“FAA Regulation is Silent on the Issue of Low-Altitude Flight Over Private Property”

I will refer to USA vs Causby 1946

https://hackernoon.com/navigable-airspace-for-drones-private-property-rights-and-regulated-airspace-12d18c34fb1c

Essentially the US Supreme Court stayed that a land owner controls the air over his property. The upper limit is a bit hazy but for the purposes of my question will be no higher than the tree tops over my land.

I find the  necessity  of calling a heliport every time  I want to test out filters, firmware, etc on my porch as a bit of overreach.  How do you folks feel about this?

Hello and good day Vlas. Thank you for sharing this informative link with us today regarding the Navigable Airspace for Drones: Private Property Rights and Regulated Airspace. I hope that you will get the best response to all our DJI members and customers on there inputs about the said regulations. Thank you.

I'm just within 5 miles of a major airport.  While I imagine they expect a call every time, no matter what, my own personal rule is if I stay below the tallest tree (I think about 45-50 feet AGL) I feel like I have a reasonable case to not call - as I'm in my own "personal" air space.  If I'm interfering with aircraft at 45 feet AGL, 4.9 miles from an airport, the aircraft has bigger issues than my drone (like my tree).  That seems to be 1) Safe and 2) gives me enough height if I'm really just testing filters and firmware and such.

JEZ2 Posted at 3-18 13:02
I'm just within 5 miles of a major airport.  While I imagine they expect a call every time, no matter what, my own personal rule is if I stay below the tallest tree (I think about 45-50 feet AGL) I feel like I have a reasonable case to not call - as I'm in my own "personal" air space.  If I'm interfering with aircraft at 45 feet AGL, 4.9 miles from an airport, the aircraft has bigger issues than my drone (like my tree).  That seems to be 1) Safe and 2) gives me enough height if I'm really just testing filters and firmware and such.

This seems reasonable as well as fully legal in my opinion. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Tough call. Depends I guess on what the airspace floor is. If it is within 5 NM of Class B, C, or even D, you are looking at SFC floor for the airspace, which technically would require notification. But that 1942 case does state "85 ft" for that personal airspace, though I don't know applicable it is to us considering it was concerning low flying military craft over scared chickens.

I am assuming you are not on an approach/departure path though seeing as the geo-fencing didn't prevent take off?

Over all though, are you safe at or below the treetops? Yep. Are you technically legal? I would look that up just to make sure.

JPilotR Posted at 3-18 14:15
Tough call. Depends I guess on what the airspace floor is. If it is within 5 NM of Class B, C, or even D, you are looking at SFC floor for the airspace, which technically would require notification. But that 1942 case does state "85 ft" for that personal airspace, though I don't know applicable it is to us considering it was concerning low flying military craft over scared chickens.

I am assuming you are not on an approach/departure path though seeing as the geo-fencing didn't prevent take off?

Thank you for the reply. No, My property is not on an approach nor departure vector. There seems to be no case that has tested the FAAs ability to regulate airspace over property in regards to the Causby case.

The Case has been intreptreted that an invasion of airspace over one property is no different than unauthorized ground based trespass.  In short the control of the air is the property owners.

It’s dreadful that 336 went away.