3 ms·

You get buttf*cked by the FAA and the feds. You don't own the airspace above your home and it's heavily regulated.

aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
hansvm 2y ago
You do (in the US), but there's a presumed right of way granting some privileges to aircraft in that space. Separately, destruction of property is rarely a legal resolution mechanism for trespass, even when the drones aren't operating legally. For some thought experiments, imagine somebody building a large dome over your property, only ever intersecting the airspace. Or if you built a tall building on your own land intersecting with the airspace low-flying planes used to use. Both scenarios would definitely be found in your favor; the FAA won't be the body preventing your tall building, and you'd have no trouble getting a court to remove the trespassing dome.
- leros 2y ago
  This came up in my FAA drone training. There is nothing legally preventing a drone pilot from hovering an inch over the grass in your backyard. They can't land as it's your private property but class G airspace extends all the way down to ground level and is under federal control.
  - hansvm 2y ago
    That doesn't contradict anything I said. If the homeowner built a taller structure, you couldn't fly your drone in what used to be class G airspace. If you built a giant dome over somebody's yard, a court would order it taken down. The fact that you're able to do certain things with your drone is because of a presumed right of way the drone has, and that right of way is time-variable. Separately, the FAA's powers aren't absolute. A drone operator's restrictions when operating as a backyard nuisance are all those which the FAA inflicts _in addition to_ any other applicable laws, regulations, and common law. Even if the FAA classifies that airspace as class G, and even if the FAA doesn't prevent hovering an inch over the ground, you'll be in hot water with the rest of the court system if you do it too long, too often, or for the wrong reasons. Even the FAA would be on your ass if you were reckless with your drone in a residential area (mentioning for completeness; your hypothetical didn't imply recklessness). Highlighting one way things can get messy, suppose you do that hovering trick and a homeowner doesn't like it. They're free to place a net over your drone (for the sake of argument, suppose it has some sort of rigid supports so it doesn't fall into your drone blades and cause damage). What befalls the drone will likely boil down to "unclaimed property" laws -- you'll likely get it back unharmed, eventually (if you take the right steps), but your day of flying is ruined. More generally, as I said, the homeowner owns the airspace above their home, and there exists a presumed right of way for certain activities in that airspace. The further you tread from the idea of "when flying you have to pass over _somebody's_ home," the murkier the legal waters get. Maybe one last idea for now: even in that presumed right of way, not even commercial flights are exempt from the fact they're infringing on your rights. Just the existence of noise and turbulance from an excessive number of nearby planes can suffice (and has sufficed) for landowners to be compensated for the fact that they can't reasonably use their land anymore (and usually the land is condemned and goes through some other unimportant details). The compensation comes, transitively, from the infringing flights (usually more directly from whichever airport or municipality caused the problem, but that incidental cost is _slightly_ trickled down to the rest of the system).

[dead]

You do (in the US), but there's a presumed right of way granting some privileges to aircraft in that space. Separately, destruction of property is rarely a legal resolution mechanism for trespass, even when the drones aren't operating legally. For some thought experiments, imagine somebody building a large dome over your property, only ever intersecting the airspace. Or if you built a tall building on your own land intersecting with the airspace low-flying planes used to use. Both scenarios would definitely be found in your favor; the FAA won't be the body preventing your tall building, and you'd have no trouble getting a court to remove the trespassing dome.

leros 2y ago
This came up in my FAA drone training. There is nothing legally preventing a drone pilot from hovering an inch over the grass in your backyard. They can't land as it's your private property but class G airspace extends all the way down to ground level and is under federal control.
- hansvm 2y ago
  That doesn't contradict anything I said. If the homeowner built a taller structure, you couldn't fly your drone in what used to be class G airspace. If you built a giant dome over somebody's yard, a court would order it taken down. The fact that you're able to do certain things with your drone is because of a presumed right of way the drone has, and that right of way is time-variable. Separately, the FAA's powers aren't absolute. A drone operator's restrictions when operating as a backyard nuisance are all those which the FAA inflicts _in addition to_ any other applicable laws, regulations, and common law. Even if the FAA classifies that airspace as class G, and even if the FAA doesn't prevent hovering an inch over the ground, you'll be in hot water with the rest of the court system if you do it too long, too often, or for the wrong reasons. Even the FAA would be on your ass if you were reckless with your drone in a residential area (mentioning for completeness; your hypothetical didn't imply recklessness). Highlighting one way things can get messy, suppose you do that hovering trick and a homeowner doesn't like it. They're free to place a net over your drone (for the sake of argument, suppose it has some sort of rigid supports so it doesn't fall into your drone blades and cause damage). What befalls the drone will likely boil down to "unclaimed property" laws -- you'll likely get it back unharmed, eventually (if you take the right steps), but your day of flying is ruined. More generally, as I said, the homeowner owns the airspace above their home, and there exists a presumed right of way for certain activities in that airspace. The further you tread from the idea of "when flying you have to pass over _somebody's_ home," the murkier the legal waters get. Maybe one last idea for now: even in that presumed right of way, not even commercial flights are exempt from the fact they're infringing on your rights. Just the existence of noise and turbulance from an excessive number of nearby planes can suffice (and has sufficed) for landowners to be compensated for the fact that they can't reasonably use their land anymore (and usually the land is condemned and goes through some other unimportant details). The compensation comes, transitively, from the infringing flights (usually more directly from whichever airport or municipality caused the problem, but that incidental cost is _slightly_ trickled down to the rest of the system).