Just read that. The "up to the heavens" doctrine is bunk, as most categories of "necessary flight" would intrude. You'd be able to bring action on every commercial aircraft flying overhead otherwise. It was the subject of a Supreme Court case that set precedent (US v. Causby, United States v. Causby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Realistically, if you are going to overfly someone's property without permission, it should be at an altitude where you do not harass or annoy the owner. Imagine an ultralight pilot flying 50' above your house - you'd be outraged. I think the same principle *should* apply here - in other words, just my opinion.
"Therefore, you should continue to urge the AMA members to avoid any flight over property where no permission has been granted."
They are saying this in the context of uninvited entry always being a trespass; i.e. if your drone overflies or crashes, you have trespassed on the property. I can't speak for every jurisdiction, but in Florida, entry must be intentional to constitute trespass (FS 810.09 1 a), so unless the doctrine of "ground to heavens" is somehow reinstated, as long as you aren't low enough to be in the space (the "lower zone") in which property rights are recognized, you cannot intentionally be trespassing, and a crash would theoretically be unintentional as well.
Again, I think the AMA needs to update these to include the different safety realities attendant to drones vs. fixed wing and traditional rotary wing aircraft.
