[theideaofcoffee]

I hesitate to engage with this comment, but this 'method' is the same that was used by the hunters with the ladder. The sticking point is that, sure, they're not stepping foot in the corner-adjacent lots, but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter.

Consider a property line not just a line on the ground, but an invisible wall extending from that line on the ground up toward the sky. That's the issue here, is that the hunters are disturbing the 'air rights' of the adjacent properties by crossing that invisible wall, and not just by stepping physically onto the property. Using a helicopter wouldn't be much of a loophole if the air rights are concerned, I think.

Edit: after comments, yes, duh, it doesn’t extend infinitely and there’s the aspect of reasonable use, c’mon, why do people need their hand held through everything. Flying a helicopter over another property at 100’ is different than 2000’. Talk to the FAA.

[brookst]

This is incorrect. Imagine the impact on Starlink of property rights extended infinitely.

In the US there is not a specific limit, but the principle is “your airspace rights extend as far as could reasonably be used in connection with the property.”[0]

It also depends on frequency of overflight. A small plane landing at a nearby rural airport once a week is treated differently than swarms of drones flying at the same altitude all day every day.

So maybe a few hundred feet, maaaaybe 5000 feet if your property is a helipad. But not infinite.

[0] https://aviation.uslegal.com/ownership-of-airspace-over-prop...

[empyrrhicist]

That's not correct in the slightest - landowners do not control the airspace above their property. That's why municipalities can't ban the use of drones, just their launching and control from their territory.

Even the national park service, which tries to restrict aircraft as much as possible, can only regulate in this way (and to prevent harassing wildlife).

I have a commercial drone license.

[googlryas]

Landowners generally control the air above their land to some certain limit, which is why you can fly your drone at 2000' elevation over their land but not necessarily 10' elevation over their land.

[jcrawfordor]

The situation is a bit confusing but the general idea is that altitude doesn't matter, regulatory context does. The FAA holds the exclusive right to regulate civil aviation and so property owners are not able to restrict any aviation activity unless the FAA permits it. There are aviation regulations that generally prohibit operation of aircraft within 500' or 1000' feet of the ground (depending on unpopulated or populated area) except when on the way from or to it, but there are plenty of nuances to that rule (most notably that it's all completely different for sUAS) and it's nothing to do with property ownership but rather aviation and public safety.

In other words, property owners are generally viewed as owning the airspace all the way up from their land, but that ownership does not confer any rights to restrict aviation, which is all done according to a separate body of federal regulations that has very little interest in land ownership. This is a similar situation to mineral rights, where land ownership matters more but there is still a separate system of regulations and deeds that operates largely independently from property title (which is why it's common in rural areas to buy land where the mineral rights are held by someone else).

Notably, though, this is all about flying - ground operations are different and you must have permission of the property owner for ground operations (except in emergencies when the regulations are generally tossed out the window for better glide). So property owners can restrict takeoff and landing, and (I think this is a little bit fuzzier legally but still generally agreed) remote operation of aircraft from their land.

[empyrrhicist]

Incorrect. You can't fly your drone at 2000' AGL in almost any circumstances, anywhere, ever. Elevation is also the wrong term. Drones are capped in the US at 400 feet above ground level, with exceptions for part 107 pilots within 400 feet of a structure or terrain feature, and specific situational waivers.

There is no specific rule against flying even 1 foot above ground over someone else's property, though it's very unlikely that doing so would not violate other rules unrelated to airspace. These include operating a drone unsafely, violating laws against harassment, and photography in a context where someone would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[bananapear]

> but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter.

Surely there is some altitude at which that doesn't apply? Otherwise there'd be problems with commercial jets too?

[empyrrhicist]

Not sure about ladders, but the post you're replying to is spouting complete nonsense wrt aircraft.

[sokoloff]

The FAA has defined “navigable airspace” here: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pham_htm...

That cites another FAR, 91.119: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119 which lays out the general rules for fixed wing traffic and some exceptions for helicopters.

Over most unpopulated areas, it’s 500’ from surface, structures, vehicles, or people, unless lower is needed for takeoff and landing.

[rcarr]

Fly over the private land at 500’ until you reach public land, descend the helicopter, have a party on the public land and stick two fingers up at the arseholes trying to claim it for themselves by buying up the surrounding land and denying road access. Make sure you have a nice ex-military security team with you in case the arseholes decide to get pushy. Thank you for flying with FU Airlines.

[filleokus]

I guess there must be some upper limit, otherwise normal commercial air traffic at 10k meter / 30k feet would be in serious trouble.

As long as the public land is large enough that you can land the helicopter far enough away from the private property to not expose yourself to other problems (some kind of noise limit maybe?), it seems like it should be doable right?

Fly over the property at 3000 feet and land on public land.

[loeg]

Much lower than that -- aircraft ascending from or descending into airports cross tons of private property lines.

[djbebs]

As they should be.