Originally Posted by
mr_rodge
I remember having a discussion with a lecturer at university once, I think the subject was some aspect of building surveying, the particular topic was freehold land. We were taught (and this's as close as I can remember to his words) 'The freeholder of any land owns the land and 500ft of airspace above it, which is why aircraft aren't allowed below 500ft.'
I then repeated my recently memorised version of rule 5, particularly the part about person, vessel, vehicle or structure and pointed out that I had recently been taught that the 'within' wording meant I could fly within 10ft of the land if it had nothing but grass within 500ft slant of the aircraft. I was subsequently faced with a barrage of 'the CAA is wrong'.
Totally irrelevant to the thread but thought I'd share that little experience...
Your lecturer was wrong on just about every count you'll be glad to know.
Under most countries laws a landowner owns the earth down in a cone to its centre below his land (including, for example mineral rights), and owns the space above it in an expanding cone to the far edge of the universe.
HOWEVER, to ask every landowner's permission to commit aviation is clearly impractical, so between around 1920 and 1950 most countries passed laws permitting free passage of aeroplanes. Most countries also passed something akin to rule 5, which was designed to minimise nuisance or risk to people below. It's nothing to do with ownership.
Again, all the countries with enough clout to matter have vested the various earth orbits in the United Nations to prise apart and co-ordinate. However, technically if a satellite passes over your back garden, it's passing through your property - you just can't do anything about it.
G