This should be interesting.
??On Dec. 10, an anti-harassment order was filed against a Tarboo Ridge Coalition board member, who we have information is responsible for sending drones onto our property,? Overstreet said. ??On Dec. 17, another case was filed, this one against the Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC) for the tort of aerial trespass.
??There is no case in the state of Washington on aerial trespass,? Overstreet said, adding that ??this case will make new law.?
I wonder how using a drone to capture aerial images (lines of possession) for a boundary retracement would be treated? If a Land Surveyor is operating the drone and using the data to determine possession lines would the use of a drone be exempt from aerial trespass?
?ÿ
N10,000, E7,000, Z100.00
PLS - IL, MO, AR, KS, MN, KY
Found the sites facebook page.
Got a post about a bird of prey taking down drones.
While certainly there is a right to privacy there is no restriction or law against flying in the airspace above someones property.?ÿ This will be an interesting case to watch.
The comment thread is interesting.
The FAA regulates airspace which is in the public domain but how far down does airspace go?
The property owned by Fort Discovery Corp. near Lake Tarboo is completely surrounded by property owned by Pope Resources.?ÿ
From the Pope Resources web site:
NO DRONE ZONE - Thursday, February 22, 2018
Our timberlands are a "no drone zone" in order to prevent collisions with private planes and helicopters used in the management of our timberlands, to protect human health and safety, to reduce the risk of wildfires, and to prevent damage to trees, towers and other property. The use of drones or other unmanned aircraft systems ("UASs") on or above any portion of our timberlands is strictly prohibited without express written authorization given by one of our tree farm managers. In addition, it is illegal to fly a UAS in or around a wildfire firefighting operation.
NO TARGET SHOOTING - Tuesday, August 08, 2017
No target shooting is allowed on any Olympic Resource Management property.
That said, I note what appears to be a power transmission line near the western boundary?ÿ
?ÿ
I did not know that I could make up a reason to have a "no drone zone" around my house.?ÿ
On the matter of airspace trespass I went to Jeff Lucas seminar a couple years ago and he said with the part 107 you don't own the "air above the blades of grass on your lawn". ?ÿThat quote has stuck with me. He also called it a huge land grab by the government that had gone largely unnoticed.?ÿ
The privacy laws are another matter.?ÿ
There was a lawsuit years ago between a Telecommunications company and a Power Plant. Walt Robillard was involved and discussed it at a seminar roughly 20 years ago. The power company built a cooling tower high enough that it blocked a microwave link of the phone company.
The final judgement was that power company owned the the ground and the airspace above the ground as high as they could control it. That is from memory and long before drones. I haven't been able to find anything on it since.
The discussion at the time seemed to agree that if you had a 20 foot tree, you owned 20 foot of air space, 80 foot tree = 80 foot of air space.
The FAA has control over 'navigable' airspace. Think commerce clause
. Unlike waters there is little guidance in law to develop a practical definition. Despite the willingness of hucksters to make absolute declarations, the courts have given no such guidance at the appellate level.
What people really need to be researching right now is state statutes and local ordinances. That is where the action is today. Some see it as a grab of my rights, others as salvation from 'them', whoever them is..
As Surveyors we should also understand the difference between ownership and regulatory authority. Not the ssme thing. The policies being set now will impact us. We need to take part in the process, and that starts with gaining an understanding of where we are now.
We here in California have pretty explict laws on a land surveyors rights and responsibilities concerning encroachment. I always advise for surveyors to leave the CLS associations'?ÿ brochure of information at the property in question.?ÿ?ÿ
California law allows for surveyors to legally enter unto private property for surveying purposes.?ÿ At times we get asked about the drone flights and simply offer the person asking to review the data from the drone before we leave the site.?ÿ They never can zoom in close enough to see small detail, however when I post process in the office I can see survey markings down to under a inch.
In southern California, you will also come across alot of small marijuana farms, which in certain conditions is totally legal now.?ÿ If it doesn't harm anyone I don't report it since I only came across the plants as a result of my survey work.?ÿ I treat most situations in a similar fashion.
I have been waiting to see how airspace laws will ultimately be litigated from the more frequent use of drones. Im?ÿnot aware of many cases that have been taken all the way through the court system to set a precedent but I am aware of this older precedent case decided by SCOTUS in 1946.?ÿ Many who have gotten into airspace may be aware of this case.?ÿ ?ÿ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby
If through case law or legislation, some comparable principle is found or created to that of navigable waters, that can quickly lead to both regulatory and sovereign overreach.
The idea underlying navigable waters is the Public Trust Doctrine which states that the sovereign owns the land under navigable waterways.?ÿ A couple of years ago, a CA court extended that idea to ownership of the waters themselves, including those waters existing in underground aquifers.?ÿ If airspace is linked to that principle, there are agencies acting in both regulatory and sovereign holdings management roles which are likely to try to push that Public Trust aspect as far as they can.
That could well mean that yet another agency or agencies will insert themselves into the approvals for proposed structures, maintenance of existing structures, and possibly even the height to which trees are allowed to grow on certain private properties under the guise that such things might impede the public's ability to use sovereign airspace.
Might sound like paranoid ramblings, but working for an agency charged with managing a state's sovereign lands, I don't think it's nearly as crazy as it likely sounds to someone who hasn't paid attention to related issues - or someone trying to view matters like this purely from a perspective rooted in common sense.
It goes down to the ground (or just above it) according to the FAA.
Airports now control the air space around them.
There's a big controversy going on at Kitsap Naval Base...
https://www.kitsapgov.com/BOC_p/Pages/Drone-UAS-Regs.aspx
UK revised the rules following the incident at London a few months ago, so all airports and approaches now have a clearly defined no-fly zone. However, this doesn't ban UAV flights; just that they have to be agreed in advance with the relevant authority. This week there are two notices out for somebody flying within the London Gatwick airspace. Last week we flew on the edge of a nuclear power station exclusion zone - all very straightforward: explained what we were surveying and when we wanted to fly; agreed a time slot, reported when airborne and again when landed.
Authorities are far more worried about the unknowns: in our experience keeping them informed makes their day.
Thanks for that link, Jered!