, not the people. That bird's eye view many never get to see. The view of your area that exists only from above. Many of us fly over places while not even having the camera going enroute to someplace else.

 

[thefrisbee995]

What about in the UK?

 

[Xenomorph]

We all just need to accept that the site/ sound of a UAS scares people. No matter what.

We live in a generation of tin foil hats, secret governments watching us through our cell phones and Beyoncé being part of the Illuminati.

A remote control "toy" with a camera will most certainly scare the uneducated. We just have to accept it.

 

[SteveMann]

I know I am breaking a promise to never post here again, but sometimes the bad information is just too much.

"83 ft" is an erroneous misreading of the Causby decision. The case before the court was a fifth amendment taking of private property. THAT IS ALL. The court held that the farmer (Causby) was owed compensation for the illegal taking of his property. (His chickens). What the Causby decision did say was that a property owner only owns the airspace above his property that he can reasonably use.

The '83 ft' was simply an observation by one of the justices in his summary, but it is not law.

Also, avigation easements are granted to airport management authorities to allow for low aircraft taking off or landing, and the easement almost always places restrictions on what the property owner can do. For example, if you own property next to an airport, the airport may take an easement restricting the property owner from building any structure that would intrude into the FAA clear zone around a runway approach or departure path. Property owners may be compensated for the taking at the time of the taking. Subsequent owners are bound by the easement restrictions. An avigation easement is no different from the city services easement in front of your house. You can't build any permanent structures on the city easement and the city may do anything they need to perform in the easement including digging up the yard to reach utility pipes or repair a roadway.

 

[Helihover]

And the 83 feet was based on the silo all ready on the property.

I find it ridiculous that this case gets brought up every time someone mentions flying over a house......

 

[anotherlab]

You evidently are very knowledgeable about these particular cases, but if you really want to be understood, why don't you summarize these for us folks who don't have access to these cases, won't go look them up and wouldn't understand the language if we did read them? And please what you are talking about when you say "the 500 ft rule". We drone hobbyists are limited in altitude to 400ft. Thanks.

When I tried to summarize, I was accused of lying and playing "telephone". I'll just stick to the actual court references, you can google the case by name and find summaries in layman terms. I will say this, the 500ft rule was defined in a Supreme Court case that is used as a reference in modern court cases. The 400ft rule was defined by the FAA.

Local jurisdictions are passing their own laws, restricting public and private access to drones beyond what was defined by the FAA.. Whether or not you like it or believe it's legal, it's happening. That's why we are seeing lawsuits being filed like the one in Newton and that new restrictive drone ordinance just passed in Orlando. Congress needs to pass some legislation to clearly define privacy expectations over public and private airspace with regards to drones.

 

[NRJ]

When I tried to summarize, I was accused of lying and playing "telephone". I'll just stick to the actual court references, you can google the case by name and find summaries in layman terms. I will say this, the 500ft rule was defined in a Supreme Court case that is used as a reference in modern court cases. The 400ft rule was defined by the FAA.

Local jurisdictions are passing their own laws, restricting public and private access to drones beyond what was defined by the FAA.. Whether or not you like it or believe it's legal, it's happening. That's why we are seeing lawsuits being filed like the one in Newton and that new restrictive drone ordinance just passed in Orlando. Congress needs to pass some legislation to clearly define privacy expectations over public and private airspace with regards to drones.

I don't disagree with you. I think we all know it is happening. I will Google the 500ft rule to become better acquainted. Thanks for explaining further.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

In the USA, the airspace between 83' and 500' is a gray area, especially since drones have convoluted the question.

The FAA argues that it “has authority to regulate aircraft in U.S. Airspace” at any altitude because Federal law states that the FAA “shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1).

Even if navigable airspace does not extend to the surface, the FAA has argued that it may regulate below navigable airspace because it can prescribe regulations “on the flight of aircraft for navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft” and “protecting individuals and property on the ground.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2).

Until we see a court case that addresses this problem, it will continue to be interpreted in many ways.

 

[joet]

I'm sorry I am confused. As a FAA licensed operator it was made very clear to me that you are NOT allowed to fly over large groups of people or densely populated area with out permission notifying the group and getting consent. Am I wrong?

You are not allowed to overfly anyone that is not participating in controlling the aircraft - pilot in command, operator, or visual observer unless you have a waiver.

Permission from those being overflown does not count.

 

[Big_A]

Try this

Or this
photos Heathrow aircraft landing over houses - Google Search

 

[Xenomorph]

Try this

Or this
photos Heathrow aircraft landing over houses - Google Search

Oh man!!! That's absurd! Could you imagine how hard it is to sell those houses!!

Real estate agent to client:
"... and if you look just beyond the living room you will see that bath.." SSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
"...room."

 

[Skyler King III]

I see news articles occasionally about land owners calling the police when a drone flies over "private property.” Yet no one seems to call the police when United Airlines flies over private property.

Is there a limit to private property ownership in the Z-axis (measured in feet)? If so, wouldn’t that mean that all airspace is open for drones except where specifically restricted or prohibited by the FAA?

I’m confused about this and would like to find an answer.

Here's a practical answer that can help keep us ALL out of a SPOTLIGHT. When flying over private property without specific permission, flat at at least 200' AGL and if possible, at 400' AGL. Avoid loitering one rather property. ESPECIALLY occupied property.

 

[Helihover]

Here's a practical answer that can help keep us ALL out of a SPOTLIGHT. When flying over private property without specific permission, flat at at least 200' AGL and if possible, at 400' AGL. Avoid loitering one rather property. ESPECIALLY occupied property.

That's great if your having fun....

What about photos that need to be takin at 100 ft. AGL?

 

[AlecW]

That's great if your having fun....

What about photos that need to be takin at 100 ft. AGL?

Wouldn't the property owner in this case already know what you are doing?

 

[joet]

Wouldn't the property owner in this case already know what you are doing?

Not necessarily. I do real estate panoramas at 100' that capture several homes.

Interesting thought: Google Earth. Is it considered to be afoul of the law in these restrictive jurisdictions?

 

[Helihover]

Wouldn't the property owner in this case already know what you are doing?

No. Sometimes I get to meet them, but thats usually after I'm done.

 

[AlecW]

OK sounds fair, I'm not 107 so didn't know. Still, it's slightly different than hobby flying, should anyone complain you have a good reason to be getting up close.

 

[GMack]

FAA needs to specify what is "Public Drone Airspace" and "Drone flight right of way" better so cities and public don't go nuts with their own interpretation. Now some cities want owner authorization for flying over other's property (Chicago). AMA magazine this month has a few pages on the drone issues coming up in 2017 (i.e. More restrictions.).

Drone right of way maybe set at 50 to 400 feet over structures and not within 2 miles of airports without notification. If the pilot is 107'ed, then perhaps even within an airport area since they hold basically an equivalent to a real pilot's license along with maybe a VHF radio to talk to Ground or Tower too on the field. Problem is many of the public will complain and testify that they were less than 50 feet so another gray area.

Also, allow over National Parks too provided no people or animals within flight pattern. One accident and the "No drones ever" policy comes into effect which is as bad as Sweden's "No drone's" policy, imho. No doubt public parks followed the NPS lead and is snowballing on to any city property including streets, public buildings, parks, etc.

Law needs to nationalized too. Some cities want their own drone fees and numbers. It's getting as bad as concealed carry permits: Legal here, but not legal over there at that boundary line.

 

[joet]

OK sounds fair, I'm not 107 so didn't know. Still, it's slightly different than hobby flying, should anyone complain you have a good reason to be getting up close.

And often the difference is in how you are flying and how you present yourself to anyone who gets curious or concerned.

If someone approaches me while I am flying, I give them a big smile and a "hi!" - that immediately presents me as a non-threat.

"What are you doing/why are you flying over my house?" "I was hired to get a panorama of the neighborhood; the House over there is for sale, and I guess the real estate agent wants to showcase the neighborhood." "Hired" translates to "I'm a working stiff like you, just trying to earn a buck." - more sympathy. The rest equates to a legitimate purpose for being there and the fact that I am just doing my job. By this point, the conversation usually morphs into how cool the drone is and how it is changing real estate.

If I had opened with, "IT IS LEGAL TO FLY HERE! GO AWAY!", the conversation would be much different - and likely being held with Law Enforcement in short order.

If you are hobby flying, and get questioned, my advice is to be friendly, open, and honest - with a bit of common sense. Don't loiter over someone's property more than you need to. Take different departure and return routes to minimize the impact to any individual property. Don't buzz their roof at 9am on a Sunday. 90% of this is not giving anyone a reason to get annoyed with you in the first place. The other 10% is your appearance, demeanor, tact, and charm.

 

[AlecW]

And often the difference is in how you are flying and how you present yourself to anyone who gets curious or concerned.

If someone approaches me while I am flying, I give them a big smile and a "hi!" - that immediately presents me as a non-threat.

"What are you doing/why are you flying over my house?" "I was hired to get a panorama of the neighborhood; the House over there is for sale, and I guess the real estate agent wants to showcase the neighborhood." "Hired" translates to "I'm a working stiff like you, just trying to earn a buck." - more sympathy. The rest equates to a legitimate purpose for being there and the fact that I am just doing my job. By this point, the conversation usually morphs into how cool the drone is and how it is changing real estate.

If I had opened with, "IT IS LEGAL TO FLY HERE! GO AWAY!", the conversation would be much different - and likely being held with Law Enforcement in short order.

If you are hobby flying, and get questioned, my advice is to be friendly, open, and honest - with a bit of common sense. Don't loiter over someone's property more than you need to. Take different departure and return routes to minimize the impact to any individual property. Don't buzz their roof at 9am on a Sunday. 90% of this is not giving anyone a reason to get annoyed with you in the first place. The other 10% is your appearance, demeanor, tact, and charm.

Yeah, agree, that's more or less what I wrote in a post on the last page.