Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Welcome DJI Spark Pilot!
Jump in and join our free Spark community today!
Sign up
Forums
General Forums
sUAV Rules & Regulations
Jurisdictional disputes over drones
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I B Spectre" data-source="post: 107009" data-attributes="member: 18605"><p>Your reply is exactly what I meant by thoughtful, constructive response. ?</p><p></p><p>Since the early days of flight, the question of who owns the airspace has been the subject of much controversy as airspace use expanded. Eventually a case made its way to the Supreme Court based on a property owner's claim that low flying aircraft on approach to a nearby airfield interfered with the productive use of his chicken farm. In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby" target="_blank">United States v Causby (1946)</a> SCOTUS ruled that the government's claim to "possess the space to ground level" was "a direct invasion of the landowner's domain". To do otherwise could prevent the planting of trees, fences or building structures above ground level without the government's permission. However they also recognized that "a claim of property ownership indefinitely upward "has no place in the modern world." </p><p></p><p>One interesting idea in the MavicPilots discussion suggesting setting the property airspace height based on the tallest object. This could be a tree or structure. Someone posited that the property owner might want to erect a tall tower (i.e. ham radio, etc.) or structure to extend their claimed "airspace". Presently, notification must be submitted to the FAA administrator if the structure exceeds 200 feet AGL and/or within certain specified distance to public use or military airports 45 days prior to construction.</p><p></p><p>Eventually a decision will be made and will probably not be to the liking of all parties. What is needed is a clear designation of the ultimate authority that establishes limits of lower level governments to prevent a patchwork quilt of confusing ordinances that are all but impossible to navigate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I B Spectre, post: 107009, member: 18605"] Your reply is exactly what I meant by thoughtful, constructive response. ? Since the early days of flight, the question of who owns the airspace has been the subject of much controversy as airspace use expanded. Eventually a case made its way to the Supreme Court based on a property owner's claim that low flying aircraft on approach to a nearby airfield interfered with the productive use of his chicken farm. In [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby']United States v Causby (1946)[/URL] SCOTUS ruled that the government's claim to "possess the space to ground level" was "a direct invasion of the landowner's domain". To do otherwise could prevent the planting of trees, fences or building structures above ground level without the government's permission. However they also recognized that "a claim of property ownership indefinitely upward "has no place in the modern world." One interesting idea in the MavicPilots discussion suggesting setting the property airspace height based on the tallest object. This could be a tree or structure. Someone posited that the property owner might want to erect a tall tower (i.e. ham radio, etc.) or structure to extend their claimed "airspace". Presently, notification must be submitted to the FAA administrator if the structure exceeds 200 feet AGL and/or within certain specified distance to public use or military airports 45 days prior to construction. Eventually a decision will be made and will probably not be to the liking of all parties. What is needed is a clear designation of the ultimate authority that establishes limits of lower level governments to prevent a patchwork quilt of confusing ordinances that are all but impossible to navigate. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Forums
sUAV Rules & Regulations
Jurisdictional disputes over drones