Reuters article. Is this something brand new?
White House seeks expanded powers to detect, destroy threatening drones

https://www.reuters.com/world/us ... -drones-2022-04-25/

What could possibly go wrong...

On April 21st, due to notification failure by FAA, Army's Golden Knights airplane was mistaken for possible hostile, and resulted in evacuation of Capitol.

meh.  If you want to control and regulate airspace that is any governments right.  I'm good with whatever they want to do.  mostly.

TonyPHX Posted at 4-26 07:27
meh.  If you want to control and regulate airspace that is any governments right.  I'm good with whatever they want to do.  mostly.

I don't see it as a government's Right.  Nor am I good with it.  To open to governmental abuse.

I see control of airspace being something granted, within reason, to a government agency for good of people.  Problem is, FAA thinks it controls airspace from ground up over private property.  Whereas, a reasonable starting limit would be 400-feet over private property.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 4-26 07:49
I don't see it as a government's Right.  Nor am I good with it.  To open to governmental abuse.

I see control of airspace being something granted, within reason, to a government agency for good of people.  Problem is, FAA thinks it controls airspace from ground up over private property.  Whereas, a reasonable starting limit would be 400-feet over private property.

It does control from the ground up...

Just because you own the property, doesn't give you air-rights... or mineral/water rights.

DroneBeast Posted at 4-26 10:17
Indeed. In the US, the most famous case of this kind comes from 1945 when a chicken farmer named Thomas Lee Causby sued the US government for flying approximately 83 feet above his property, the noise of which caused a bunch of Causby’s chickens to accidentally kill themselves by running into walls. Causby won his case and the courts agreed that although a property owner wasn’t entitled to own all of the air above their land, they were entitled to enough so that planes flying overhead wouldn’t kill their chickens.

In  the UK (Civil Aviation Act of 1982) the generally accepted amount of air above one’s roof a person is entitled to is approximately 500-1,000 feet, though again this isn’t a hard definition.  Likewise, the United States has a similar estimation of about 500 feet, though this had never been officially ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Would you happen to know where in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 it outlines "the generally accepted amount of air above one’s roof a person is entitled to is approximately 500-1,000 feet" etc.?

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 4-26 07:49
I don't see it as a government's Right.  Nor am I good with it.  To open to governmental abuse.

I see control of airspace being something granted, within reason, to a government agency for good of people.  Problem is, FAA thinks it controls airspace from ground up over private property.  Whereas, a reasonable starting limit would be 400-feet over private property.

seriously?  I don't think you are considering the benefit here.  If the FAA doesn't control from zero, then every single community would make their own laws.... jeez.

TonyPHX Posted at 4-26 20:35
seriously?  I don't think you are considering the benefit here.  If the FAA doesn't control from zero, then every single community would make their own laws.... jeez.

He's also not considering the repercussions of each landowner governing the airspace above their property.

For example, if I governed the airspace above my property, I could potentially stop Lifeflight (helicopter ambulance) from having a direct path to the local hospital from the north. I could also have every crop duster or recreational pilot in the area arrested for flying over my property while on approach to the local airport.

Thanks for sharing.

Interesting read.  You could argue that this will be good or bad.  

blue_canyon21 Posted at 4-26 20:51
He's also not considering the repercussions of each landowner governing the airspace above their property.

For example, if I governed the airspace above my property, I could potentially stop Lifeflight (helicopter ambulance) from having a direct path to the local hospital from the north. I could also have every crop duster or recreational pilot in the area arrested for flying over my property while on approach to the local airport.

Yeah, that comment was so mind numbing I'm just not coming back to this thread....

TonyPHX Posted at 4-26 20:35
seriously?  I don't think you are considering the benefit here.  If the FAA doesn't control from zero, then every single community would make their own laws.... jeez.

Could you please explain how you make jump from FAA having to control from zero (ground level), instead of say 200-feet or 400-feet above ground level; to every single community making their own laws?

For what it is worth, some communities in U.S. are already making their own laws in regards to minimum drone height over private property.   The community laws are coming about because people value their privacy, their private property, and drone pilots having been flying over private property at low-levels and violating people's privacy on private property.   Thank inconsiderate pilots, perverts, and Paparazzi.

blue_canyon21 Posted at 4-26 20:51
He's also not considering the repercussions of each landowner governing the airspace above their property.

For example, if I governed the airspace above my property, I could potentially stop Lifeflight (helicopter ambulance) from having a direct path to the local hospital from the north. I could also have every crop duster or recreational pilot in the area arrested for flying over my property while on approach to the local airport.

You have taken it to the extreme.  Completely ignoring what I suggested as a reasonable minium limit of 400-feet over private property.

One, legal argument made about space (air) above a person's property goes back to 1587: Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.  Essential from Heaven to H.


For your enlightment: "Today, air rights extend to the airspace above the surface that could reasonably be used in connection with the land.  Airplanes soaring above your property are not trespassing because they  are flying in what Congress has declared as the public highway."

Planes are not supposed be soaring (flying) below 500-feet, unless landing or taking off: "the government considers the public highway to start around 500 feet in  uncongested areas, and 1000 feet otherwise. Flight over private land  cannot interfere with the enjoyment and use of the land."

FAA is limited to controling "navigable airspace" (public air highway): In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to regulate all "navigable airspace", exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. The prevailing understanding is that a property owner can claim airspace that they are actually using (e.g., the trees and building structures on your property that occupy “your” airspace), but all other airspace is regulated by the FAA.


Reasonable view of "navigable airspace" would be height above ground which an airplane could soar (fly) on public air highway - without risk to plane or pilot, or private property, people, or livestock.   What height in feet above ground would you consider  "navigable airspace" or congress's entent of FAA controling public highway?