7 ms·

One big difference here, is that for these other recreational activities the license is only required if you doing them on public lands, however on private lan

• bigdubs 5y ago
  It follows because you may be taking off from private land but you're operating in federal airspace (all airspace is federal in the US)
  • _hyn3 5y ago
    All airspace? Not even airspace above, say, 500 feet? Am I literally walking through federal airspace right now? The U.S. Constitution is pretty explicit about physical space that is allocated to the federal government and the reasons (post offices and post roads, military installations, and that's about it), so laying claim to every square inch of "air" above that land seems to be quite a stretch.
    • sithadmin 5y ago
      Yes, all airspace. If you're out walking, driving, or erecting a structure, you're entitled to its usage provided you're not creating an air navigation hazard. The general understanding is that you're entitled to airspace on your property, and to a limited extent on the property of others, insofar as the usage of that airspace is necessary to use the land itself. Flying anything is not, from a legal and regulatory perspective, understood to be a usage related to the land itself. This issue has been settled for quite some time in US law. The main grey areas that exist are debates over what sorts of exceptions should be made for reasonable use of UAV/drones at low altitudes.
      • cameronh90 5y ago
        I've always wondered about the edge conditions. Would flying a drone indoors require permission from FAA? What about a daredevil jump on a motorcycle?
        • sithadmin 5y ago
          As long as there's a roof, you can fly whatever you want indoors without the FAA's interference. As for airborne ground vehicles - it's difficult to imagine a situation where it would legitimately be a concern, which is why it's a grey area :)
          • cameronh90 5y ago
            I'm actually in the UK and it appears until relatively recently, the CAA did assert control over indoor airspace. But recently they've relaxed the rules and said if there's no possiblity of escape, you can do what you want. That does mean technically that if you're flying a drone indoors, the legality depends on how wide you open the windows.
• chrischattin 5y ago
  You need a license to hunt/fish on private land.
  • syshum 5y ago
    Not in my state... I am not sure where you live but in every state I am aware of this is not true, though I tend to only live in area's where freedom is respected so... Edit: I am rate limited but a comment below claims KY does not allow hunting with out a license, yet Offical KY government web sites says you can "if you are a Kentucky resident hunting on your own property, then neither you, your spouse nor your dependent children need a license or statewide deer permit to harvest a deer. " https://fw.ky.gov/Hunt/Pages/Deer-Season-FAQ.aspx https://fw.ky.gov/Hunt/Pages/Deer-Season-FAQ.aspx This is the regulations I am aware for most states, if you are on your own private land you do not need a license to hunt and fish
    • yaur 5y ago
      I’m not aware of any state where you can hunt wild game on private land without a license. Including states where you would expect that to be the case if it were true anywhere… ND, SD, MT, and KY to name a few. Non-game species and preserve “hunting” are a different matter.
    • pomian 5y ago
      That's very interesting. Worth moving to Kentucky! Everywhere else I have visited you need a license, and to follow bag limits. Except for non licensed animals: rabbits, squirrels, gophers for example; or predators: cougars, wolves, bears.
      • syshum 5y ago
        My state ( which is not KY) has no resictions either, I verified it just now as I had not looked at the regulations in several years as I do not hunt normally so I wanted to see if they had changed since the last I looked, but no changes. A land owner is free to hunt, fish, etc on their own land with no license in my state
• sithadmin 5y ago
  The key difference is that if you're flying anything, you're not operating 'in [your] back yard' - the FAA has purview over that airspace.
  • syshum 5y ago
    Yes I am aware that the FAA claims to have full control over everything down to the ground, I am also aware there is not much case law supporting that position, and in fact the case law seems to indicated the Supreme Court could be in a position to limit the FAA's authority to 100ft and higher, anything lower than that being consider private property. IMO it is clear unconstitutional taking for the FAA to seize ownership of all the air above my property, with out limit
    • sithadmin 5y ago
      I'm not sure I'm convinced the FAA's claim to airspace above private property is unconstitutional. Just as there's not a lot of precedent firmly establishing the FAA's purview in low altitude airspace, there's also not much precedent that land ownership conveys a right to airspace usage beyond the right to place structures upon the land that happen to occupy that airspace. Further, there's a clear parallel here to the FCC's purview over EM spectrum usage that does have significantly more precedent backing it, so I would expect that to set the groundwork for any future case law on the airspace matter. In any case, it's an area that certainly needs much greater clarity than there is today.
      • syshum 5y ago
        Such as? The Supreme Court in UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY says "The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land" They say nothing about structures being the only use, in fact they implicitly say in the ruling "The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense—by the erection of buildings and the like—is not material." In that case the Supreme Court held that a plane flying at an altitude of 83ft violated the property rights of the land owner. It should not be much of a stretch to then claim the FAA regulating my use of airspace 0-83ft is an unconstitutional taking. Even today I believe the FAA Navigable Airspace starts at 500ft above ground elevation. It would be an interesting case if ever made it to the supreme court, I dont think the FAA's position is as strong as you believe it to be
• rhinoceraptor 5y ago
  Yes, because there is no such thing as unregulated airspace. The FAA governs all navigable airspace, and a drone has no minimum flight altitude, so literally any outdoor flight is within their purview.
  • syshum 5y ago
    I am aware that is the FAA Position, I am also aware that United States v. Causby The US Surpreme Court reject the US Government claim "to possess all airspace above the United States down to ground level" holding that a Military jet flying at an altitude 83ft is a violation of the land owners rights to their property, aka the low altitude airspace Further navigable airspace under current regulations starts at 500feet above ground or structures
    • naturalauction 5y ago
      Additionally, the FAA only regulates buildings that are 200ft above the ground or more (unless they are near an airport), see [1]. It seems ridiculous that the FAA doesn't care if you build a 200ft tall tower and fly a drone inside it but does care if you fly a drone outside at the same height. The FAA likely realizes that regulating all buildings taller than 0ft is a ridiculous proposition while regulating all airspace probably attracts less scrutiny. [1] https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=84336 https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=84336