I fly a drone for a news station as part of my job and we've had these issues come up with our legal team since often there are people who don't want us flying where we're flying, and I have to say you're absolutely correct according to our lawyers. People can restrict your activity of taking off, landing, or flying your drone from the ground, but only the FAA can restrict what airspace you're allowed to fly through. Some important notes/distinctions that have come up for our station: 1. Pilots are required by law to comply with instructions or request of law enforcement or emergency personnel, provided it does not interfere with safe operation of the aircraft - Meaning if a police officer tells you not to fly over a car crash, fire, etc. You have to safely land your drone and comply with their request, to this end they are also allowed to request to see your certifications, flight logs, or replay your video to make sure you weren't engaging in illegal voyeurisms. Another important cavate to this is that if you're flying over say a fire and a fire chief asks you to fly to a specific area to give them a better view of a situation you are required to do this so long as it doesn't put your drone or any bystanders at risk. (your safety responsibilities as Pilot in Command supersede these request) so essentially you and your drone can be commandeered for public good. 2. Any space internal to the structure of a property is considered private, so you can't fly into someone's garage, under their awnings, or even below the confines of a closed in fence, which is pretty darn low and cheeky anyway. 3. Your responsibilities to fly your drone safely as PIC are federal and supersede ALL local ordinances or restrictions on where you are allowed to operate your drone from the ground. So for example if you're flying a drone and the wind picks up forcing you to make an emergency landing in a nearby park that has restrictions on drone flying/operations, you can move into the park while controlling the drone in order to maintain visual line of sight and land it safely. Another example of this might be if you have to make an emergency landing in a restricted space and have to violate that space to retrieve the drone, you are allowed to do that, provided you don't have to violate any physical barriers (fences etc.) to do so, as breaking and entering is still a crime.
Hi Daniel, every time the police or fire departments go to a location, that current location will be marked by the FAA LAANC system as a "No Fly Zone" and will show up on all of the LAANC apps very quickly.
24 years as a LEO. This guy is spot on. We cannot regulate airspace. Now... what we can do and have done is look to see if the activity being complained about violates one of the following laws: Harrassment, Stalking, or Peeping Tom statutes. These statutes cover most if not all of the complaints folks make on drones that actually have MERIT. A drone buzzing overhead at 40mph on its way somewhere isnt going to violate any of those laws. Constant hovering over certain areas like swimming pools or using it to look in windows, or hovering over people to harass them is already covered under these laws. The fact a drone is being used to violate the law is irrelevant as it doesnt matter HOW the law is being violated it only matters THAT it is being violated, and no additional laws on drone flying are needed in most communities and as most states already have these 3 laws on the books. Now we could also report illegal drone use to the FAA such as not using remote ID or other violations. Im a drone flier myself and keep up with the laws and I do my best to educate citizens who call in complaints without merit.
I flew mine down to the river. Watching the boats and net skis and the view. Was at 300 feet up. My transmitter told them who I was, and an officer showed up. Tried to say I was hovering over private property. I showed him exactly where I was over the river. Told him to let me fly it back, and he could review the videos. He seemed a little arrogant, but he saw that I was not lying. He tried to say I can't fly over anyone's houses, which I politely argued with him about. After having enough, due to my job, I called a buddy of mine who is an FAA agent and had him explain the laws better than I could.
@ericesposito3880 it is like a license plate. it tranmits the FAA registration code, and some will also do hieght and what not but only thing required is the FAA ID. then just like a license plate, they type it into their computer, and there is all of your info.
The rules are simple: As a drone pilot, behave just like you would expect others to behave. My play set: - Respect private properties and think about noise abatement. -If you are on a job and you need to fly over or around a private property for a longer period of time, maybe consider informing the owners beforehand and kindly inform them about what you are doing and the legal situation. Involve them, do not fight them. - Try to understand how uninformed individuals feel about drone operations, especially over private grounds or crowded spaces. There is a huge difference between a drone flying over a property briefly or a drone hovering low level for 15 minutes at or over your premises. - Do not operate close to people and if so, behave like a pro. Doing crazy FPV practice in crowded parks is a no-go and an annoyance to others. If you want to practice, go somewhere less populated and avoid confrontations. - Inform people about drones, safety and rules,, do not fight them - Do not film individual people, assets or properties without permission -Act like an adult and always be friendly and professional. Do not act like a Drone-Caren... Aviation in general is and should be a thing for humble, professional and honest people, not a place for harzadeurs and reckless personalities. Do it professionally and resonsively. Tell others to act accordingly.
I bought a few of these without seriously considering the 4th Amendment, which supersedes my right to drone recreation. The only place I'd fly these is in a desolate area with the land owners permission, or over public land. Even on public land, I'm sure they've made it illegal somehow. They're almost all made in The PRC anyway, so I don't really care if they're banned for any use other than for emergencies or by the land owner over their own property. Less money for The PRC is a good thing.
As a pilot and a part 107 remote pilot (not a lawyer but I play one on TV), I think there could be a happy medium nobody has spoken about. I propose the following: "A homeowner's/landowner's property includes the airspace along and inside their property boundary up to the height of said house/building inside that property. A pilot of an unmanned aircraft or other types of aircraft may not repeatedly fly into said property without consent from homeowner/landowner". People want their privacy and are most concerned about the cameras that are on drones. If someone was flying their RC plane instead of a drone, would the homeowner/landowner be as upset? Not likely.
@@UpcomingJedi Actually, that's what a 107 certification is. You have to be 16 years old to be certified. It certifies you under federal law as a "remote pilot in command" of an aircraft. If you're flying under a 107, then your drone is registered with the federal government (which you have to pay for just like a license plate) and is outfitted with a remote ID broadcast module, and must be marked with your registration number. It's almost exactly like a car.
I am a recreational flyer and I live in a rural area in NW Pa. 95% of my flights are out of my yard. An incident occurred on September 3, 2023 and the PA State police now have my Air 2S. I was filming a hyper lapse video of the sunset when I received a critical battery error (my own stupidity) and the drone made an emergency landing about 400 meters from home. I could see that it had landed on a neighbors property and waited until the next morning to go there and ask permission to search. When I did they told me that they had found it and called the police who came and took the drone. I was happy to hear that it was found and figured that all I needed to do was call, explain what happened, and go retrieve it from them. I made that call on September 4 and was told that the officer involved would have to call me back. I waited a few days without hearing a word then he finally contacted me. He informed me that I wouldn't be getting the drone back soon if at all because there had been other complaints, about drone flyers in my neighborhood. I explained that I could easily prove that there was no malicious intent on my part by showing him the flight logs. I also told him that everything I filmed would be on the memory card in the drone and, if he removed the battery, he would find a sticker with my name, address and phone number on it. He didn't want to hear that though and was very arrogant and downright rude when he told me that he was gathering everyone in the area who had complained and they were taking me to court. When I inquired about a timeline he said that he couldn't even start the 'investigation' until he gets off of 3rd shift. Its been a month and he still has not started the investigation. Since then I've done some research and found that civil forfeiture laws exist that allow them to keep property indefinitely even if there are never any charges or arrests made.
UPDATE ... I received a call from Trooper Lewis of the PSP today and he informed me that he would be filing 'unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft ' and also 'disorderly conduct ' charges against me. The disorderly conduct charge really blows my mind. When I asked him about it he said it was because 2 other officers had visited me with warnings. Those officers never issued any warning either written or verbal. Unfortunately with my wife battling breast cancer and heart problems and with both of us being retired on a fixed income the money won't be there to hire a lawyer and fight this and my income will keep me from getting legal assistance.
@@haidenmorgan - from a LEO that is totally messed up. sounds like they dont even want to do a proper investigation. stuff like this scares me and makes me rethink drone hobbies. I may just sell my drones and get into ROVs instead, as no one cares what im doing underwater at the lake....
@@haidenmorgan They charge everyone with disorderly conduct to create a case. Disorderly conduct is very subjective and generally used as a means to bring more serious charges. In court, most disorderly conduct charges get dismissed in plea deals.
You aren't important enough, nor your wife pretty enough, for anyone to spy on you. If a drone is 2 miles from the nearest public road, it is filming a sunset. The pilot has no interest in you.
Very well explained!! I had a debate with someone about this. I ended it with “have you ever heard about owning beachfront property, and how people are allowed to walk along the beach ‘on your property’?”. He agreed, adding that it was considered a public easement. I said ya, thats why you cant prevent aircrafts from flying in ‘your airspace’, because its a public easement for aircrafts… He promised me I was wrong 🤣
Washington State grants public easement at beaches only below mean tide line. In other words, at low tide near the water you can presumably walk along the beach but higher is not part of the easement. Hawaii, on the other hand, the State owns all beaches.
@@halkael2317 "what about on a river or lake?" I have not studied that aspect. I suspect given the jealous guarding of waterfront property that lakes and rivers are privately owned right down to the water edge.
@@halkael2317legally surface water is in the Public Trust. So no one can technically own the water but can own the property around it and under it and in some states the land owner can sell the water. US laws are such a complete mess.
As screwed up as it would be (and is) I think we are far better off with Federal regulations than a new set of rules whenever we enter a new town or cross state line, that would just be chaos.
Thank you Russ for this intelligent discussion! When we know better we do better, thanks for bringing this information to everyone’s attention. I am working on my part 107 certification and I watch all your videos to increase my knowledge and understanding for flying a drone as a business. Many thanks and keep up the good work!
A while back my next door neighbor's dogs, which were tethered together, we're stolen. Without the behest of my neighbor I got up at 5:00 in the morning to fly my drone with this thought in mind. I fed my dogs early and then they went out to do their business. With this thought in mind I flew over the backyards at a high altitude with the gimbal straight down and on the second day I found the dogs. As I thought they weren't too far away and this person that took the dogs thought that they were being mistreated by being tethered together. So I flew over many properties at a pretty good altitude at Dawns light. I replayed the video clip for my neighbor and he got the dogs back. Lucky for me nobody filed a lawsuit or anything like that. Flyboy K85
Had someone fly a drone really low in my backyard, right outside my back porch door. The drone was literally watching me, I saw it, stepped out the door and the drone flew away. It was at night and there was no way for me to know who it belonged to. I don't think they should be legally allowed to fly beneath your roof or privacy fence. That's 100% an invasion of privacy and should not be okay.
I am sure that this does not make you feel any better now, but odds are, the person that was filming into your home was breaking the law, both local and FAA law. Odds are if the person was low enough in your yard that he could film inside your back door, there is no way he still had Visual Line of Sight of his drone. The drone would most likely be below a fence line, bushes or trees and could no longer be seen by the pilot. That is against FAA regulations. Let alone breaking "peeping tom" laws. People just need to chill. If a drone is able to peer into your windows, odds are, they are breaking the law. I am a Part 107 Pilot and if someone is hoovering right outside my window with its camera pointed at me, let's just say I would take my chances in court and introduce a baseball bat to that drone. That being said, 99.99% of the time that somebody is in their backyard nude sunbathing, nobody wants to see pictures or videos of it. Breath, and remember, just about every person around you is carrying a near movie quality camera in their pockets. Unless you want to ban cellphones too, be careful what you hope for.
That's not legal. I can fly over your property but I can't be looking in your windows. Now I can take pictures from the street. If I can see inside your house from the street I can take pictures of it from the street. I can't fly a drone up to your back door for multiple reasons. Drone out of line of sight. Unsafe operation of the drone. Then any local or state peeping Tom laws. Plus after September most drones will be RID compliant. All the new dji drones have it so you can see where the operator is.
The thing with Easments on private property is they are intendted for transit, not for extended loitering. So yes you can fly over or 'through' 'private' airspace but it is gerneally a good idea not to loiter for too long above that private property just ot be safe as a pilot. < just a good rule of thumb
@@edwill62 Precisely why UAS aircraft are not flown or given the same justification by definition needed as would a standard aircraft even as a small as Cessna. The determination, at this point, of being fined or criminally charged locally is up to the actions of the operator, their intent, and whether the investigating authority can determine any malicious intent. For now, as it stands, flying a drone over someone else's property is not illegal by federal code including the FAA but I'm sure that will change into a lengthy and descriptive statute. Whether it be over private or public property, harassment is subjective to the victim and/or criminal code of the local authority. Without any clear definitive code on the topic, flying a drone over private property in itself isn't criminal nor enforceable unless restricted by FAA rules or sanctions such as a TFR. If the operator is flying in a manner disruptive or intrusive to the property owner, they would have to articulate such intrusion as the airspace above property is generally vetted as public domain unless otherwise explicitly expressed. For example, a pilot flying low over private property is not immediately considered harassing to the pilot just because the owner of the property deems it as such. The owner would need to articulate explicitly how such actions are intrusive. Most criminal code considers crime against persons or property written with intent as a necessary element of the crime. On the other hand, it's usually just common courtesy just to ask the property owner for permission to fly over their property if it may be thought that your actions could disturb the owner. Air rights extend to the airspace above the surface that could reasonably be used in connection with the land. If you're flying over someone's house but not at eye level in their backyard, for example, it's presumed that the airspace is public and no longer under the immediate control of the land owner.
@@edwill62 May I also note that until the FAA makes determination on the airspace below 400 feet in uncontrolled airspace, the limitations of UAS flight over private property is up to the local authorities to regulate. There is no federal law prohibiting drone flight over private property but local laws may have further regulation on the matter, as given to them by the authority of the 10th Amendment.
Hey Russ, very informative video! I'm a Part 107 card carrier and I've found when I'm at a job site to shoot (poor wood choice) aerial photography, I wear an orange and black highly reflective jacket that states I'm a Certified FAA UAS pilot. This jacket has saved me from many conflicts and actually has enticed the curious to ask me questions and create many great conversations. Just my two cents. Thanks for your diligent research.
I do the same if it's an area with a lot of people around. I also have a choice of vehicles to take, and if I think that the location has a high probability of getting hassled, I take my nice car. Otherwise I take my "beater!"
Yes; there certainly is a difference when I wear a safety vest and not. Just a stupid safety vest, with a badge holder, somehow makes you "official" and people don't question your presence.
This will become the go-to video on this thorny topic. Well done, Russ! I am most interested in reading viewers' comments on whether airspace usage regs/laws should ultimately be decided at the state or federal level. There are reasonable arguments for both. Despite being a big fan of federalism and 10A/states' rights, count me among the viewers who believe this falls among the few issues which over which the federal government should have the final say. I'm always game for civil discourse on topics like this and will be following this discussion closely. Thanks again, Russ, for a great video!
I whole heartedly agree. Excellent video. As a sUAS Instructor I have had this conversation more times than I can count. Russ eloquently when though the issue and explained the nuances associated with this highly debated subject. Well done!
Since the FAA completely regulates ALL registered aircraft in the U.S., there would be no safe way that multiple agencies to control the national airspace safely.
Imagine the nightmare of having to read through the rules and regulations concerning legal drone flying for every municipality within 50 miles. And then keeping up to date on those.
@Strange Daze hovering over someones land does not mean they are surveilling you or your property. Just because I stop to do a horizontal 360 video of the general area does not mean I am doing anything with your privacy. The other question is, how low is this drone? If it is high enough where I can not easily determine if the person is male or female, or for that matter see you at all, I would think makes a big difference. There is very little land in the USA that is not owned by someone, so with that said drones would not be able to fly anywhere if that was the case.
Apart from the law itself, there is just neighborly consideration, or even just being a thoughtful human, and compassion and understanding. Yes, I know, it's probably too much to ask of many people. My only experience with this topic was shortly after Christmas a few years back I heard a buzzing like a swarm of bees over my back yard. I was honestly perplexed this being my first encounter with a drone. I looked up, saw the thing hovering about 30 feet up over my property, waved my arm like "Get the hell out of here." and it left. So, I appreciated their good sense.
It depends upon what the drone is doing. For instance a Peeping Tom was using a drone to peek into a young girls bedroom. It was only about 5-6' off the ground and was below the top of the picket fence. The father used a fishing net to bring it down. The local police were not able to positively identify the owner/operator. When contacted the FAA was totally uninterested. The FAA said call them back when the owner/operator was arrested.
@@fetherolf13 It happened to my across the street neighbor. As posted there was nothing the police could do and the FAA was not interested. With the current situation with Remote ID it may have helped if that functionality is installed by the factory and made non-removable. Strangely enough the family became interested in drones and now participate in a drone racing league.
Certainly a touchy subject. Drones transitioning through a navigable airspace is one thing…like a commercial airliner flying overhead. I’m sure what most folks get hostile about is the possibility of drone-based voyeurism occurring while you and your family are out in the backyard at the pool or wherever…the paparazzi-effect.
@@realitywave What they care about is the high definition, recording cameras that people fly on these drones. In that respect there is always a person-in-the-loop.
Unfortunately, the average person is not aware of the actual laws. On the Neighbors platform, a bunch of people did the usual "Imma shoot it down if it comes near my prop'ty". I was roundly mocked for pointing out how the FAA views drones, and that it could be law enforcement flying by. Some folks just don't want to be confused by the facts.
@@edwill62 That case was a joke. Uninformed judge making an unlawful decision. The court didn't even review the drone data. They just made an arrogant, biased, unlawful decision completely ignoring the evidence presented. Just because the judge made a decision, doesn't make it correct or lawful. No law was made saying that it can be done. The charges were wrongfully dropped. In case you didn't know, judges can be wrong. We're not in a 3rd world country where bullets can be recklessly shot into the sky.
Although I fly drones, I actually agree with anyone shooting down drones. Frankly if you are flying your drone within range of birdshot and long enough over someone's property for someone to get their shotgun and return to shoot you down, you aren't being a responsible pilot. One of the things that is starting to happen now is that someone who doesn't like drones flying on their property buys a cheap drone, uses that to crash into the other person's drone and then blames them for taking down their drone. Basically using the FAA rules against them. Local gov doesn't want to deal with it so they just ignore it since neither side is actually willing to push charges as the ruling could go either way. Unlike using a gun, this can actually be an abuse by the property owner as it can chase a drone that is just passing and would not normally be an issue.
Slightly different, but relatable to your topic. Before drones, the rule for admissible photographic evidence (without a warrant) collected from manned aircraft used to be: •500’ above the property •Photograph/video not zoomed/enhanced
@@bobclark5197 § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface- (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and (2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. [Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]
Howdy Russ, thank you for your excellent knowledge in the reporting of these rules and regulations. As always, you do your research, and as you stated, state when you’ve been wrong. Well done, and look forward to you future reporting on this very touchy subject! 🙏🙏
I bought a drone a few months ago and every time that I fly it, I get those laser eys from all around. I flew it over the harbor to take some video of my boat after Hurricane Ian and was told that I had to land immediately, was called all kinds of names and was told I would hear from their lawyer. I did not hear from anyone, but this seems the general reaction I have had. People hate drones when it is not theirs.
This post gives me worry about becoming a drone pilot! If every other time you launch your drone your going to be interrogated by someone watching you, wth, who needs that grief? I guess you have to go into the hinterlands where no one will see you?
I have my Part 107, and I can understand why airspace needs to be "shared" but when in relation to private property and flying over I think it should be illegal/remain illegal to record or "spy" on private property because it does remove the feeling of having a safe space on your own property.
It's still illegal to "spy" on private property, say on your neighbor's significant other hanging out by the pool. If the drone happens to clip the corner of their lot on its flight path and your intent isn't to intrude on privacy, that's legal. Basically if a manned aircraft could safely fly there it's legal to fly a drone through the same airspace. Now that won't preempt state and local noise or nuisance ordinances if flying in a reckless manner like hovering 10 feet above your annoying neighbors roof for 30 minutes.
"it does remove the feeling of having a safe space" You may be granted property rights but the law does not care (much) about your *feelings* since how is that to be codified in law? There is only what you, or I, DO. It does slightly change the "plain sight" aspect of privacy laws; your expectation of privacy ought to change with the advent of camera drones. It is certainly the case that for the past 100 years or so airplanes and helicopters have the same exact ease of photographing your back yard. Where's your *feeling* of safety about that?
You can actually sell the airspace above your property just like mineral rights - this goes on the deed/title of the land. I sold the airspace above my house to the FAA because I’m in the approach way of an airport, so I couldn’t actually use it anyway and the FAA provided soundproofing for my home as consideration for the deed modification.
@@tcapone1734 seeing as how the FAA already owns/controls the airspace near an airport, I wasn’t really selling off anything I hadn’t already lost…. And it was big 5 figures, near 6 for all the windows, insulation, and soundproofing.
@@MarkBerenger and yet the windows and other soundproofing in my hose today along with the contract I signed that explicitly calls out the FAA seems to indicate they will pay me for the airspace above my house. Your general idea isn’t that far off however. I don’t think they were required to pay me, but they did so I couldn’t sue them or the airport - it was way cheaper to just “buy the airspace” than to fight a lawsuit I suspect.
Great vid. I did hours of research on FAA laws before I flew my new drone. While flying one day, a man approached me and asked if I had permission to fly over peoples homes. I tried to explain to him that I didn't need permission and it only made him upset. So , I guess, drone operators need some degree of patience when explaining these laws to people not familiar with them.
You know what I've found to be a great deterrent against know-it-alls? I bright yellow reflective vest that says in big bold letters: "Part 107 Drone Pilot: Do Not Approach" along with my 107 license on display in the clear chest pocket.
I've considered getting something like this since a neighbor of a house I was getting aerial photos of for a realtor ran outside waving a rifle around and screaming. I've shot over one hundred homes this year though and never once had an issue like that, but that one certainly made me consider taking measures to avoid it in the future.
I think some important words in the subject are TRANSIT and NAVIGATE. If a UAV is intentionally dwelling over another persons property then other laws can apply.
I agree. A "navigable lien" on your property rights I can see and agree with for the point of modern technology, drones, planes, helicopters, etc... But the second they stop and hover, that drone and operator best take cover. As I see it, that's voyeuristic behavior, harassment and trespassing.
@@RussW. I'd allow a bit more than a second before I assumed bad intent. On my first flight it took me a good minute of hovering over a neighbor's yard before I could get set up to film an "orbit" rotation around my own house. If I stayed hovering only over my own yard, I would only be able to film my roof.
@Charlie Gorichanaz That's taking my words quite literal. But now that you bring it up, if a guy was peering into your window, looking at your wife or kids. Does a second matter or is it only after a minute you'd take action? My comment is in regards to the intent of the action, not the time.
@@RussW.not taking cover. But I'll take your guns. Your right to vote and let you see the inside of a federal prison for around 20 years. Shooting a drone is a violation of US Code 32. The Code aims to protect drones from any damage and destruction. The penalty for shooting at drones as per US code 32 is a fine and 20-year imprisonment. Although you may own the property, you don't own the airspace above it.
How it made you feel doesn't Trump federal regulations. But federal regulations Trump state and local ordinances. I can fly over your house any time I want, and stay above it for however long I want. As long as I'm not at window level or out of line of site I can be there legally
A nasty example of how this can go WRONG is a local neighborhood home owner's association now has a drone and they fly it over each house to get to areas that are not visible from outside the property. So they can charge you with "violations" that are totally invisible other than from a drone flying overhead!
That is spying or surveillance and would violate many local ordinances. The HOA does not have an inherent right to do that. That has nothing to do with FAA airspace.
It sounds like their use is indeed outside the definitions of "recreational" and the pilot of said drone should produce proof of their Part107 licensure upon demand. ;)
@@mervfer1162 sadly if the gestapo hoa was smart they would put that into their rules. No way will I EVER be part of an hoa as ill be darned if control freaks like that will tell me what I can and cannot do on my property.
@@mervfer1162 HOA did that exactly recently. Not with a drone, but using Google map satellite view ! And issued a fine to someone having a "non allowed" storage unit in his backyard.
The US vs causby 1946 case. A property owner owns the airspace over there property. Planes qualify as a temporary something don't know the exact verbiage. But an explanation if someone wants to dispute this is if I own the land on either side of your land I can't build a bridge over your property connecting my properties. Everyone's minds always go to air travel
"if someone wants to dispute this is if I own the land on either side of your land I can't build a bridge over your property connecting my properties" Brother the difference is, if you want to build a bridge over someone's property you need to apply or be granted for a legal easement of the property. The FAA and those operating under its rules are granted the (established) easement automatically. The rights are already given away.
I've been harassed and recorded repeatedly on my own property. Once while i was washing my car, it was literally 2ft. Behind me and about 3 ft. From the ground. It would also hover just out of reach above me while i was in my backyard. There is not a worse feeling for a woman to feel like she can't even go into her own backyard without being recorded. It's a nightmare. Especially when law enforcement can't do anything either. I understand that for most drone flyers ppl who don't want you to pass over their property is an annoying nuisance, but put yourself in my shoes not feeling comfortable to even go outside on my own property. Us homeowners have a right to peace too
@@BrianCrump007. There will be times, probably with increased frequency, when drones will be used to physically harm people by criminals or case a property for reasons of theft. In those situations, some people aren't going to wait around on a 911 call. As they say; 'When seconds count, the cops are minutes away. '
They already do. It's illegal to fly 1 mile from a jail or prison facility. There are bad apples in every bunch and every profession. All new technology will be tested to limits for illegal purposes.
I try to keep updated with the rules, but if a local police or Karen harasses me and I'm not flying as a part 107 for a job. I would just move on. It's bad enough that some pilots don't know all the rules, and no clue for the average person. All I could say is don't Spy or do foolish things and spoil it for the rest of us.
We had a new neighbor move in that would routinely fly his drone around the neighborhood at below-rooftop altitudes. It was like he was taking a virtual walk through the neighborhood. After finding it hovering well inside my front yard below our roofline, I finally figured out who it was and had a talk with the gentlemen. I think enough people confronted him that he realized he wasn't being a good neighbor in that respect. We talked to the local PD just to gather info and they said they didn't have much recourse. I have my own drones, RC planes, and RC helis, so I understand the desire to have a place to fly, but at some point, a drone just hovering very near my house when I have no idea who is operating it seems sketchy. I think in most cases, common sense and being a good neighbor work fine. It does seem like there should be some protections for private property in the fringe cases.
A creator knows they are treading on controversy when half the video is about disclaimers and pleading for civility !!! 🤣 You do a great job, as always, in approaching rules and regs, laws and popular perceptions.... Thanks !!
@@edwill62 “navigable airspace” means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft." So further explain!
@@edwill62 Thank you for taking the time for the very detailed explanation, there are many points you make that I can agree with, however is where I see the disconnect is assuming sUAVs having the authority to operate under the minimum safe altitudes. To further push this issue, CFR14 91.119 excludes helicopters and weight shift aircraft and is not mentioned in the definition as well. I believe that since the Aviation Reauthorization act of 2018, it's assumed that 40103 will apply to sUAV operations under Part 107 and 44809. Despite the arguments you present, I believe that if this is challenged in a court of law, the judgement will be on the side of the sUAV operator. Case in point. Earlier this year it was ruled that Brennan v Dickson (the challenge to remote ID) "The United States Government “has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States,” and the FAA is congressionally empowered to “develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.” Id. § 40103(a)(1), (b)(1). The navigable airspace of the United States includes airspace above minimum flight altitudes and the airspace necessary for safe takeoff and landing of aircraft. Id. § 40102(a)(32)." To me, this once again enforces the fact that the US Government recognizes "navigable airspace" beginning at ground level and no local or state government can create laws governing airspace and it's up to the FAA to “develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.” If it's the FAA's policy to consider sUAVs to be part of this, well I think the buck stops there unless challenged. Again I think you bring up valid points and some of the "assumptions" need to agree with current law, until such time, IMO, it will be up to the judge.
@@edwill62 OK - again all good but my last reply was based on a court ruling, not my words but what was ruled in the Brennan v Dickson case, just for clarification.
According to the faa the national airspace starts at the grass. I would never do this. But if its within line of sight, flying head height directly over someone’s property is legal. Again I would never do this…
I fly head height from my yard into my next door neighbors yard perfectly over the chain link fence loop around and come back. Some back info though: They’re a retired grandmother and I’ve asked them if it bothered them and they said as long as it didn’t bother her dog when she let it out to potty she had no problem with it. It helps to make contact and just ask; I told her about the rules and we laughed about them some but I still think politeness and professionalism goes a long way.
@@n539rv class e typically starts at 1200 agl but is lowered to 700 agl with certain instrument approaches around some airports. Class e can even funnel to the ground with non towered airports with an ils approach. But I get your point.
Lawyer and here are my thoughts: 1) In the end, what matters is what the supreme court says, not the FAA. 2) The Federal Aviation Act can have conflict or field pre-emption with state law but not the constitution. 3) Amendments are part of the constitution and due to the supremacy clause, trump the Federal Aviation act. 4) The 10th amendment grants police powers to the states - this includes trespass and aerial trespass. 5) The 5th amendment has a takings clause that prohibits the taking of property without payment. 6) The FAA has without legislation, decided to reclassify airspace to be ALL airspace above ALL private property. This means you effectively can't stop someone from flying ANYWHERE on ANY of 'your' property. 7) As mentioned in this video, the supreme has ruled that you do own this property. 8) Some MAJOR corp players (Amazon, UPS, etc) want to use the airspace for deliveries. Think long term - the issues aren't the random drone pilot. Given the above, I think this topic is ripe for the United States Supreme Court on many fronts.
Thank you! I''m dealing with a different kind of air-space invasion/trespass, in court right now. The way the FAA is deciding on this issue really stinks in the way it violates Constitutional rights.
Recently had issues with a railroad in Michigan who tried to insist we have a ridiculous amount of insurance to fly over their land. Great video, many have no idea these are the facts.
FAA part 107 specifically says the following: "Do not fly a drone over people unless they are directly participating in the operation." That's pretty succinct, and violating that rule is grounds for a visit from the FAA and possible license revocation.
not sure what that has to do with this video. when they say "over people" they literally mean DIRECTLY over people. I can fly 15 feet to your left and its not over you.
Reason enough not to fly over other peoples homes. You can't tell if there is an occupant but if there is then you are flying over them if you are above the property.
Yea, Arkansas limits filming a bunch of infrastructure (including police stations and court houses) as opposed to flying in the airspace. I use the top of the trees/roofs as a minimum altitude, but I like getting permission too! Great vid.
If my wife or I am walking on our property totally nude and a drone flies over us, it is violating our privacy and our legal right to be nude on our land. So what is needed on drones are scannable tags for the land owner to scan while taking footage from the ground to prove that the perpetrator was in fact peeping.
This is such a thorough and informative video from the beginning all the way to the end (Yes! Even the sponsoring part because it is a very useful tool.) Thank you so much for sharing all of the research you did and your knowledge with the public. Liked and subscribed. 🙌
Something to consider, also, is my dad flew a hot air balloon in the Denver area. Some of the launch sites used were north of Denver in more rural areas. There were definitely farms who made it clear they didn't appreciate hot air balloons flying over their property and these were noted on the local club flight maps. It would be good manners to contact other flight groups - hot air balloon clubs, RC plane clubs, rocket clubs, etc. to share "no fly zones", then just avoid them. Farmers and ranchers are concerned for their livestock being spooked by noises and flying things interpreted by the animals as predators, or just scary things. Plus, farmers and ranchers are generally wary of strangers showing up at their place. Emergencies are exceptions, of course. And it is just common sense to stay away from emergency situations unless you've been asked to assist. Here in Idaho, several critical fire operations had to be suspended due to unauthorized drones interfering with safe operation of fire fighting and rescue aircraft. Regardless of what is allowed by law, I think consideration and common sense goes a long way to maintaining the ability to fly a drone relatively regulation free. Pushing those limits will only result in tighter restrictions. That's guaranteed.
In Japan, it is a minimum of 30m away from private property and has a maximum altitude of 150m. So if your property is 121m high, no drone can fly over it :)
We had a person follow us around our own back yard with their drone! They were taking pictures of my daughter as she worked in our garden. I DON'T mind if they fly their drone, just don't follow me around my property taking pictures!! We called the Police and they said they COULDN'T do anything about it!! They flew their drone over our property for over a month, then some of the pictures that they had taken showed up on the internet!!! Then the Cops came and took the drone away from them, they moved one week later.
Hi Russ, I totally agree with you and that no property owner, State, County, City or Municipality can restrict the navigable national airspace of the USA with FAA registered aircraft. Two years ago the City Council in my city in southern California was going to come up with their own drone regulations. I sent a very detailed email directly to the Mayor informing her that the FAA already has all of the necessary laws that regulate drone flight the navigable airspace over the city. I also informed her that the city can regulate the takeoff and landing locations that are on city property and this would be the only regulation that the city has the authority to control. I mentioned that a drone pilot could takeoff and land on public property adjacent to city property and then fly over that city property anyway so making city drone regulations that are not enforceable may not be in the best interest of the city. She totally agreed with my points and the City Council agreed as well.
Great example. I'm also in So Calif and have run into some cities that have already passed such regs (Dana Pint & Irvine, perhaps others have also done so). To what city do you refer?
I agree, but if a large city or groups of small adjacent cities prohibits any take off or landing of a drone inside of their city limits, it may effectively reduce or all but eliminate most drone flights, as you would have to launch and land it outside the city limits, and only fly it as far into the city(s) as you can maintain line of site. Yikes!
@@BigAlMerrill No, I do not, and I doubt if a case has made it to the courts yet. I was just hypothesizing, but I am sure many cities at some point will assume they can regulate it, and try this angle. The problem will be that cities have a much larger legal budget than you do. So the way it works is that the city will pass an ordinance, and issue you a ticket. You will argue that they are preempted from dictating what happens on private property, even if it is inside of city limits. But are you willing to hire an attorney and take the city to court? How about when they appeal it? All of this could cost tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight in federal court. Unless you get someone like a manufacturer who has a lot to lose to pay for the legal fees, it would not be worth fighting in court. However, it would absolutely be worth your time to try and fight it yourself, particularly in front of a municipal judge who is accustom to dealing with pro se defendants.
@@FlyingBuzzard Meaning that the FAA ultimately has no jurisdiction and has no intention of enforcing any laws because they passed it to the local law enforcement. Typical bureaucratic pass the buck.
Nope temporarily hovering isn't considered not in transit by the FAA anymore. Would be a shame if you actually went to jail for shooting down a drone like a dummy.
That was super informative Russ, thank you. I just got my part 107 and starting to get into drone work here in CA. I'm 100% positive I will encounter this situation in the near future and it's nice to already have a head start when explaining drone laws regarding private property and air space. Thanks.
Manned aircraft are required to stay 500 feet away from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except for the purpose of take=off or landing IIRC. Does this not apply to drones?
It does NOT. I’m a licensed part 91 pilot and a part 107 Commercial drone pilot. The rules are very different. You can’t exceed 400 ft AGL (above ground level) with few exceptions with a drone but in a regular airplane you can’t get below 500 feet with a few exceptions (crop dusting comes to mind) and at least 1000 feet over a city and 2000 over a National park as I recall.
Great job on this tricky topic! I'm keeping this video bookmarked. As a 107 certified commercial drone operator, this is something I have to explain on a regular basis. Just to expand on local laws, drone operators do need to understand just because they are legally allowed to fly over private property, they are not able to commit a crime or violate local ordinances by doing so. This means they can still be charged not only with voyeurism and spying but harassment, damage to property, public endangerment, and more. Also, many local governments (mine included) have illegal, federally pre-empted drone laws on the books, and LE can still enforce these laws, leaving it up to the pilot to take the case to court. I spent several months trying to have such laws reversed and was finally told that these laws will stand until they are tested in court. Finally, it's usually better to avoid conflict in the first place, and deescalate by moving to another location or taking the time to explain what you are doing and why. I know a lot of operators who just quote the laws without actually addressing someone's concerns. Thanks again!
@@FlyingBuzzard That's right, which is why the handouts I carry have a whole section for law enforcement explaining their jurisdiction. However, the problem is they often don't know or don't care.
City, county , states rights vs feds, local laws are legal, and local LE know thier own jurisdictions law. DC idiots don’t. Majority of law is at local level. Look at sanctuary cities, weed cities, legal,in town, still Fed violation or the opposite, Feds allow, locals don’t. FAA can only regulate what’s in its agencies authority to do so. They have hands full with CA/GA manned aircraft, unless you interfere with manned flight they don’t have bench or bandwidth to cover tens of Millions of drones. Look at ATF,3000 agents for 331,000,000 people and 425,000,000 guns.Even common core math tells you not doable. Most issues will be handled locally, and FAA will probably only focus on UAV/Manned flight incidents or restricted space incursion or single unique one off incidents. Most property owner probably care less about one off fly bys, but if you’re repeatedly harassed, then they get mad. And if you are doing something questionable as operator, the last thing you want is LE involvement, so you won’t complain if you get shot down, otherwise LE wil see all,your photos and videos etc and you might end up,with dozens of charges if they find out you been photographing multiple persons etc. especially minors. Bad people never will call,police, they be thankful they didn’t get caught and move on.
Drone operators need to monitor and discipline their own. You need a regulatory system to deal with drone operators that harass domestic abuse victims, hover in their windows day and night, drop trash on lawns, fireworks on rooftops and dye packets into private swimming pools. These are the operators that are going to be the reason for regulation, laws, fines and jail time. It is just a matter of time. Promote drone search apps for the General Public to catch these drone Kevin's or be regulated further.
Very informative video, funny just the other day my wife and I discussed the issue of privacy. My wife was a magistrate in the state court system and had heard of cases/complaints about drones. She said it was a gray area, neither judges, lawyers or litigants were never quite clear on the state/federal laws. Your video should be required viewing for law students.
regulation is not law. Actually Common law and property rights should prevail. Some Government agency cannot just decide to take private property. Reasonable people would probably agree at 400 foot or so for Private light weight UAV is OK but Commercial No Way. Next big thing will be Jammers..Also. Property ID broadcast and flight blockers. Pilots will agree if reasonable. The FAA isn't GOD and a rule is not a law unless I agree to be brought under it. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WORTH FIGHTING FOR UNLESS YOUR A FROG. THE NOTION THAT FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS EVERYTHING IS WRONG. Read the people that wrote it. IF YOU WANNA ALLOW PEOPLE ON OR IN YOUR PROPERTY GO AHEAD BUT MOST PEOPLE WILL FIGHT YOU OVER THIS.
Since many people are ignorant of or don't care about laws/rules the general guideline I follow when flying over private property is to stay above the tallest structure (building, tree, etc.). Hundreds of flights so far and I've only had one issue which was defused very quickly by being polite and friendly.
From what I understand, there is some legal ambiguity as to exactly where the line is for the easement, but if you're above the structures and the trees, it's probably going to fall to the FAA's purview to regulate rather than the home owner. From what I've seen, most of the controversies center around activities that are going on much closer to the ground than you're talking about. And really, if you've got any question, it isn't a bad idea to talk with the owner if you can to let them know that you're not going to be peeping in on them or anything that is illegal.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade I know you’re talking about suburbia and inside the city limits…. But out in the country, just being there flying over someone’s land is considered trespassing…. Especially when they violate FAA regs by operating beyond visual range
They are loud. And are a nuisance. Property owners are entitled to their privacy. Net guns and broad spectrum RF emitters are just a few tools to remove said annoyances.
If you launch from your backyard and fly over peoples house and roads, you are traversing, is there anything they can get you on in that reguards when you are doing a recreational flight?
Great video! I was just having this conversation with my son-in-law as he does home inspections and uses his drone to inspect roofs. Sure is a lot safer than climbing on steeply pitched roofs. I also checked into drone laws in New Zealand as I have a daughter that lives there. According to what I read you need permission to fly over someone’s house unlike the USA.
Umm There is a difference between flying slowly 2 meters next to your house and inspecting and flying over your yard 10 meters above the ground and generally doing transit flight. I think it all relates to how invasive is the flight to the owner. But I doubt you need to have a permission to fly above someone's property, coz that way all the planes, rescue helicopters, private ultralight planes would need to have permissions too.
@@misiakufal Aircraft and helicopters don't LINGER over Private property. They are doing an OVER FLIGHT. I live near a National Guard Base and helicopters and fixed wing Aircraft are constantly flying over my property. But they don't LINGER over my property. I have wind turbines and I had to put lights on the turbines as per the FAA. I had my property before the National Guard Base was constructed. But I still had to install lights on my turbines. Can you imagine a C-130 or a C-17 just missing your wind turbines by inches? Now I have red strobe lights on my turbines and my roof.
Great video! As both a private pilot (single engine land) and a drone pilot I might add that I use a VFR sectional map and/or Foreflight as my absolute go to for where I can and can't fly both a passenger carrying airplane as well as my DJI drone. For a drone pilot, Class G is where I imagine 99.9999% of flying exists for drone ops, and that starts AT the surface. This is important because for the passenger carrying aircraft, this is "uncontrolled airspace". It is a clear line (altitude wise) that delineates where non-controlled GA based activities ends, and ATC controlled operations begins. Anything BUT the ground would cause complete and utter confusion in aviation, as would deferring to state and local authorities for their own determination. So while I would not encourage pushing this to the letter of the law simply because you can, a reasoned conversation often goes a long way toward education. For pilots of ALL types, know where you can and can't fly and why. All this said, rules changes seem to happen fast in the FAA arm of the drone world as more take to the sky, and with ADS-B etc. for drone locating is sure to draw an eye if too many people are abusing the rules. Also not to be lost in this conversation is the number of E-VTOL and air taxi operations comin on line. Occupying the space between UAVs/drones and airplanes....how will THAT change the landscape?
...oh, and I treat my own drone operations in much the same way I fly and airplane over wildlife refuge areas etc.......I give breathing space. You are supposed to fly no less than 1,000 feet over these areas so as to not disrupt the wildlife (and drone ops are NOT permitted at all). So I use the same sort of reasoning when flying my drone in what might be seen as a "touchy" area.
In my country Zambia, there have been thefts related to drone usage where thieves quickly survey an area to see what's on the property then plan their move. I know this because we apprehended a suspect who turned to be part of a group of robbers and they possessed a DJI air drone and on it where places that they robber thanks to drone footage they got of them. While there is not law saying you can take down a drone flying over your private property, the local police say it is up to the property owner that if a drone hovers above your property for more that 15 secs, you have the right to take it down. Long story short, I bought a rifle. I see one, I take it down.
I am a veteran pilot, and I do not need to ask permission to fly over private property as long as I stay 500' above the highest structure in it. If I fly below 500' and the Land owner shoot's me down he will not get into any trouble.
I fly several times a day 6 days a week, and I can count on one hand how many times I had some local person give me a problem. If I see neighbors or concerned citizens I inform them of the operation. I have had many occasions where the neighboring home owner pops out to ask why that drone was over their property. I tell them, offer to show them images captured, and that generally stops any further issues. In fact, many of them are just taken by the imagery I have on the monitors. More issues can possibly develop during missions where the drone is repetitively flying the same routes. Again I think those having the proper professional looking vests, communication with residents are a remedy for any action or concerns of private citizens. On the other hand I have seen many in plain clothes uAS operators get the attention and a more heated concern or confrontation from residents. I too have on rare occasion had a homeowner warn me about shooting down our drones, but I quickly remind them of the FAA laws prohibiting them to do so. They usually walk away afterward.
Your images response is very weak, if you told me that I would say, how do I know your not using your drone for surveillance to find out who owns what in there yards worth stealing ? who is growing a garden or has a greenhouse worth breaking into ,(food inflation has caused massive garden theft in the past 2 years)
@@DroneRat1-gp5ku This kind of response is exactly why drone operators are universally hated by the public. As a pilot you need to understand the privacy concerns of property owners. Drones have been used by criminals for over a decade as well. I never have problems with people because I don't fly over or within sight of their property. More people need to understand this.
Great information as always! I really appreciate this. My story: I was flying my drone at my house neighborhood like I always do.( my drones are registered with FAA, I'm trust certified, I follow all the rules) one of my neighbors, came out the other day, and he told me do not fly your drone over my house. I said, " no problem " because I didn't want to start something with my neighbor, but clearly he hates drones, do not know the law, or its hiding something. Lol
@@FlyingBuzzard you’re making it an absolute issue, which it isn’t and no one claimed it to be. It is clear that only the FAA makes the rules for airspace to avoid a “patch work of laws” that would make the skies unnavigable. Denying that is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Now if some one is flying outside your window 20 feet above the ground “looking” in, than that is obviously a different issue. But if someone flies through the air over your property at 100 feet, then there are no laws violated. There is no trespassing above ground. You may not like it, but that doesn’t mean YOU get to ignore the law.
You can fly "over" his house all day long. The issue only comes if you are accused of surveillance. But if you want to do laps around your neighborhood which includes flying over his house, you aren't breaking the law.
You know, an "accidental" mid-air with an under-250 gram r/c aircraft could be a way to deal with an operator who is behaving badly with his drone over your property...
Excellent post. One thing I'd like to see is just how bad is the fine or possible jail time for shooting an unmanned aircraft/drone while flying? There's the obvious destruction of property, and often times unlawful discharge of a firearm or something like that. Wreckless endangerment. It's worse in s residential neighborhood or near a piece of property designated as a bird sanctuary. That would make for a good general video, although you can't cover everything the local laws may cover. I think several things typical people do not understand is just because a drone is hovering over a property for a few seconds to a minute or two doesn't mean the camera is trained on the property or person. Many times, the pilot is simply looking at the image or information on the remote trying to figure out where they are how and where to go next to line up for a better shot. Sometimes you need to adjust for sunlight. Sometimes you need to adjust altitude and perspective of the object being photographed or recorded. And unless someone has a higher end drone, the camera on these is a 1x 12 MP camera, the same as what has been on cell phones for many years. If people would take a 12 MP photo of something 100 feet away, they would see the resolution of any fine detail is already grainy at 100 ft. My iPhone 15 Pro Max has 1x, 2x, and 5x optical magnification, but nobody ever thinks twice about someone snapping a photo from 30 feet away that includes them while people are in public, even wearing a skimpy bathing suit. But people get anxious over a drone flying anywhere near their property while at 100-150 ft. or higher. The quality of the CMOS sensor may be higher on a drone (larger sensor for better light and dynamic range), but 12 MP is still 12 MP. Even using Quad-Byer (SP?) technology for a 48 MB image, that still leaves you with a 12 MP image. It's just 4 12MP images overlayed to provide more information to manipulate in photo editing software, but it's still only 12 MP. The drone may have a higher dynamic range with less washout in brighter areas and less noise in darker areas such as my Mini 3 Pro with dual ISO, but at 100 ft the clarity of a person's face with a 12 MP camera and no optical zoom isn't great. Sure, if I'm flying a high dollar Matrice, the cameras on those are freaking phenomenal with high quality optical zoom, but they are obnoxiously loud compared to my Mavic Pro 1 and Mini 3 Pro. I just took a 12 MP photo of my neighbor's truck in her driveway, and I can see more detail with my naked eye than zooming in on the image. The same photo at 2x is about the same as I can see with my naked eye at 54 YO. And people don't think twice about Google flying over people's homes taking photos to post on Google Maps, or taking photos of their homes while driving around in their cars getting street view images. One thing few people realize is these Google cars are also equipment with wifi receivers. They record every wifi name and signal strength as they drive by, so they know almost exactly where everybody's at by wifi name.
Great subject and inviting discussion. One other thing, well two, law enforcement can get you on is reckless endangerment/behavior and/or public disturbance/breach of peace. This is from the FAA's guidance to law enforcement.
Full time real estate photographer here, flying over neighborhoods daily under a 107. I DO get confronted by people who are sure I must be doing something illegal, typically having something to do with their "privacy." This happens about once every couple months, and 90% of the time it's easily diffused by identifying myself as photographing a home for sale. Rarely do I have to go into the whole FAA 107/Federal Airspace schpiel, but if laws were to change restricting where I could fly, my aerial work would look very different and take a major hit. The biggest current threat to this profession though is Remote ID. As confrontational as some people are already, the last thing we need to give them is an easier way to find the pilot. That won't end well, and it'll be interesting to see what happens the first time the FAA gets sued by a commercial drone pilot who was assaulted because he was required to broadcast his location. Somebody didn't think that through, and I just hope no one gets killed because of it.
I'm sorry to tell you but if you want to be anonymous, you want to be irresponsible. A regular airplane a regular boat with a,motor have numbers. If you fly your drone and damage property, we need to know who you are. . If you fly over and Chase somebody's horse into a fence, you owe damages.
@@markmcgoveran6811 I think you’re missing the point. People don’t drive to the airport seeking out some tail number, looking to start a fight. When you fly drones commercially though, as I do daily, it happens. If I chased somebody’s horse into a fence, the correct thing for the owner to do would be to notify the authorities, which I have no problem if the authorities know my flight logs. Every day people though…there is zero reason outside of the vehicle of law enforcement for them to be able to locate me in their own.
@@loudandclearmedia I am missing the point of some ego centric person. Happens all the time. The point is the system is not revolving around the ego centric person. It would be handy to fly over with a drone and case a place for a burglary. If no one can know your name. If your name comes on the drone, the police might have questions. Here's a point, it's not the point. You are not the only one with rights in the world. I'm not missing the point I'm understanding more than one point. Try understanding different peoples rights, when you use public roads and public airspace.
Your local areas voting on drone laws would be a nightmare. It would be a patchwork quilt of different rules everywhere with no one knowing all the rules in all the places; leaving something like air travel up to local authorities is a horrible idea. Also the idea of certain places not allowing for take off or landing is silly for public places; aside from critical infrastructure or private property which you should have permission for, I think federal or state or even city areas that are for the public including sidewalks should be completely legal. Otherwise all the complaints can easily be removed by the fact that you can’t fly bvlos anyway and thus are restricted more than other aircraft anyway. Great video Russ, I’ve had a lot of Reddit comments I’ve been clearing up about this over the past week.
The video might have provided an expanded definition of Transit as you first said "aircraft is allowed to "transit" through the easement." When I hear the word transit, it does not seem to indicate hover or fly over to survey the details of a property, etc.
Think of "hovering" like stopping at a stoplight on a highway in a car, pulling over to the side of the road to answer a phone call from your wife or boss. There is nothing illegal about that provided you aren't interfering with traffic and you are obeying traffic laws, etc.
I’m a ham radio operator and we can put up a tower up to 200 feet. If any part of the tower goes over 200 feet you must have permission from the f.a.a. And the tower needs to be painted red and white and have lights on it. Just thought that would be interesting to some.
Just so you know, we have 2 airports in our immediate area, the FBI arrested my neighbor for flying a drone in our neighborhood, reason, the 2 airports fly military aircraft in and out and you can NOT fly a drone in restricted airspace. He asked if he would get his drone back, they told him that would be up to the judge.
The app B4uFly shows you exactly where you are located and if that area ok to fly in. Near airports can have restriction that are easy know with the app. The app is free.
Angle, exposure, time of day, lighting, resolution, foliage cover, foliage color, and many more reasons. Why don't you stand a mile away and use a telephoto lens to take pictures of your family at random times of the day?
Interesting videos, thank you for them. You state that drones are considered aircraft. There are FARs that state minimum altitudes for aircraft. 14 CFR 91.119 states: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. So my question is: IF a drone IS an AIRCRAFT, should paragraph (b) apply which mean flying 1000 above the highest obstacle with 2000 horizontal? And IAW (c) never within 500 of any person, vessel, or structure?
There are rules for flying recreational UAS. When you register with the FAA, you must first pass a test to certify your knowledge of these rules. I imagine the rules for commercial flying are different, but I also suspect that commercial flyers are not the biggest source of problems.
Excellent Topic! So very important to a lot of people. I have found that if you can talk to people about what you're doing it really helps. I live out in the country and when a neighbor who was a little agitated with me flying around while he was deer hunting found out I can locate a deer for him that he can't find and offered to do it for free he warmed up a bit. When I told him I can find and film poachers and trespassers, a true friendship was formed. Some people make everything all about themselves and their rights. Be a good ambassador to your community. Show people the good of what you're doing, offer to help try to find a lost pet. If you fly over someone's house, make sure you're wide open on the throttle, DO NOT HOVER OVER SOMEONES PERSONAL SPACE! Simply be a good person, there's a shortage of that in general. Russ, I have to have one of those hoodies!!! I keep telling myself that lie way too often!!!
One of my first flights was over my neighborhood about 300 feet up, I hit the trigger on my DJI mini pro 3 which moves the camera straight down for a birds eye view perspective and it immediately made me feel dirty being able to see into backyards so I switched back to normal perspective. I understand I had a legal right to do so but for me and I hope many of you practice this mentality but for the love of god don't do something you wouldn't want others to do to you even if you are within your legal right.
I certainly hope as you are driving your car around town that you keep your eyes straight forward at all times so you don't catch a glimpse of someone in their yard etc.
I really appreciate videos like this. The laws seem to be changing all the time, many times for the better, but it's difficult to keep up with. Thanks.
The shorter summary is, only the FAA can regulate the airspace. Local governments can only regulate where you can land and take off. That's the complicated part.
Drone owner here. Why do so many drone operators insist on their 'right' to fly at any altitude over others property? I think 83' is reasonable and proper. And don't linger! Before shooting that beautiful sunset look down first. Find an open space. If you are looking for a cool foreground for your sunset shoot and need to get lower than 83' just choose your environment carefully. It's the low, hovering drones that get all the bad press.
Very interesting. From the Causby case, it would seem that if your neighbor was constantly flying over your backyard pool, such that your friends felt uncomfortable using your pool, that whether or not he was actively spying on you may not matter, as he's denying you the value of your property.
Good video. I found in my experience that courtesy goes a long way when flying over private property. I keep a minimum altitude of about 150-200 ft and try to stay clear of people who may be in their yard or whatever. No one has shot me down yet.
That is respectful I have had them fly past my second story window I live 40 miles from town and on the center of 30 acres people want to get a look at my land they are not traveling as there are public roads around my land in all directions
@@garyjohnson8026 YUP, I'm wondering how long it's going to be , before average people can afford secret drones that have the ability to see through walls, I'm sure the NSA and CIA have such devices already, and play dumb if ever asked on the subject,
If a drone is flying a-b and my property is on that flight path and the drone maintains speed and altitude while traversing my prop then fine. However if said drone suddenly stops overhead drops down to near ground level and starts specifically looking into my pole barn home or garage then it becomes an intelligence gathering device for possible criminal activity. At that point it is going to suffer a catastrophic failure
That makes sense. If you have a navigable water way on your property a boat can pass through but cannot touch the bottom of waterway without trespassing.
I fly drones regularly and I actually wouldn't blame someone if my drone got shot down. If you can even shoot down my drone, I'm clearly not flying in a proper way away from people and not loitering over their property.
Another topic that would be interesting is what are the ramifications of your drone crashing into someone else's property ? Can they legally confiscate it ? Can they legally view the contents of the SD card ? Can they sue ? . Probably a host of other questions to be answered on this topic .
I saw a video from Mr. Heron that reviewed a situation where a young man crashed his drone inside an empty amusement park. He tried to ask the caretakers permission to retrieve, or them retreive, and they took it and refused. He had to remind them it was the same as stealing. It's not their property so they have to give it back.
@@joekralik717 But how does anyone know that the footage recorded on your property isn't being used as a type of surveillance for who knows what? (future theft plans of property, future hiding spots to store illegal material, there could be all kinds of reasons a person might have to film your private property, isn't it reasonable to protect your property from being filmed ?)
Even if the law is on your side, consider the noise level of your drone. A DJI mini will have less noise at a given distance than the larger drones. Still, no matter which drone you fly, maybe it's best to put it high enough so that the noise isn't that strong. A weak buzz might be ignored, but a loud blast is likely to cause problems. Depending on the background noise of an area will decide how low you can go. If it's by a busy highway, the traffic noise will drown out your drone noise, but in a very quiet neighborhood, every bit of foreign noise may be noticed.
Doesn't matter about noise or anything else. You have no business flying over private property. NONE. Fly where it is OK and the land owner has the say. Generally 400 Feet minimum is accepted. Note, Fly where it is OK not where you want. Look a wave guide and small jammer and you will return home or fly away. private property as the name implies means Private. Reasonable elevation is doable. Any elevation granted by anyone or Government Agency is not Constitutional and is certainly limited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Property Rights is fundamental and any notion of exclusion of rights is a choice given by the property owner. An easement can only be granted if Constitutional and certainly not retro in nature. Black and any Law or De-facto law doesn't just vanquish the inherent right of the property owner. NOT SURPRISED IN THESE SLIP N FALL LAWYER TIMES AND SOCIALIST DOGMA MANURE THAT SOME SEEK A RIGHT THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT GRANTED NOR ENTITLED TOO.
@@TelecasterRon Did you watch the video? Please watch it, because it addresses many of your comments. Also, 400 feet above the ground is right at the FAA limit for drones; to fly any higher would be in violation of the FAA rules.
@@BobDiaz123 I know the limit. That is why I used it. That is my point. That fact is my point.. But even that is an arbitrary number.. This guy is a drone pilot and his ignorance of Property Rights is obvious and biased. This is exactly why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect Individual Rights. And you have no right to operate on or in someone else's property. Fly over public land or your own property. I was probably flying drones years ago before most. Even worked on fixed stator motors and stepper designs. Do you think the public will sit still for you or Amazon to operate over their property. It will be before the Supreme Court and if the court is Constitutional you will loose. Fly over your own property or get permission..Posted No Hunting, Trespassing or Drone Flights Allowed. The watering down of rights by those that don't like the Constitution or Bill of Rights are the dreams of fools.
@@TelecasterRon IF your position was correct, that you own the sky above your property, then the people who live in Inglewood, CA, directly above the flight path of LAX and everyone else on the flight path to/from any airport could sue for trespassing on their land as aircraft land and take off.
@@TelecasterRon I think you came to the wrong place for this stance. Drones tell you if the air space is restricted and some places you aren’t allowed to take off. But I can assure you- drones are going to continue to be flown over private property. But for no gain or upside. Just as a means from getting from point A to point B.
I fly a drone for a news station as part of my job and we've had these issues come up with our legal team since often there are people who don't want us flying where we're flying, and I have to say you're absolutely correct according to our lawyers. People can restrict your activity of taking off, landing, or flying your drone from the ground, but only the FAA can restrict what airspace you're allowed to fly through. Some important notes/distinctions that have come up for our station: 1. Pilots are required by law to comply with instructions or request of law enforcement or emergency personnel, provided it does not interfere with safe operation of the aircraft - Meaning if a police officer tells you not to fly over a car crash, fire, etc. You have to safely land your drone and comply with their request, to this end they are also allowed to request to see your certifications, flight logs, or replay your video to make sure you weren't engaging in illegal voyeurisms. Another important cavate to this is that if you're flying over say a fire and a fire chief asks you to fly to a specific area to give them a better view of a situation you are required to do this so long as it doesn't put your drone or any bystanders at risk. (your safety responsibilities as Pilot in Command supersede these request) so essentially you and your drone can be commandeered for public good. 2. Any space internal to the structure of a property is considered private, so you can't fly into someone's garage, under their awnings, or even below the confines of a closed in fence, which is pretty darn low and cheeky anyway. 3. Your responsibilities to fly your drone safely as PIC are federal and supersede ALL local ordinances or restrictions on where you are allowed to operate your drone from the ground. So for example if you're flying a drone and the wind picks up forcing you to make an emergency landing in a nearby park that has restrictions on drone flying/operations, you can move into the park while controlling the drone in order to maintain visual line of sight and land it safely. Another example of this might be if you have to make an emergency landing in a restricted space and have to violate that space to retrieve the drone, you are allowed to do that, provided you don't have to violate any physical barriers (fences etc.) to do so, as breaking and entering is still a crime.
Good post!
Hi Daniel, every time the police or fire departments go to a location, that current location will be marked by the FAA LAANC system as a "No Fly Zone" and will show up on all of the LAANC apps very quickly.
Longest reply ever!…😭😭😭
Oh shiiit, now im praying for police and fire departments to command me to pilot for them. I found a lost dog once which was amazing lol.
@@CanyonRunVideos just not true
24 years as a LEO. This guy is spot on. We cannot regulate airspace. Now... what we can do and have done is look to see if the activity being complained about violates one of the following laws: Harrassment, Stalking, or Peeping Tom statutes. These statutes cover most if not all of the complaints folks make on drones that actually have MERIT. A drone buzzing overhead at 40mph on its way somewhere isnt going to violate any of those laws. Constant hovering over certain areas like swimming pools or using it to look in windows, or hovering over people to harass them is already covered under these laws. The fact a drone is being used to violate the law is irrelevant as it doesnt matter HOW the law is being violated it only matters THAT it is being violated, and no additional laws on drone flying are needed in most communities and as most states already have these 3 laws on the books. Now we could also report illegal drone use to the FAA such as not using remote ID or other violations. Im a drone flier myself and keep up with the laws and I do my best to educate citizens who call in complaints without merit.
@@hammerdown3876 well said. Your comment is underrated. After using a drone I realized most of my fears were baseless however the fear was real.
I flew mine down to the river. Watching the boats and net skis and the view. Was at 300 feet up. My transmitter told them who I was, and an officer showed up. Tried to say I was hovering over private property. I showed him exactly where I was over the river. Told him to let me fly it back, and he could review the videos. He seemed a little arrogant, but he saw that I was not lying. He tried to say I can't fly over anyone's houses, which I politely argued with him about. After having enough, due to my job, I called a buddy of mine who is an FAA agent and had him explain the laws better than I could.
@@bluetonight17 Thanks for sharing. Nothing more dangerous than being harassed while actively flying.
@@Designatedeagle it's one of the "benefits" of flying remoteid I'm aware of
@ericesposito3880 it is like a license plate. it tranmits the FAA registration code, and some will also do hieght and what not but only thing required is the FAA ID. then just like a license plate, they type it into their computer, and there is all of your info.
The rules are simple: As a drone pilot, behave just like you would expect others to behave.
My play set:
- Respect private properties and think about noise abatement.
-If you are on a job and you need to fly over or around a private property for a longer period of time, maybe consider informing the owners beforehand and kindly inform them about what you are doing and the legal situation. Involve them, do not fight them.
- Try to understand how uninformed individuals feel about drone operations, especially over private grounds or crowded spaces. There is a huge difference between a drone flying over a property briefly or a drone hovering low level for 15 minutes at or over your premises.
- Do not operate close to people and if so, behave like a pro. Doing crazy FPV practice in crowded parks is a no-go and an annoyance to others. If you want to practice, go somewhere less populated and avoid confrontations.
- Inform people about drones, safety and rules,, do not fight them
- Do not film individual people, assets or properties without permission
-Act like an adult and always be friendly and professional. Do not act like a Drone-Caren...
Aviation in general is and should be a thing for humble, professional and honest people, not a place for harzadeurs and reckless personalities. Do it professionally and resonsively. Tell others to act accordingly.
Well stated.
@@51Drones Just my thoughts, keep up your great work for the community!
Well said.... RESPECT other people
I worked at FAA Flight Standards as an inspector for 31 years. Excellent video and are right on with the info.
Needs to be pinned!
@@playoflightphotographicsllc
Thanks for info, I don’t think I can pin it.@@playoflightphotographicsllc
I bought a few of these without seriously considering the 4th Amendment, which supersedes my right to drone recreation. The only place I'd fly these is in a desolate area with the land owners permission, or over public land. Even on public land, I'm sure they've made it illegal somehow. They're almost all made in The PRC anyway, so I don't really care if they're banned for any use other than for emergencies or by the land owner over their own property. Less money for The PRC is a good thing.
Did Congress make the law pertaining to drones? Did the FAA make the law themselves?
As a pilot and a part 107 remote pilot (not a lawyer but I play one on TV), I think there could be a happy medium nobody has spoken about. I propose the following: "A homeowner's/landowner's property includes the airspace along and inside their property boundary up to the height of said house/building inside that property. A pilot of an unmanned aircraft or other types of aircraft may not repeatedly fly into said property without consent from homeowner/landowner". People want their privacy and are most concerned about the cameras that are on drones. If someone was flying their RC plane instead of a drone, would the homeowner/landowner be as upset? Not likely.
As a drone pilot myself I really appreciate you making this video.
Drone pilot...... lmao🤣
well than people playing with remote controlled car toys - drivers!
😂
@@flipphonewizard5448 Could be military or commercial 🤷, though the term "operator" is more accurate
Wheres your licence and road tax paperwork? You got a license to "drive", right?
@@UpcomingJedi Actually, that's what a 107 certification is. You have to be 16 years old to be certified. It certifies you under federal law as a "remote pilot in command" of an aircraft. If you're flying under a 107, then your drone is registered with the federal government (which you have to pay for just like a license plate) and is outfitted with a remote ID broadcast module, and must be marked with your registration number. It's almost exactly like a car.
I am a recreational flyer and I live in a rural area in NW Pa. 95% of my flights are out of my yard. An incident occurred on September 3, 2023 and the PA State police now have my Air 2S. I was filming a hyper lapse video of the sunset when I received a critical battery error (my own stupidity) and the drone made an emergency landing about 400 meters from home. I could see that it had landed on a neighbors property and waited until the next morning to go there and ask permission to search. When I did they told me that they had found it and called the police who came and took the drone. I was happy to hear that it was found and figured that all I needed to do was call, explain what happened, and go retrieve it from them. I made that call on September 4 and was told that the officer involved would have to call me back. I waited a few days without hearing a word then he finally contacted me. He informed me that I wouldn't be getting the drone back soon if at all because there had been other complaints, about drone flyers in my neighborhood. I explained that I could easily prove that there was no malicious intent on my part by showing him the flight logs. I also told him that everything I filmed would be on the memory card in the drone and, if he removed the battery, he would find a sticker with my name, address and phone number on it. He didn't want to hear that though and was very arrogant and downright rude when he told me that he was gathering everyone in the area who had complained and they were taking me to court. When I inquired about a timeline he said that he couldn't even start the 'investigation' until he gets off of 3rd shift. Its been a month and he still has not started the investigation. Since then I've done some research and found that civil forfeiture laws exist that allow them to keep property indefinitely even if there are never any charges or arrests made.
UPDATE ... I received a call from Trooper Lewis of the PSP today and he informed me that he would be filing 'unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft ' and also 'disorderly conduct ' charges against me. The disorderly conduct charge really blows my mind. When I asked him about it he said it was because 2 other officers had visited me with warnings. Those officers never issued any warning either written or verbal. Unfortunately with my wife battling breast cancer and heart problems and with both of us being retired on a fixed income the money won't be there to hire a lawyer and fight this and my income will keep me from getting legal assistance.
@@skidrose6067 so what happened?
That's totally messed up how could you possibly be charged with disorderly conduct!? Id take it to trial straight up!
@@haidenmorgan - from a LEO that is totally messed up. sounds like they dont even want to do a proper investigation. stuff like this scares me and makes me rethink drone hobbies. I may just sell my drones and get into ROVs instead, as no one cares what im doing underwater at the lake....
@@haidenmorgan They charge everyone with disorderly conduct to create a case. Disorderly conduct is very subjective and generally used as a means to bring more serious charges. In court, most disorderly conduct charges get dismissed in plea deals.
The problem is there’s people who automatically believe every drone is watching them regardless of the actual intent .
In defense of ranchers and the like, any drone you find 2 miles from the nearest public road, probably is spying on you
You aren't important enough, nor your wife pretty enough, for anyone to spy on you. If a drone is 2 miles from the nearest public road, it is filming a sunset. The pilot has no interest in you.
Well said Matt
If it's over my property and it's camera can see over my privacy fence, it is, unless you spoke to me about it before flying it over my fence.
As a fixed wing commercial pilot and recreational drone pilot, I appreciate your approach and presentation of the facts. Well done.
Very well explained!!
I had a debate with someone about this. I ended it with “have you ever heard about owning beachfront property, and how people are allowed to walk along the beach ‘on your property’?”.
He agreed, adding that it was considered a public easement.
I said ya, thats why you cant prevent aircrafts from flying in ‘your airspace’, because its a public easement for aircrafts…
He promised me I was wrong 🤣
Washington State grants public easement at beaches only below mean tide line. In other words, at low tide near the water you can presumably walk along the beach but higher is not part of the easement. Hawaii, on the other hand, the State owns all beaches.
@@thomasmaughan4798 what about on a river or lake? Not all beaches have tides.
@@halkael2317 "what about on a river or lake?"
I have not studied that aspect. I suspect given the jealous guarding of waterfront property that lakes and rivers are privately owned right down to the water edge.
@@halkael2317legally surface water is in the Public Trust. So no one can technically own the water but can own the property around it and under it and in some states the land owner can sell the water. US laws are such a complete mess.
As screwed up as it would be (and is) I think we are far better off with Federal regulations than a new set of rules whenever we enter a new town or cross state line, that would just be chaos.
Thank you Russ for this intelligent discussion! When we know better we do better, thanks for bringing this information to everyone’s attention. I am working on my part 107 certification and I watch all your videos to increase my knowledge and understanding for flying a drone as a business. Many thanks and keep up the good work!
A while back my next door neighbor's dogs, which were tethered together, we're stolen. Without the behest of my neighbor I got up at 5:00 in the morning to fly my drone with this thought in mind. I fed my dogs early and then they went out to do their business. With this thought in mind I flew over the backyards at a high altitude with the gimbal straight down and on the second day I found the dogs. As I thought they weren't too far away and this person that took the dogs thought that they were being mistreated by being tethered together. So I flew over many properties at a pretty good altitude at Dawns light.
I replayed the video clip for my neighbor and he got the dogs back. Lucky for me nobody filed a lawsuit or anything like that. Flyboy K85
This is a justification for flying over peoples homes. Doing it casually…like a peeking Tom is not acceptable behavior. Glad you found the dogs.
Your motivation was heroism. Too many others is way less noble.
I absolutely love your channel. As a part 107 pilot, I get a lot of great information from you. Thanks
Had someone fly a drone really low in my backyard, right outside my back porch door.
The drone was literally watching me, I saw it, stepped out the door and the drone flew away.
It was at night and there was no way for me to know who it belonged to.
I don't think they should be legally allowed to fly beneath your roof or privacy fence.
That's 100% an invasion of privacy and should not be okay.
I am sure that this does not make you feel any better now, but odds are, the person that was filming into your home was breaking the law, both local and FAA law. Odds are if the person was low enough in your yard that he could film inside your back door, there is no way he still had Visual Line of Sight of his drone. The drone would most likely be below a fence line, bushes or trees and could no longer be seen by the pilot. That is against FAA regulations. Let alone breaking "peeping tom" laws.
People just need to chill. If a drone is able to peer into your windows, odds are, they are breaking the law. I am a Part 107 Pilot and if someone is hoovering right outside my window with its camera pointed at me, let's just say I would take my chances in court and introduce a baseball bat to that drone. That being said, 99.99% of the time that somebody is in their backyard nude sunbathing, nobody wants to see pictures or videos of it. Breath, and remember, just about every person around you is carrying a near movie quality camera in their pockets. Unless you want to ban cellphones too, be careful what you hope for.
That's not legal. I can fly over your property but I can't be looking in your windows. Now I can take pictures from the street. If I can see inside your house from the street I can take pictures of it from the street. I can't fly a drone up to your back door for multiple reasons. Drone out of line of sight. Unsafe operation of the drone. Then any local or state peeping Tom laws. Plus after September most drones will be RID compliant. All the new dji drones have it so you can see where the operator is.
@@scottrhodes3701lol calm down drone boy
If you can physically hit the drone over your property with an object you're perfectly legal to do so as long as you don't use a lethal weapon.
@@jamesm568what’s the difference? The bat can be lethal to a human, but drones are machines.
The thing with Easments on private property is they are intendted for transit, not for extended loitering. So yes you can fly over or 'through' 'private' airspace but it is gerneally a good idea not to loiter for too long above that private property just ot be safe as a pilot. < just a good rule of thumb
@@edwill62 This is so confusing, what part is he wrong about?
@@edwill62 Thanks for your help. I guess I'll get to googling. So nice talking to you, Sir.
@@edwill62 It actually enforces and provides evidence that you can use to prove your actions with a drone. I think you are the confused one here.
@@edwill62 Precisely why UAS aircraft are not flown or given the same justification by definition needed as would a standard aircraft even as a small as Cessna. The determination, at this point, of being fined or criminally charged locally is up to the actions of the operator, their intent, and whether the investigating authority can determine any malicious intent.
For now, as it stands, flying a drone over someone else's property is not illegal by federal code including the FAA but I'm sure that will change into a lengthy and descriptive statute. Whether it be over private or public property, harassment is subjective to the victim and/or criminal code of the local authority.
Without any clear definitive code on the topic, flying a drone over private property in itself isn't criminal nor enforceable unless restricted by FAA rules or sanctions such as a TFR. If the operator is flying in a manner disruptive or intrusive to the property owner, they would have to articulate such intrusion as the airspace above property is generally vetted as public domain unless otherwise explicitly expressed.
For example, a pilot flying low over private property is not immediately considered harassing to the pilot just because the owner of the property deems it as such. The owner would need to articulate explicitly how such actions are intrusive. Most criminal code considers crime against persons or property written with intent as a necessary element of the crime.
On the other hand, it's usually just common courtesy just to ask the property owner for permission to fly over their property if it may be thought that your actions could disturb the owner.
Air rights extend to the airspace above the surface that could reasonably be used in connection with the land. If you're flying over someone's house but not at eye level in their backyard, for example, it's presumed that the airspace is public and no longer under the immediate control of the land owner.
@@edwill62 May I also note that until the FAA makes determination on the airspace below 400 feet in uncontrolled airspace, the limitations of UAS flight over private property is up to the local authorities to regulate. There is no federal law prohibiting drone flight over private property but local laws may have further regulation on the matter, as given to them by the authority of the 10th Amendment.
Hey Russ, very informative video! I'm a Part 107 card carrier and I've found when I'm at a job site to shoot (poor wood choice) aerial photography, I wear an orange and black highly reflective jacket that states I'm a Certified FAA UAS pilot. This jacket has saved me from many conflicts and actually has enticed the curious to ask me questions and create many great conversations. Just my two cents. Thanks for your diligent research.
I do the same if it's an area with a lot of people around. I also have a choice of vehicles to take, and if I think that the location has a high probability of getting hassled, I take my nice car. Otherwise I take my "beater!"
Is this a homemade jacket? I'd like to see it. I don't suppose you have any photos?
I wear a bright green one that says - FAA Certified Drone Pilot in large letters on the reverse. Makes me look official.
@@shawnmulligan4564 Thanks for the suggestion. I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it should be to have a custom vest made.
Yes; there certainly is a difference when I wear a safety vest and not. Just a stupid safety vest, with a badge holder, somehow makes you "official" and people don't question your presence.
This will become the go-to video on this thorny topic. Well done, Russ!
I am most interested in reading viewers' comments on whether airspace usage regs/laws should ultimately be decided at the state or federal level. There are reasonable arguments for both.
Despite being a big fan of federalism and 10A/states' rights, count me among the viewers who believe this falls among the few issues which over which the federal government should have the final say.
I'm always game for civil discourse on topics like this and will be following this discussion closely.
Thanks again, Russ, for a great video!
Agreed
I whole heartedly agree. Excellent video. As a sUAS Instructor I have had this conversation more times than I can count. Russ eloquently when though the issue and explained the nuances associated with this highly debated subject. Well done!
Since the FAA completely regulates ALL registered aircraft in the U.S., there would be no safe way that multiple agencies to control the national airspace safely.
Imagine the nightmare of having to read through the rules and regulations concerning legal drone flying for every municipality within 50 miles. And then keeping up to date on those.
@Strange Daze hovering over someones land does not mean they are surveilling you or your property. Just because I stop to do a horizontal 360 video of the general area does not mean I am doing anything with your privacy. The other question is, how low is this drone? If it is high enough where I can not easily determine if the person is male or female, or for that matter see you at all, I would think makes a big difference. There is very little land in the USA that is not owned by someone, so with that said drones would not be able to fly anywhere if that was the case.
Apart from the law itself, there is just neighborly consideration, or even just being a thoughtful human, and compassion and understanding. Yes, I know, it's probably too much to ask of many people. My only experience with this topic was shortly after Christmas a few years back I heard a buzzing like a swarm of bees over my back yard. I was honestly perplexed this being my first encounter with a drone. I looked up, saw the thing hovering about 30 feet up over my property, waved my arm like "Get the hell out of here." and it left. So, I appreciated their good sense.
It depends upon what the drone is doing. For instance a Peeping Tom was using a drone to peek into a young girls bedroom. It was only about 5-6' off the ground and was below the top of the picket fence. The father used a fishing net to bring it down. The local police were not able to positively identify the owner/operator. When contacted the FAA was totally uninterested. The FAA said call them back when the owner/operator was arrested.
Can you provide any proof of this? I'm genuinely curious.
@@fetherolf13 It happened to my across the street neighbor. As posted there was nothing the police could do and the FAA was not interested. With the current situation with Remote ID it may have helped if that functionality is installed by the factory and made non-removable. Strangely enough the family became interested in drones and now participate in a drone racing league.
Here's an idea. Close the curtains. Problem solved.
@@miller-joel Here is a better idea do not be a Peeping Tom!
@@NighthawkCarbine Here's an idea. You can't control other people. But you can control what you do in your own house.
Certainly a touchy subject. Drones transitioning through a navigable airspace is one thing…like a commercial airliner flying overhead. I’m sure what most folks get hostile about is the possibility of drone-based voyeurism occurring while you and your family are out in the backyard at the pool or wherever…the paparazzi-effect.
@@realitywave What they care about is the high definition, recording cameras that people fly on these drones. In that respect there is always a person-in-the-loop.
@@realitywave the Sneak factor goes way up. It is filthy behavior to spy and payback is a bitch.
@@realitywave It is every American's sovereign right to a Javelin surface to air missile defense system.
Bingo!!
@@realitywave a drone flies much lower than a manned aircraft.
Unfortunately, the average person is not aware of the actual laws. On the Neighbors platform, a bunch of people did the usual "Imma shoot it down if it comes near my prop'ty". I was roundly mocked for pointing out how the FAA views drones, and that it could be law enforcement flying by. Some folks just don't want to be confused by the facts.
@@edwill62 What case is this? Can you cite the information?
@@edwill62 And there he is...lol
@@edwill62 That case was a joke. Uninformed judge making an unlawful decision. The court didn't even review the drone data. They just made an arrogant, biased, unlawful decision completely ignoring the evidence presented. Just because the judge made a decision, doesn't make it correct or lawful. No law was made saying that it can be done. The charges were wrongfully dropped. In case you didn't know, judges can be wrong. We're not in a 3rd world country where bullets can be recklessly shot into the sky.
@@edwill62 With a good enough attorney, nothing is cut and dry.
Although I fly drones, I actually agree with anyone shooting down drones. Frankly if you are flying your drone within range of birdshot and long enough over someone's property for someone to get their shotgun and return to shoot you down, you aren't being a responsible pilot.
One of the things that is starting to happen now is that someone who doesn't like drones flying on their property buys a cheap drone, uses that to crash into the other person's drone and then blames them for taking down their drone. Basically using the FAA rules against them. Local gov doesn't want to deal with it so they just ignore it since neither side is actually willing to push charges as the ruling could go either way. Unlike using a gun, this can actually be an abuse by the property owner as it can chase a drone that is just passing and would not normally be an issue.
Clyde: “I thought it was a hawk after my chickens!”
@@stackerothings I named my drone "Chicken Hawk" after Foghorn Leghorn 😁
Probably the best explanation of private airspace to date.. Well done man.. I have my 107 and I found this very useful..
It was abouit "navigible airspace", not "private.
Slightly different, but relatable to your topic. Before drones, the rule for admissible photographic evidence (without a warrant) collected from manned aircraft used to be:
•500’ above the property
•Photograph/video not zoomed/enhanced
Source?
@@bobclark5197 I believe 500 feet is the limit to how low you can fly an airplane per the FAA
@@bobclark5197 § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface-
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]
Howdy Russ, thank you for your excellent knowledge in the reporting of these rules and regulations. As always, you do your research, and as you stated, state when you’ve been wrong. Well done, and look forward to you future reporting on this very touchy subject! 🙏🙏
I bought a drone a few months ago and every time that I fly it, I get those laser eys from all around. I flew it over the harbor to take some video of my boat after Hurricane Ian and was told that I had to land immediately, was called all kinds of names and was told I would hear from their lawyer. I did not hear from anyone, but this seems the general reaction I have had. People hate drones when it is not theirs.
This post gives me worry about becoming a drone pilot! If every other time you launch your drone your going to be interrogated by someone watching you, wth, who needs that grief?
I guess you have to go into the hinterlands where no one will see you?
I have my Part 107, and I can understand why airspace needs to be "shared" but when in relation to private property and flying over I think it should be illegal/remain illegal to record or "spy" on private property because it does remove the feeling of having a safe space on your own property.
It's still illegal to "spy" on private property, say on your neighbor's significant other hanging out by the pool. If the drone happens to clip the corner of their lot on its flight path and your intent isn't to intrude on privacy, that's legal. Basically if a manned aircraft could safely fly there it's legal to fly a drone through the same airspace. Now that won't preempt state and local noise or nuisance ordinances if flying in a reckless manner like hovering 10 feet above your annoying neighbors roof for 30 minutes.
"it does remove the feeling of having a safe space"
You may be granted property rights but the law does not care (much) about your *feelings* since how is that to be codified in law? There is only what you, or I, DO.
It does slightly change the "plain sight" aspect of privacy laws; your expectation of privacy ought to change with the advent of camera drones. It is certainly the case that for the past 100 years or so airplanes and helicopters have the same exact ease of photographing your back yard. Where's your *feeling* of safety about that?
You can actually sell the airspace above your property just like mineral rights - this goes on the deed/title of the land. I sold the airspace above my house to the FAA because I’m in the approach way of an airport, so I couldn’t actually use it anyway and the FAA provided soundproofing for my home as consideration for the deed modification.
Hope they paid you at least seven figures to give up your property like that. I wouldn't.
@@tcapone1734 seeing as how the FAA already owns/controls the airspace near an airport, I wasn’t really selling off anything I hadn’t already lost…. And it was big 5 figures, near 6 for all the windows, insulation, and soundproofing.
Would you do it again?
@@MarkBerenger and yet the windows and other soundproofing in my hose today along with the contract I signed that explicitly calls out the FAA seems to indicate they will pay me for the airspace above my house. Your general idea isn’t that far off however. I don’t think they were required to pay me, but they did so I couldn’t sue them or the airport - it was way cheaper to just “buy the airspace” than to fight a lawsuit I suspect.
Yeah; more taxpayer money handed out, so we ALL get fleeced, as usual, to give $$$$ to someone else, by FORCE.@@tcapone1734
Great vid. I did hours of research on FAA laws before I flew my new drone. While flying one day, a man approached me and asked if I had permission to fly over peoples homes. I tried to explain to him that I didn't need permission and it only made him upset. So , I guess, drone operators need some degree of patience when explaining these laws to people not familiar with them.
The main concern is people who may get hostile.
Once I started wearing an 'FAA Certified Drone Pilot' vest, the encounters went way down.
Great idea! @@playoflightphotographicsllc
@@playoflightphotographicsllc Nice! Where did you get yours?
@@dennisx4492 Can't remember- it's been a few years. I just Googled FAA certified drone vest and the options came up there.
You know what I've found to be a great deterrent against know-it-alls? I bright yellow reflective vest that says in big bold letters: "Part 107 Drone Pilot: Do Not Approach" along with my 107 license on display in the clear chest pocket.
I've considered getting something like this since a neighbor of a house I was getting aerial photos of for a realtor ran outside waving a rifle around and screaming. I've shot over one hundred homes this year though and never once had an issue like that, but that one certainly made me consider taking measures to avoid it in the future.
Do you also wear your "Soverign Citizen" beanie?
I think some important words in the subject are TRANSIT and NAVIGATE. If a UAV is intentionally dwelling over another persons property then other laws can apply.
I agree. A "navigable lien" on your property rights I can see and agree with for the point of modern technology, drones, planes, helicopters, etc... But the second they stop and hover, that drone and operator best take cover. As I see it, that's voyeuristic behavior, harassment and trespassing.
@@RussW. I'd allow a bit more than a second before I assumed bad intent. On my first flight it took me a good minute of hovering over a neighbor's yard before I could get set up to film an "orbit" rotation around my own house. If I stayed hovering only over my own yard, I would only be able to film my roof.
@Charlie Gorichanaz That's taking my words quite literal. But now that you bring it up, if a guy was peering into your window, looking at your wife or kids. Does a second matter or is it only after a minute you'd take action? My comment is in regards to the intent of the action, not the time.
@@RussW.not taking cover. But I'll take your guns. Your right to vote and let you see the inside of a federal prison for around 20 years.
Shooting a drone is a violation of US Code 32. The Code aims to protect drones from any damage and destruction. The penalty for shooting at drones as per US code 32 is a fine and 20-year imprisonment. Although you may own the property, you don't own the airspace above it.
How it made you feel doesn't Trump federal regulations. But federal regulations Trump state and local ordinances. I can fly over your house any time I want, and stay above it for however long I want. As long as I'm not at window level or out of line of site I can be there legally
A nasty example of how this can go WRONG is a local neighborhood home owner's association now has a drone and they fly it over each house to get to areas that are not visible from outside the property. So they can charge you with "violations" that are totally invisible other than from a drone flying overhead!
Yet another reason to NEVER buy a home government by a HOA !
That is spying or surveillance and would violate many local ordinances. The HOA does not have an inherent right to do that. That has nothing to do with FAA airspace.
It sounds like their use is indeed outside the definitions of "recreational" and the pilot of said drone should produce proof of their Part107 licensure upon demand. ;)
@@mervfer1162 sadly if the gestapo hoa was smart they would put that into their rules. No way will I EVER be part of an hoa as ill be darned if control freaks like that will tell me what I can and cannot do on my property.
@@mervfer1162 HOA did that exactly recently. Not with a drone, but using Google map satellite view ! And issued a fine to someone having a "non allowed" storage unit in his backyard.
The US vs causby 1946 case. A property owner owns the airspace over there property. Planes qualify as a temporary something don't know the exact verbiage. But an explanation if someone wants to dispute this is if I own the land on either side of your land I can't build a bridge over your property connecting my properties. Everyone's minds always go to air travel
"if someone wants to dispute this is if I own the land on either side of your land I can't build a bridge over your property connecting my properties"
Brother the difference is, if you want to build a bridge over someone's property you need to apply or be granted for a legal easement of the property. The FAA and those operating under its rules are granted the (established) easement automatically. The rights are already given away.
I've been harassed and recorded repeatedly on my own property. Once while i was washing my car, it was literally 2ft. Behind me and about 3 ft. From the ground. It would also hover just out of reach above me while i was in my backyard. There is not a worse feeling for a woman to feel like she can't even go into her own backyard without being recorded. It's a nightmare. Especially when law enforcement can't do anything either. I understand that for most drone flyers ppl who don't want you to pass over their property is an annoying nuisance, but put yourself in my shoes not feeling comfortable to even go outside on my own property. Us homeowners have a right to peace too
That is definately a terrible experience, and not why I want to own a drone. Bad apples!
I have a friend going thru that too.
Accidentally swat at it with a garden hose or similar tool.
@@BrianCrump007. There will be times, probably with increased frequency, when drones will be used to physically harm people by criminals or case a property for reasons of theft. In those situations, some people aren't going to wait around on a 911 call. As they say; 'When seconds count, the cops are minutes away. '
They already do. It's illegal to fly 1 mile from a jail or prison facility. There are bad apples in every bunch and every profession. All new technology will be tested to limits for illegal purposes.
I try to keep updated with the rules, but if a local police or Karen harasses me and I'm not flying as a part 107 for a job. I would just move on. It's bad enough that some pilots don't know all the rules, and no clue for the average person. All I could say is don't Spy or do foolish things and spoil it for the rest of us.
We had a new neighbor move in that would routinely fly his drone around the neighborhood at below-rooftop altitudes. It was like he was taking a virtual walk through the neighborhood. After finding it hovering well inside my front yard below our roofline, I finally figured out who it was and had a talk with the gentlemen. I think enough people confronted him that he realized he wasn't being a good neighbor in that respect. We talked to the local PD just to gather info and they said they didn't have much recourse. I have my own drones, RC planes, and RC helis, so I understand the desire to have a place to fly, but at some point, a drone just hovering very near my house when I have no idea who is operating it seems sketchy. I think in most cases, common sense and being a good neighbor work fine. It does seem like there should be some protections for private property in the fringe cases.
Common sense is a rare thing these days
Other than spying and the like, aren't there other laws that might protect you? Seems Iike the new neighbor is harassing folks.
@@fargoaerials3456 harrassment is very tough to prove unless he is doing to a specific home or person.
This will be a good power station to charge my drones since it has 256Wh of capacity.
Very much appreciate this well researched info. Gives me more confidence in my ability to fly near and around private property. Thank you!🙏🏻
I was gone skip the ad till you said don’t skip 😂
A creator knows they are treading on controversy when half the video is about disclaimers and pleading for civility !!! 🤣
You do a great job, as always, in approaching rules and regs, laws and popular perceptions....
Thanks !!
Lol
@@edwill62 he has asked for folk to cite sources that differ from his presentation.
What sources can you cite?
@@edwill62 “navigable airspace” means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft." So further explain!
@@edwill62 Thank you for taking the time for the very detailed explanation, there are many points you make that I can agree with, however is where I see the disconnect is assuming sUAVs having the authority to operate under the minimum safe altitudes. To further push this issue, CFR14 91.119 excludes helicopters and weight shift aircraft and is not mentioned in the definition as well. I believe that since the Aviation Reauthorization act of 2018, it's assumed that 40103 will apply to sUAV operations under Part 107 and 44809. Despite the arguments you present, I believe that if this is challenged in a court of law, the judgement will be on the side of the sUAV operator. Case in point. Earlier this year it was ruled that Brennan v Dickson (the challenge to remote ID) "The United States Government “has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States,” and the FAA is congressionally empowered to “develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.” Id. § 40103(a)(1), (b)(1). The navigable airspace of the United States includes airspace above minimum flight altitudes and the airspace necessary for safe takeoff and landing of aircraft. Id. § 40102(a)(32)." To me, this once again enforces the fact that the US Government recognizes "navigable airspace" beginning at ground level and no local or state government can create laws governing airspace and it's up to the FAA to “develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.” If it's the FAA's policy to consider sUAVs to be part of this, well I think the buck stops there unless challenged. Again I think you bring up valid points and some of the "assumptions" need to agree with current law, until such time, IMO, it will be up to the judge.
@@edwill62 OK - again all good but my last reply was based on a court ruling, not my words but what was ruled in the Brennan v Dickson case, just for clarification.
According to the faa the national airspace starts at the grass. I would never do this. But if its within line of sight, flying head height directly over someone’s property is legal. Again I would never do this…
That would then be ruled under harassment laws.
Class G airspace is uncontrolled. Class E starts at 700 ft.
I fly head height from my yard into my next door neighbors yard perfectly over the chain link fence loop around and come back. Some back info though: They’re a retired grandmother and I’ve asked them if it bothered them and they said as long as it didn’t bother her dog when she let it out to potty she had no problem with it. It helps to make contact and just ask; I told her about the rules and we laughed about them some but I still think politeness and professionalism goes a long way.
@@n539rv class e typically starts at 1200 agl but is lowered to 700 agl with certain instrument approaches around some airports. Class e can even funnel to the ground with non towered airports with an ils approach. But I get your point.
Lawyer and here are my thoughts:
1) In the end, what matters is what the supreme court says, not the FAA.
2) The Federal Aviation Act can have conflict or field pre-emption with state law but not the constitution.
3) Amendments are part of the constitution and due to the supremacy clause, trump the Federal Aviation act.
4) The 10th amendment grants police powers to the states - this includes trespass and aerial trespass.
5) The 5th amendment has a takings clause that prohibits the taking of property without payment.
6) The FAA has without legislation, decided to reclassify airspace to be ALL airspace above ALL private property. This means you effectively can't stop someone from flying ANYWHERE on ANY of 'your' property.
7) As mentioned in this video, the supreme has ruled that you do own this property.
8) Some MAJOR corp players (Amazon, UPS, etc) want to use the airspace for deliveries. Think long term - the issues aren't the random drone pilot.
Given the above, I think this topic is ripe for the United States Supreme Court on many fronts.
Thank you! I''m dealing with a different kind of air-space invasion/trespass, in court right now. The way the FAA is deciding on this issue really stinks in the way it violates Constitutional rights.
Recently had issues with a railroad in Michigan who tried to insist we have a ridiculous amount of insurance to fly over their land. Great video, many have no idea these are the facts.
FAA part 107 specifically says the following:
"Do not fly a drone over people unless they are directly participating in the operation."
That's pretty succinct, and violating that rule is grounds for a visit from the FAA and possible license revocation.
not sure what that has to do with this video. when they say "over people" they literally mean DIRECTLY over people. I can fly 15 feet to your left and its not over you.
@@baconbooger4256 BS.
Reason enough not to fly over other peoples homes. You can't tell if there is an occupant but if there is then you are flying over them if you are above the property.
So it appears I own Polaris and the Andromeda Galaxy. Get off my galaxy!
The earth has moved. It's now mine. 😂
You are right, you are not a lawyer
Yea, Arkansas limits filming a bunch of infrastructure (including police stations and court houses) as opposed to flying in the airspace. I use the top of the trees/roofs as a minimum altitude, but I like getting permission too! Great vid.
Um. Yeah. They can’t do that. 🤷♂️
My neighbors are great, they are the opposite of most and actually ask me why I'm not flying if they haven't seen my drone in a while😂
If my wife or I am walking on our property totally nude and a drone flies over us, it is violating our privacy and our legal right to be nude on our land. So what is needed on drones are scannable tags for the land owner to scan while taking footage from the ground to prove that the perpetrator was in fact peeping.
The only way around this is to make public and private nudity legal. Tech is a fickle bytch now isn't it!
This is such a thorough and informative video from the beginning all the way to the end (Yes! Even the sponsoring part because it is a very useful tool.) Thank you so much for sharing all of the research you did and your knowledge with the public. Liked and subscribed. 🙌
I've seen a drone at 10-12 feet high. that's too low. If I can hit it with a garden hose, that's too low.
Something to consider, also, is my dad flew a hot air balloon in the Denver area. Some of the launch sites used were north of Denver in more rural areas. There were definitely farms who made it clear they didn't appreciate hot air balloons flying over their property and these were noted on the local club flight maps. It would be good manners to contact other flight groups - hot air balloon clubs, RC plane clubs, rocket clubs, etc. to share "no fly zones", then just avoid them. Farmers and ranchers are concerned for their livestock being spooked by noises and flying things interpreted by the animals as predators, or just scary things. Plus, farmers and ranchers are generally wary of strangers showing up at their place. Emergencies are exceptions, of course. And it is just common sense to stay away from emergency situations unless you've been asked to assist. Here in Idaho, several critical fire operations had to be suspended due to unauthorized drones interfering with safe operation of fire fighting and rescue aircraft. Regardless of what is allowed by law, I think consideration and common sense goes a long way to maintaining the ability to fly a drone relatively regulation free. Pushing those limits will only result in tighter restrictions. That's guaranteed.
Except that "common sense" isn't all that common in fact. 😕
Yeah it's the other great neighbor that's left of America why do you have to be so many doors down from my house?
In Japan, it is a minimum of 30m away from private property and has a maximum altitude of 150m. So if your property is 121m high, no drone can fly over it :)
We had a person follow us around our own back yard with their drone! They were taking pictures of my daughter as she worked in our garden. I DON'T mind if they fly their drone, just don't follow me around my property taking pictures!! We called the Police and they said they COULDN'T do anything about it!! They flew their drone over our property for over a month, then some of the pictures that they had taken showed up on the internet!!! Then the Cops came and took the drone away from them, they moved one week later.
Hi Russ, I totally agree with you and that no property owner, State, County, City or Municipality can restrict the navigable national airspace of the USA with FAA registered aircraft. Two years ago the City Council in my city in southern California was going to come up with their own drone regulations. I sent a very detailed email directly to the Mayor informing her that the FAA already has all of the necessary laws that regulate drone flight the navigable airspace over the city. I also informed her that the city can regulate the takeoff and landing locations that are on city property and this would be the only regulation that the city has the authority to control. I mentioned that a drone pilot could takeoff and land on public property adjacent to city property and then fly over that city property anyway so making city drone regulations that are not enforceable may not be in the best interest of the city. She totally agreed with my points and the City Council agreed as well.
Great example. I'm also in So Calif and have run into some cities that have already passed such regs (Dana Pint & Irvine, perhaps others have also done so). To what city do you refer?
I agree, but if a large city or groups of small adjacent cities prohibits any take off or landing of a drone inside of their city limits, it may effectively reduce or all but eliminate most drone flights, as you would have to launch and land it outside the city limits, and only fly it as far into the city(s) as you can maintain line of site. Yikes!
@@billbryantphotography3331 Do you have any information that this is legal for them to dictate such activities on private property?
@@BigAlMerrill No, I do not, and I doubt if a case has made it to the courts yet. I was just hypothesizing, but I am sure many cities at some point will assume they can regulate it, and try this angle. The problem will be that cities have a much larger legal budget than you do. So the way it works is that the city will pass an ordinance, and issue you a ticket. You will argue that they are preempted from dictating what happens on private property, even if it is inside of city limits. But are you willing to hire an attorney and take the city to court? How about when they appeal it? All of this could cost tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight in federal court. Unless you get someone like a manufacturer who has a lot to lose to pay for the legal fees, it would not be worth fighting in court. However, it would absolutely be worth your time to try and fight it yourself, particularly in front of a municipal judge who is accustom to dealing with pro se defendants.
@@FlyingBuzzard Meaning that the FAA ultimately has no jurisdiction and has no intention of enforcing any laws because they passed it to the local law enforcement. Typical bureaucratic pass the buck.
The word I keep coming back to is "transiting" or to pass through a given space. SO if a drone STOPS in your air space it is not transiting anymore.
Nope temporarily hovering isn't considered not in transit by the FAA anymore. Would be a shame if you actually went to jail for shooting down a drone like a dummy.
Great job, Russ. Concise and accurate information. Everyone, even Clyde, needs to watch this video.
That was super informative Russ, thank you. I just got my part 107 and starting to get into drone work here in CA. I'm 100% positive I will encounter this situation in the near future and it's nice to already have a head start when explaining drone laws regarding private property and air space. Thanks.
Manned aircraft are required to stay 500 feet away from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except for the purpose of take=off or landing IIRC. Does this not apply to drones?
It does NOT. I’m a licensed part 91 pilot and a part 107 Commercial drone pilot. The rules are very different. You can’t exceed 400 ft AGL (above ground level) with few exceptions with a drone but in a regular airplane you can’t get below 500 feet with a few exceptions (crop dusting comes to mind) and at least 1000 feet over a city and 2000 over a National park as I recall.
Anything that applies to manned aircraft should also apply to unmanned aircraft, it's only common sense.
@@pauldentler7127common sense is telling you to have safety equipment for pilots that aren't there?
@@HaHaThatIsFunny The safety is for those around the aircraft rather than those piloting it. So yes, it is common sense.
@@pauldentler7127 that would be so stupid
Great job on this tricky topic! I'm keeping this video bookmarked. As a 107 certified commercial drone operator, this is something I have to explain on a regular basis. Just to expand on local laws, drone operators do need to understand just because they are legally allowed to fly over private property, they are not able to commit a crime or violate local ordinances by doing so. This means they can still be charged not only with voyeurism and spying but harassment, damage to property, public endangerment, and more. Also, many local governments (mine included) have illegal, federally pre-empted drone laws on the books, and LE can still enforce these laws, leaving it up to the pilot to take the case to court. I spent several months trying to have such laws reversed and was finally told that these laws will stand until they are tested in court. Finally, it's usually better to avoid conflict in the first place, and deescalate by moving to another location or taking the time to explain what you are doing and why. I know a lot of operators who just quote the laws without actually addressing someone's concerns. Thanks again!
@@FlyingBuzzard That's right, which is why the handouts I carry have a whole section for law enforcement explaining their jurisdiction. However, the problem is they often don't know or don't care.
City, county , states rights vs feds, local laws are legal, and local LE know thier own jurisdictions law. DC idiots don’t. Majority of law is at local level. Look at sanctuary cities, weed cities, legal,in town, still Fed violation or the opposite, Feds allow, locals don’t. FAA can only regulate what’s in its agencies authority to do so. They have hands full with CA/GA manned aircraft, unless you interfere with manned flight they don’t have bench or bandwidth to cover tens of Millions of drones. Look at ATF,3000 agents for 331,000,000 people and 425,000,000 guns.Even common core math tells you not doable. Most issues will be handled locally, and FAA will probably only focus on UAV/Manned flight incidents or restricted space incursion or single unique one off incidents. Most property owner probably care less about one off fly bys, but if you’re repeatedly harassed, then they get mad. And if you are doing something questionable as operator, the last thing you want is LE involvement, so you won’t complain if you get shot down, otherwise LE wil see all,your photos and videos etc and you might end up,with dozens of charges if they find out you been photographing multiple persons etc. especially minors. Bad people never will call,police, they be thankful they didn’t get caught and move on.
Drone operators need to monitor and discipline their own. You need a regulatory system to deal with drone operators that harass domestic abuse victims, hover in their windows day and night, drop trash on lawns, fireworks on rooftops and dye packets into private swimming pools. These are the operators that are going to be the reason for regulation, laws, fines and jail time. It is just a matter of time.
Promote drone search apps for the General Public to catch these drone Kevin's or be regulated further.
@@CallsItLikeISeizeItsI’d wager few police know any laws yet alone their jurisdictions…
Very informative video, funny just the other day my wife and I discussed the issue of privacy. My wife was a magistrate in the state court system and had heard of cases/complaints about drones. She said it was a gray area, neither judges, lawyers or litigants were never quite clear on the state/federal laws. Your video should be required viewing for law students.
regulation is not law. Actually Common law and property rights should prevail. Some Government agency cannot just decide to take private property. Reasonable people would probably agree at 400 foot or so for Private light weight UAV is OK but Commercial No Way. Next big thing will be Jammers..Also. Property ID broadcast and flight blockers. Pilots will agree if reasonable. The FAA isn't GOD and a rule is not a law unless I agree to be brought under it. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WORTH FIGHTING FOR UNLESS YOUR A FROG. THE NOTION THAT FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS EVERYTHING IS WRONG. Read the people that wrote it. IF YOU WANNA ALLOW PEOPLE ON OR IN YOUR PROPERTY GO AHEAD BUT MOST PEOPLE WILL FIGHT YOU OVER THIS.
there are enough slip n fall lawyers as is.
@@TelecasterRon Should be at least 500 feet
Since many people are ignorant of or don't care about laws/rules the general guideline I follow when flying over private property is to stay above the tallest structure (building, tree, etc.). Hundreds of flights so far and I've only had one issue which was defused very quickly by being polite and friendly.
I think the Same nobody cares or even know especially if you have mini3pro its so small and quiet 🤫
From what I understand, there is some legal ambiguity as to exactly where the line is for the easement, but if you're above the structures and the trees, it's probably going to fall to the FAA's purview to regulate rather than the home owner. From what I've seen, most of the controversies center around activities that are going on much closer to the ground than you're talking about.
And really, if you've got any question, it isn't a bad idea to talk with the owner if you can to let them know that you're not going to be peeping in on them or anything that is illegal.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade I know you’re talking about suburbia and inside the city limits…. But out in the country, just being there flying over someone’s land is considered trespassing…. Especially when they violate FAA regs by operating beyond visual range
They are loud. And are a nuisance. Property owners are entitled to their privacy. Net guns and broad spectrum RF emitters are just a few tools to remove said annoyances.
If you launch from your backyard and fly over peoples house and roads, you are traversing, is there anything they can get you on in that reguards when you are doing a recreational flight?
No
Great video! I was just having this conversation with my son-in-law as he does home inspections and uses his drone to inspect roofs. Sure is a lot safer than climbing on steeply pitched roofs. I also checked into drone laws in New Zealand as I have a daughter that lives there. According to what I read you need permission to fly over someone’s house unlike the USA.
He has his 107?
Umm There is a difference between flying slowly 2 meters next to your house and inspecting and flying over your yard 10 meters above the ground and generally doing transit flight. I think it all relates to how invasive is the flight to the owner. But I doubt you need to have a permission to fly above someone's property, coz that way all the planes, rescue helicopters, private ultralight planes would need to have permissions too.
@@misiakufal
Aircraft and helicopters don't LINGER over Private property. They are doing an OVER FLIGHT. I live near a National Guard Base and helicopters and fixed wing Aircraft are constantly flying over my property. But they don't LINGER over my property. I have wind turbines and I had to put lights on the turbines as per the FAA. I had my property before the National Guard Base was constructed. But I still had to install lights on my turbines. Can you imagine a C-130 or a C-17 just missing your wind turbines by inches? Now I have red strobe lights on my turbines and my roof.
Great video! As both a private pilot (single engine land) and a drone pilot I might add that I use a VFR sectional map and/or Foreflight as my absolute go to for where I can and can't fly both a passenger carrying airplane as well as my DJI drone. For a drone pilot, Class G is where I imagine 99.9999% of flying exists for drone ops, and that starts AT the surface. This is important because for the passenger carrying aircraft, this is "uncontrolled airspace". It is a clear line (altitude wise) that delineates where non-controlled GA based activities ends, and ATC controlled operations begins. Anything BUT the ground would cause complete and utter confusion in aviation, as would deferring to state and local authorities for their own determination. So while I would not encourage pushing this to the letter of the law simply because you can, a reasoned conversation often goes a long way toward education. For pilots of ALL types, know where you can and can't fly and why. All this said, rules changes seem to happen fast in the FAA arm of the drone world as more take to the sky, and with ADS-B etc. for drone locating is sure to draw an eye if too many people are abusing the rules. Also not to be lost in this conversation is the number of E-VTOL and air taxi operations comin on line. Occupying the space between UAVs/drones and airplanes....how will THAT change the landscape?
...oh, and I treat my own drone operations in much the same way I fly and airplane over wildlife refuge areas etc.......I give breathing space. You are supposed to fly no less than 1,000 feet over these areas so as to not disrupt the wildlife (and drone ops are NOT permitted at all). So I use the same sort of reasoning when flying my drone in what might be seen as a "touchy" area.
Thanks Russ, that answered many questions.. & concerns I had about flying around in my neighborhood.
In my country Zambia, there have been thefts related to drone usage where thieves quickly survey an area to see what's on the property then plan their move. I know this because we apprehended a suspect who turned to be part of a group of robbers and they possessed a DJI air drone and on it where places that they robber thanks to drone footage they got of them. While there is not law saying you can take down a drone flying over your private property, the local police say it is up to the property owner that if a drone hovers above your property for more that 15 secs, you have the right to take it down.
Long story short, I bought a rifle. I see one, I take it down.
I am a veteran pilot, and I do not need to ask permission to fly over private property as long as I stay 500' above the highest structure in it. If I fly below 500' and the Land owner shoot's me down he will not get into any trouble.
Sorry, NOT true......
I fly several times a day 6 days a week, and I can count on one hand how many times I had some local person give me a problem. If I see neighbors or concerned citizens I inform them of the operation. I have had many occasions where the neighboring home owner pops out to ask why that drone was over their property. I tell them, offer to show them images captured, and that generally stops any further issues. In fact, many of them are just taken by the imagery I have on the monitors.
More issues can possibly develop during missions where the drone is repetitively flying the same routes. Again I think those having the proper professional looking vests, communication with residents are a remedy for any action or concerns of private citizens. On the other hand I have seen many in plain clothes uAS operators get the attention and a more heated concern or confrontation from residents.
I too have on rare occasion had a homeowner warn me about shooting down our drones, but I quickly remind them of the FAA laws prohibiting them to do so. They usually walk away afterward.
Your images response is very weak, if you told me that I would say, how do I know your not using your drone for surveillance to find out who owns what in there yards
worth stealing ? who is growing a garden or has a greenhouse worth breaking into ,(food inflation has caused massive garden theft in the past 2 years)
@@flolou8496 - And your concern is "VERY WEAK" as well. Assuming everyone around you is a thief, Jeez!
@@DroneRat1-gp5ku This kind of response is exactly why drone operators are universally hated by the public. As a pilot you need to understand the privacy concerns of property owners. Drones have been used by criminals for over a decade as well.
I never have problems with people because I don't fly over or within sight of their property. More people need to understand this.
Great information as always! I really appreciate this. My story: I was flying my drone at my house neighborhood like I always do.( my drones are registered with FAA, I'm trust certified, I follow all the rules) one of my neighbors, came out the other day, and he told me do not fly your drone over my house. I said, " no problem " because I didn't want to start something with my neighbor, but clearly he hates drones, do not know the law, or its hiding something. Lol
@@FlyingBuzzard Umm...did you not just watch this video? Or do facts and the law just not matter to you?
@@FlyingBuzzard no you haven’t. Do you even fly a drone?
@@FlyingBuzzard you’re making it an absolute issue, which it isn’t and no one claimed it to be. It is clear that only the FAA makes the rules for airspace to avoid a “patch work of laws” that would make the skies unnavigable. Denying that is either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Now if some one is flying outside your window 20 feet above the ground “looking” in, than that is obviously a different issue. But if someone flies through the air over your property at 100 feet, then there are no laws violated. There is no trespassing above ground.
You may not like it, but that doesn’t mean YOU get to ignore the law.
@@BigAlMerrill Different reality, different facts.
You can fly "over" his house all day long. The issue only comes if you are accused of surveillance. But if you want to do laps around your neighborhood which includes flying over his house, you aren't breaking the law.
Russ, thank you for this video. You channel is always informative!
You know, an "accidental" mid-air with an under-250 gram r/c aircraft could be a way to deal with an operator who is behaving badly with his drone over your property...
Excellent post. One thing I'd like to see is just how bad is the fine or possible jail time for shooting an unmanned aircraft/drone while flying? There's the obvious destruction of property, and often times unlawful discharge of a firearm or something like that. Wreckless endangerment. It's worse in s residential neighborhood or near a piece of property designated as a bird sanctuary. That would make for a good general video, although you can't cover everything the local laws may cover.
I think several things typical people do not understand is just because a drone is hovering over a property for a few seconds to a minute or two doesn't mean the camera is trained on the property or person. Many times, the pilot is simply looking at the image or information on the remote trying to figure out where they are how and where to go next to line up for a better shot. Sometimes you need to adjust for sunlight. Sometimes you need to adjust altitude and perspective of the object being photographed or recorded. And unless someone has a higher end drone, the camera on these is a 1x 12 MP camera, the same as what has been on cell phones for many years. If people would take a 12 MP photo of something 100 feet away, they would see the resolution of any fine detail is already grainy at 100 ft.
My iPhone 15 Pro Max has 1x, 2x, and 5x optical magnification, but nobody ever thinks twice about someone snapping a photo from 30 feet away that includes them while people are in public, even wearing a skimpy bathing suit. But people get anxious over a drone flying anywhere near their property while at 100-150 ft. or higher. The quality of the CMOS sensor may be higher on a drone (larger sensor for better light and dynamic range), but 12 MP is still 12 MP. Even using Quad-Byer (SP?) technology for a 48 MB image, that still leaves you with a 12 MP image. It's just 4 12MP images overlayed to provide more information to manipulate in photo editing software, but it's still only 12 MP.
The drone may have a higher dynamic range with less washout in brighter areas and less noise in darker areas such as my Mini 3 Pro with dual ISO, but at 100 ft the clarity of a person's face with a 12 MP camera and no optical zoom isn't great. Sure, if I'm flying a high dollar Matrice, the cameras on those are freaking phenomenal with high quality optical zoom, but they are obnoxiously loud compared to my Mavic Pro 1 and Mini 3 Pro. I just took a 12 MP photo of my neighbor's truck in her driveway, and I can see more detail with my naked eye than zooming in on the image. The same photo at 2x is about the same as I can see with my naked eye at 54 YO.
And people don't think twice about Google flying over people's homes taking photos to post on Google Maps, or taking photos of their homes while driving around in their cars getting street view images.
One thing few people realize is these Google cars are also equipment with wifi receivers. They record every wifi name and signal strength as they drive by, so they know almost exactly where everybody's at by wifi name.
Great subject and inviting discussion.
One other thing, well two, law enforcement can get you on is reckless endangerment/behavior and/or public disturbance/breach of peace.
This is from the FAA's guidance to law enforcement.
@@FlyingBuzzard Good news. No one wants drones hovering over their home.
My property is 3-D. And I maintain a clear sky for just as high as my 30-30 will reach. My land is posted, and that's my piece of sky.
Lol. If you can hit a drone with a 30-30, I suggest you enter the Olympics.
@@51Drones Yeah, well, I can still knock a squirrel off the top limbs of a tall oak tree, so you're taking your chances. 😁
Full time real estate photographer here, flying over neighborhoods daily under a 107.
I DO get confronted by people who are sure I must be doing something illegal, typically having something to do with their "privacy." This happens about once every couple months, and 90% of the time it's easily diffused by identifying myself as photographing a home for sale. Rarely do I have to go into the whole FAA 107/Federal Airspace schpiel, but if laws were to change restricting where I could fly, my aerial work would look very different and take a major hit.
The biggest current threat to this profession though is Remote ID. As confrontational as some people are already, the last thing we need to give them is an easier way to find the pilot. That won't end well, and it'll be interesting to see what happens the first time the FAA gets sued by a commercial drone pilot who was assaulted because he was required to broadcast his location. Somebody didn't think that through, and I just hope no one gets killed because of it.
I'm sorry to tell you but if you want to be anonymous, you want to be irresponsible. A regular airplane a regular boat with a,motor have numbers. If you fly your drone and damage property, we need to know who you are. . If you fly over and Chase somebody's horse into a fence, you owe damages.
@@markmcgoveran6811 I think you’re missing the point. People don’t drive to the airport seeking out some tail number, looking to start a fight. When you fly drones commercially though, as I do daily, it happens. If I chased somebody’s horse into a fence, the correct thing for the owner to do would be to notify the authorities, which I have no problem if the authorities know my flight logs. Every day people though…there is zero reason outside of the vehicle of law enforcement for them to be able to locate me in their own.
@@loudandclearmedia I am missing the point of some ego centric person. Happens all the time. The point is the system is not revolving around the ego centric person. It would be handy to fly over with a drone and case a place for a burglary. If
no one can know your name. If your name comes on the drone, the police might have questions. Here's a point, it's not the point. You are not the only one with rights in the world. I'm not missing the point I'm understanding more than one point. Try understanding different peoples rights, when you use public roads and public airspace.
@@markmcgoveran6811and drone under 250 grams doesn't have to have remote ID or any registration at all.
@@mattalford3932 makes it hard to claim?
I would prefer limiting how close drones can be to homes. Just like how close airplanes have limits.
Thank you Russ. This was a big question as a new drone owner, it clarified several things. Your video are very well done and informative.
Your local areas voting on drone laws would be a nightmare. It would be a patchwork quilt of different rules everywhere with no one knowing all the rules in all the places; leaving something like air travel up to local authorities is a horrible idea. Also the idea of certain places not allowing for take off or landing is silly for public places; aside from critical infrastructure or private property which you should have permission for, I think federal or state or even city areas that are for the public including sidewalks should be completely legal. Otherwise all the complaints can easily be removed by the fact that you can’t fly bvlos anyway and thus are restricted more than other aircraft anyway. Great video Russ, I’ve had a lot of Reddit comments I’ve been clearing up about this over the past week.
Yep
The video might have provided an expanded definition of Transit as you first said "aircraft is allowed to "transit" through the easement." When I hear the word transit, it does not seem to indicate hover or fly over to survey the details of a property, etc.
Think of "hovering" like stopping at a stoplight on a highway in a car, pulling over to the side of the road to answer a phone call from your wife or boss. There is nothing illegal about that provided you aren't interfering with traffic and you are obeying traffic laws, etc.
I’m a ham radio operator and we can put up a tower up to 200 feet. If any part of the tower goes over 200 feet you must have permission from the f.a.a. And the tower needs to be painted red and white and have lights on it. Just thought that would be interesting to some.
Just so you know, we have 2 airports in our immediate area, the FBI arrested my neighbor for flying a drone in our neighborhood, reason, the 2 airports fly military aircraft in and out and you can NOT fly a drone in restricted airspace. He asked if he would get his drone back, they told him that would be up to the judge.
The app B4uFly shows you exactly where you are located and if that area ok to fly in. Near airports can have restriction that are easy know with the app. The app is free.
Great information. Thanks! You reaffirmed some points I’ve read about and brought some really valuable details I didn’t know. Love your channel.
Why don’t people go after google for the satellite view?🤔
Amen !!! Government overreach.
Angle, exposure, time of day, lighting, resolution, foliage cover, foliage color, and many more reasons. Why don't you stand a mile away and use a telephoto lens to take pictures of your family at random times of the day?
@@JohnK3ZX what? I mean the people crying about drones over their property. They don't cry about Google.
@@VintageSpeedwerks Exactly!!!
this is the most anti-intellectual comment ive read all day
Interesting videos, thank you for them. You state that drones are considered aircraft. There are FARs that state minimum altitudes for aircraft. 14 CFR 91.119 states:
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
So my question is: IF a drone IS an AIRCRAFT, should paragraph (b) apply which mean flying 1000 above the highest obstacle with 2000 horizontal? And IAW (c) never within 500 of any person, vessel, or structure?
There are rules for flying recreational UAS. When you register with the FAA, you must first pass a test to certify your knowledge of these rules. I imagine the rules for commercial flying are different, but I also suspect that commercial flyers are not the biggest source of problems.
Excellent Topic! So very important to a lot of people. I have found that if you can talk to people about what you're doing it really helps. I live out in the country and when a neighbor who was a little agitated with me flying around while he was deer hunting found out I can locate a deer for him that he can't find and offered to do it for free he warmed up a bit. When I told him I can find and film poachers and trespassers, a true friendship was formed. Some people make everything all about themselves and their rights. Be a good ambassador to your community. Show people the good of what you're doing, offer to help try to find a lost pet. If you fly over someone's house, make sure you're wide open on the throttle, DO NOT HOVER OVER SOMEONES PERSONAL SPACE! Simply be a good person, there's a shortage of that in general.
Russ, I have to have one of those hoodies!!! I keep telling myself that lie way too often!!!
Poor deer... LOL
One of my first flights was over my neighborhood about 300 feet up, I hit the trigger on my DJI mini pro 3 which moves the camera straight down for a birds eye view perspective and it immediately made me feel dirty being able to see into backyards so I switched back to normal perspective. I understand I had a legal right to do so but for me and I hope many of you practice this mentality but for the love of god don't do something you wouldn't want others to do to you even if you are within your legal right.
I certainly hope as you are driving your car around town that you keep your eyes straight forward at all times so you don't catch a glimpse of someone in their yard etc.
@@billycarr7446 thats a terrible comparison lol
It's called respect. Don't fly over people's property
This. I'm always amazed at how many fellow drone operators don't understand this.
I really appreciate videos like this. The laws seem to be changing all the time, many times for the better, but it's difficult to keep up with. Thanks.
The shorter summary is, only the FAA can regulate the airspace. Local governments can only regulate where you can land and take off. That's the complicated part.
very informative!! Thanks for always keeping us informed.
Drone owner here. Why do so many drone operators insist on their 'right' to fly at any altitude over others property? I think 83' is reasonable and proper. And don't linger! Before shooting that beautiful sunset look down first. Find an open space. If you are looking for a cool foreground for your sunset shoot and need to get lower than 83' just choose your environment carefully. It's the low, hovering drones that get all the bad press.
Yup exactly.
Very interesting. From the Causby case, it would seem that if your neighbor was constantly flying over your backyard pool, such that your friends felt uncomfortable using your pool, that whether or not he was actively spying on you may not matter, as he's denying you the value of your property.
Good video. I found in my experience that courtesy goes a long way when flying over private property. I keep a minimum altitude of about 150-200 ft and try to stay clear of people who may be in their yard or whatever. No one has shot me down yet.
That is respectful I have had them fly past my second story window I live 40 miles from town and on the center of 30 acres people want to get a look at my land they are not traveling as there are public roads around my land in all directions
Give it time!
@@ElizabethMBoyd that operator is an absolute clown. I wouldn't fault you for shooting it down in that circumstance.
@@garyjohnson8026 YUP, I'm wondering how long it's going to be , before average people can afford secret drones that have the ability to see through walls,
I'm sure the NSA and CIA have such devices already, and play dumb if ever asked on the subject,
If a drone is flying a-b and my property is on that flight path and the drone maintains speed and altitude while traversing my prop then fine. However if said drone suddenly stops overhead drops down to near ground level and starts specifically looking into my pole barn home or garage then it becomes an intelligence gathering device for possible criminal activity. At that point it is going to suffer a catastrophic failure
That makes sense. If you have a navigable water way on your property a boat can pass through but cannot touch the bottom of waterway without trespassing.
If someone flies a drone around my property at 5 or 6 feet off the ground, it's pretty certain to have an "accident".
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 you a funny little boy!
I fly drones regularly and I actually wouldn't blame someone if my drone got shot down. If you can even shoot down my drone, I'm clearly not flying in a proper way away from people and not loitering over their property.
Another topic that would be interesting is what are the ramifications of your drone crashing into someone else's property ? Can they legally confiscate it ? Can they legally view the contents of the SD card ? Can they sue ? . Probably a host of other questions to be answered on this topic .
I saw a video from Mr. Heron that reviewed a situation where a young man crashed his drone inside an empty amusement park. He tried to ask the caretakers permission to retrieve, or them retreive, and they took it and refused. He had to remind them it was the same as stealing. It's not their property so they have to give it back.
@@joekralik717 But how does anyone know that the footage recorded on your property isn't being used as a type of surveillance for who knows what? (future theft plans of property, future hiding spots to store illegal material, there could be all kinds of reasons a person might have to film your private property, isn't it reasonable to
protect your property from being filmed ?)
Even if the law is on your side, consider the noise level of your drone. A DJI mini will have less noise at a given distance than the larger drones. Still, no matter which drone you fly, maybe it's best to put it high enough so that the noise isn't that strong. A weak buzz might be ignored, but a loud blast is likely to cause problems. Depending on the background noise of an area will decide how low you can go. If it's by a busy highway, the traffic noise will drown out your drone noise, but in a very quiet neighborhood, every bit of foreign noise may be noticed.
Doesn't matter about noise or anything else. You have no business flying over private property. NONE. Fly where it is OK and the land owner has the say. Generally 400 Feet minimum is accepted. Note, Fly where it is OK not where you want. Look a wave guide and small jammer and you will return home or fly away. private property as the name implies means Private. Reasonable elevation is doable. Any elevation granted by anyone or Government Agency is not Constitutional and is certainly limited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Property Rights is fundamental and any notion of exclusion of rights is a choice given by the property owner. An easement can only be granted if Constitutional and certainly not retro in nature. Black and any Law or De-facto law doesn't just vanquish the inherent right of the property owner. NOT SURPRISED IN THESE SLIP N FALL LAWYER TIMES AND SOCIALIST DOGMA MANURE THAT SOME SEEK A RIGHT THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT GRANTED NOR ENTITLED TOO.
@@TelecasterRon Did you watch the video? Please watch it, because it addresses many of your comments.
Also, 400 feet above the ground is right at the FAA limit for drones; to fly any higher would be in violation of the FAA rules.
@@BobDiaz123 I know the limit. That is why I used it. That is my point. That fact is my point.. But even that is an arbitrary number.. This guy is a drone pilot and his ignorance of Property Rights is obvious and biased. This is exactly why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect Individual Rights. And you have no right to operate on or in someone else's property. Fly over public land or your own property. I was probably flying drones years ago before most. Even worked on fixed stator motors and stepper designs. Do you think the public will sit still for you or Amazon to operate over their property. It will be before the Supreme Court and if the court is Constitutional you will loose. Fly over your own property or get permission..Posted No Hunting, Trespassing or Drone Flights Allowed. The watering down of rights by those that don't like the Constitution or Bill of Rights are the dreams of fools.
@@TelecasterRon IF your position was correct, that you own the sky above your property, then the people who live in Inglewood, CA, directly above the flight path of LAX and everyone else on the flight path to/from any airport could sue for trespassing on their land as aircraft land and take off.
@@TelecasterRon I think you came to the wrong place for this stance. Drones tell you if the air space is restricted and some places you aren’t allowed to take off. But I can assure you- drones are going to continue to be flown over private property. But for no gain or upside. Just as a means from getting from point A to point B.