"bush flying" in the suburbs?

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

I think the law is that anything below 500 is the airspace of the
private
property owner

Property owners have no right of ownership of any sort with respect
to the
airspace above their property.

Yes they do. A property owner has rights to airspace for any
reasonable use thereof under common law, where FAA's 500' reference
may be irrelevant. One example is erection of an antenna tower on
your property. FAA rules under Part 77 on obstructions apply only to
a potential obstruction to public-use airports and to otherwise
navigational airspace -- at least 500' for the latter, but not to
private strips at all. So if such a tower under 500' AGL poses a
hazard to aircraft for an adjoining private airfield, the rights of
the antenna owner's property may just be superior under common law.
Of course, to be decided in a court of common pleas, or by Judge Judy,
or at minimum a rather good "arguendo" exercise under individual State
law as to "neighbor law" in a law school class!

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
Yes they do.

No, they don't.

[...] So if such a tower under 500' AGL poses a
hazard to aircraft for an adjoining private airfield, the rights of
the antenna owner's property may just be superior under common law.

That in no way alters the right of any aircraft to pass through that
airspace freely. The property owner does not "own" the airspace, and has no
privilege to prohibit other people from using it where it is not already
being occupied by something else, as suggested by the person to whom I was
replying.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
[...] So if such a tower under 500' AGL poses a
hazard to aircraft for an adjoining private airfield, the rights
of
the antenna owner's property may just be superior under common
law.

That in no way alters the right of any aircraft to pass through that
airspace freely. The property owner does not "own" the airspace,
and has no
privilege to prohibit other people from using it where it is not
already
being occupied by something else, as suggested by the person to whom
I was
replying.


It's not really a matter of "ownership," but rather whether use of
airspace down low over other people's property denies them their right
of enjoyment and freedom from hazards. Here's 3 samples of decisions
in various states, concerning private airstrips:

"The court emphasized that in this case the airport was private, not
public, and ruled that "there is nothing to distinguish a private
airport from any other private business with regard to enjoining
operations which create a nuisance."

"The trial court issued an injunction against use of the airstrip, and
the appellate court held the injunction appropriate on the grounds
that use of the airstrip, even without actual invasion of the
utility's land, constituted a nuisance to the utility's transmission
lines." [Note the utility put up the transmission lines; then sued the
adjacent private airport owner!]

"Neighboring property owners sued owners of a private airport for
damages due to aircraft noise. Held: An airport operating in
conformance with state and federal law may nevertheless constitute a
nuisance, and the Federal Aviation Act does not preempt damages for
unreasonable noise from an airport....In addition, plaintiffs may
recover for inconvenience, annoyance, and discomfort caused by
nuisance as long as the interference with use and enjoyment of their
property is unreasonable and substantial."

Fred F.