Private Airspace ??

[GREML1N]

Can anybody settle an argument ??
How much Airspace do I actually own above my property or land ?
Can anybody fly through it without my permission ?

[ATSA_Grunt]

Dont think u own any of it, but an aircraft can only fly so low.... 500ft?? (I think)?? Taking into account airspace etc...Guys, am I wrong??

[mdcsplatter]

You don't own the air above your house any more than I own the air I breathe. And I, like you I'm sure, have to pay council tax for the privilege regardless. Happy respiring!

[Jerricho]

When you take into consideration low flying rule and all them other wonderful things in the ANO.............

[foghorn]

Firstly I'm not a lawyer so this is to best of my knowledge, I stand by to be corrected by learned ones.

Originally Posted by GREML1N

How much Airspace do I actually own above my property or land ?

None of it. You own the land, not the air.

Can anybody fly through it without my permission ?

Yes. There are other legal considerations that some of the people flying through it have to follow, in particular the ANO, but you have no control over that.

[None of the above]

I can't give you any references, links etc., but IIRC, you 'own' such airspace above your property as you can reasonably make use of.

Something of 'Man on the Clapham omnibus' approach, but none the worse for that.

E & OE!

[rab-k]

I believe it is the 'State' who 'owns' such airspace, from surface up to 55 or 60,000ft, depending upon the upper limit of the FIR. It is classed as 'Sovereign Airspace', but a lawyer would be better explaining such legal niceties.

Should a structure or object overhang land over which you have legal title then that would indeed infringe your property, but needless to say that object would have to be on the surface/attached to an object on adjacent land.

Aircraft, not being attached to the surface, would not constitute and infringement of your property despite passing directly above it. However, should an aircraft fly within 500' of a vessel, vehicle, person or structure on your property then you can complain via the CAA.

In short, anyone can fly through the airspace directly above your property, so long as it is not within the magic 500'. (The 500' rule does not apply only to flying 'above' a vessel, vehicle, structure or person, it applies to within 500' from any angle).

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%2...il%202005a.pdf

[Standard Noise]

Originally Posted by foghorn

You own the land, not the air.

I was reading over the weekend that even with 'freehold' properties, the land ultimately belongs to the Sovereign, which one of the reasons why Compulsory Purchase Orders can be made on one's land.
Never knew that before, buggered if she's getting my hovel!!! .

[vintage ATCO]

Funnily enough I was at a meeting last night where we discussed this. You 'own' none of it. Someone said he thought it was called the 1922 Churchill Compromise (because Churchill was on this particular committee) and the original idea of Rule 5 was not Low Flying as such but to ensure people could fly where they wanted, with a few exceptions. Over the years more has been added to Rule 5 and it has become the 'Low Flying Rule'.

I have no idea if this is correct. I cannot find anything on the 'net with a search. Be interested if anyone knows more.

[None of the above]

This won't cut and paste (document appears protected) but this ref seems to point us in the right direction:

Quote:

'Airspace': "to the heavens" or the right to airspace has been curtailed so that an ordinary owner's rights now extend only to a height as is necessary for the ordinary use of the land and the structures thereon - Bernstein v. Skyviews (1978). In the case, Baron Bernstein could not prevent aerial photographs being taken of his house by helicopter from a reasonable height above the ground.

Further para follows re the right (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) to sue for trespass or nuisance by overflying aircraft.

http://www.ilex-tutorial.ac.uk/uploads/44C5F501_8D.pdf

[Pierre Argh]

The 500' Rule also, IIRC, applies to objects (vessels, vehicles, animals etc) not the land/ground...

In otherwords as long as said low-flying aircraft doesn't come within a 500ft bubble around your house, potting shed, dog, car etc etc the pilot can fly as low as (s)he likes!

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Pierre Argh

The 500' Rule also, IIRC, applies to objects (vessels, vehicles, animals etc) not the land/ground...
In otherwords as long as said low-flying aircraft doesn't come within a 500ft bubble around your house, potting shed, dog, car etc etc the pilot can fly as low as (s)he likes!

Hhhhmm, sounds like you're talking about what the military refer to as MSD (Minimum Separation Distance). In some areas military aircraft can be authorised to fly down to 150ft MSD.

BD

[tori chelli]

Rule 5 actually says within person, vehicle, vessel or structure...so whether you call it terrain clearance or minimum separation distance, or whatever, within is not the same as over , so over the sea, for instance, you can fly 10ft above the waves as long as you're no closer than 500 ft from the buoy!
Vintage -

I have no idea if this is correct

- surely not You've just shattered my last illusion
Tori

[Conspiracy Theories]

The way i see it is that an aircraft cannot fly less than 500' plus execptions of course from a person, vehicle, stucture, etc. So if you are over the see, then you can go up to 1ft of the waves if you could do that without crashing but lets say that there is a scuba diver you cannot see about 20ft under the water..... Then what.....would you have to fill in a CA939 because of an apparent breach of the ANO?
With regards to the military aircraft, if they are flying OAT, they are not bound by the ANO so i would assume they can fly as low as they want or whatever the JSP552 rules are on low flying.

The only aircraft i think there is that can fly below the 500' rule is the police helicopter pilot operating under the conditions of his licence but all aircraft must be able to alight clear in case of engine failure. This is all deductive reasoning so i may be wrong

[anotherthing]

BDiONU

150 feet??

Try lower... I did fighter evasion sorties in my helo with a 50 foot limit (admitedly over Exmoor),

However the 500' that pierre aargh mentions was still extant... you are supposed to avoid structures, people etc by 500' MSD even if you are authorized to fly below 500' AGL

[tmmorris]

I believe there have been test cases which have established that a fence is not a structure, and that if you are below 500ft AGL and a person, vessel or vehicle appears unexpectedly and you could not reasonably have forseen it (e.g. a farmer pops up from behind a hedge) then as long as you immediately fly away from them you are not in breach of the law. No doubt flying_lawyer will know...

Tim

[cymruflier]

Last year in Caernarfon bay at anchor and drowning worms I was "straffed" by a Vally Hawk with only the makers name on the clock.

Loved it and I'm up for more of the same!

[Lon More]

In some areas military aircraft can be authorised to fly down to 150ft MSD

Allegedly the feet over Germany back in the 1970s/80s could be very small ones. As a RAF mate explained to me it was part of their way of reminding the Germans that we were not invited there