4 ms·

Not in the US. Property owners do not own the airspace above their property.

giantg2 1y ago
Not entirely true. I believe there are laws determining how high you own. I believe it's 100' for my state.
LeoPanthera 1y ago
The article isn't about the US. However, even the US, that isn't entirely true. United States v. Causby (1946) sets the precedent that property owners own the airspace above their property to (at least) 83 feet. The FAA has exclusive sovereignty over "navigable airspace", which is considered a public highway. This navigable airspace generally begins at 500 feet above the surface in uncongested areas and 1000 feet above the highest obstacle in congested areas. Aircraft flying within this navigable airspace are generally not considered to be trespassing. There is a "gray area" between the immediate airspace controlled by the landowner and the federally controlled navigable airspace. While the FAA asserts its authority to regulate all airspace, including this lower stratum, the exact delineation of private airspace rights within this zone, particularly concerning new technologies like drones, is not clear.
- jcims 1y ago
  There's a medflight helicopter pad not far from my place out in the country. It's just a small concrete pad on a lot and when it is dispatched it ascends straight up to what I'd guessed was 300' but could easily be 500' before taking off towards its destination. Landings are similar. I always thought it looked weird but now I wonder if it's because it's largely surrounded by private property.
  - p_l 1y ago
    Quite probably it's more to avoid dealing with possible collision dangers.
    - jcims 1y ago
      Very possible but we're out in the middle of absolute nowhere. The ascent in particular looks robotic in its precision, takes maybe 30 seconds. It's really quite cool to see.
      - p_l 1y ago
        High vertical ascent/descent is very, very dangerous[1] method of takeoff/landing for helicopters, so especially in case of medical transport I would expect it to be due to safety factors more than anything. [1] been decades since I've read the textbook on it, but IIRC it involves higher load on rotor and engines than "running" methods that utilize ground effect and provide horizontal momentum against wind gusts.
        jcims 1y ago
        I have the same recollection which I think is why it stood out to me the first time I saw it. It's frankly kind of bizarre looking, like it's getting hoisted by a crane.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    I am near a hospital in a city and while they usually do the same thing sometimes the pilots seem intent on testing the limits of their craft/FAA regulations.
- mike_d 1y ago
  > United States v. Causby (1946) sets the precedent that property owners own the airspace above their property to (at least) 83 feet. Probably one of the most misunderstood cases ever. Causby's complaint was that his chickens were dying as a result of the stress from low altitude military flights over his property. The Supreme Court ruled this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights because the government was taking something from him (chickens) without compensation. 83 feet was simply the lowest recorded flight. People took that to be some sort of magical barrier, but would only be relevant if your issue was also with chicken deaths. Even if you take it to apply to drones, it would only apply to government drones that in some way cause you real and demonstrable financial loss.

Not entirely true. I believe there are laws determining how high you own. I believe it's 100' for my state.

The article isn't about the US. However, even the US, that isn't entirely true. United States v. Causby (1946) sets the precedent that property owners own the airspace above their property to (at least) 83 feet. The FAA has exclusive sovereignty over "navigable airspace", which is considered a public highway. This navigable airspace generally begins at 500 feet above the surface in uncongested areas and 1000 feet above the highest obstacle in congested areas. Aircraft flying within this navigable airspace are generally not considered to be trespassing. There is a "gray area" between the immediate airspace controlled by the landowner and the federally controlled navigable airspace. While the FAA asserts its authority to regulate all airspace, including this lower stratum, the exact delineation of private airspace rights within this zone, particularly concerning new technologies like drones, is not clear.

jcims 1y ago
There's a medflight helicopter pad not far from my place out in the country. It's just a small concrete pad on a lot and when it is dispatched it ascends straight up to what I'd guessed was 300' but could easily be 500' before taking off towards its destination. Landings are similar. I always thought it looked weird but now I wonder if it's because it's largely surrounded by private property.
- p_l 1y ago
  Quite probably it's more to avoid dealing with possible collision dangers.
  - jcims 1y ago
    Very possible but we're out in the middle of absolute nowhere. The ascent in particular looks robotic in its precision, takes maybe 30 seconds. It's really quite cool to see.
    - p_l 1y ago
      High vertical ascent/descent is very, very dangerous[1] method of takeoff/landing for helicopters, so especially in case of medical transport I would expect it to be due to safety factors more than anything. [1] been decades since I've read the textbook on it, but IIRC it involves higher load on rotor and engines than "running" methods that utilize ground effect and provide horizontal momentum against wind gusts.
      - jcims 1y ago
        I have the same recollection which I think is why it stood out to me the first time I saw it. It's frankly kind of bizarre looking, like it's getting hoisted by a crane.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  I am near a hospital in a city and while they usually do the same thing sometimes the pilots seem intent on testing the limits of their craft/FAA regulations.
mike_d 1y ago
> United States v. Causby (1946) sets the precedent that property owners own the airspace above their property to (at least) 83 feet. Probably one of the most misunderstood cases ever. Causby's complaint was that his chickens were dying as a result of the stress from low altitude military flights over his property. The Supreme Court ruled this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights because the government was taking something from him (chickens) without compensation. 83 feet was simply the lowest recorded flight. People took that to be some sort of magical barrier, but would only be relevant if your issue was also with chicken deaths. Even if you take it to apply to drones, it would only apply to government drones that in some way cause you real and demonstrable financial loss.