Talk:Air rights

It would be nice to see some samplings from laws of countries other than the US regarding this issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I've added some bits of UK law but the rest of the article is very US-centric. I've added the "Globalize" tag. WaggersTALK 10:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Edited footnote: the footnote contained a load of "f"s where "s" should be. This is not because old texts used to write f for s, but because the old s looked like an f. The footnote has been edited to correct this mistake.

Do air righes extend to space? How high do air rights go? This question is explored in the 1994 World Book article, I think. --Do not click me! 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe a more appropriate translation would be all the way to hell, not all the way to the centre of the Earth. Anyone have a problem w/ changing? Farside268 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Under common law, airspace was owned by the lad owner.  In 1926, the US congress declared all airspace to be in their "possession" and under their control.  In a landmark case in 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that navigable airspace (above 365ft) to be "a public highway" and within the public domain, while recognizing the landowners domain in the space below 365 ft.

Hello, I want to work on the section of Transfer of Development Rights. I believe it could be expanded with the advantages and disadvantages, examples, and success. Skyplanner (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

A separate article has been created at Transferable development rights. Moreau1 (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

There was a very large (relative to the rest of the article) section on transfer of development rights that was unrelated, save for a specific application in a latter paragraph, to air rights as construed in the article. I deleted the generic paragraphs about TDR, as this is not specific to air rights nor necessary to understand the concept. I renamed the section Air Rights in Development, and then made some more condensing edits to the remaining paragraph. This was well written, but out of place for this article. A new TDR article should be started if there is not one. I would be completely open to deleting this section alltogether, as it is only tangentially relevant to the rest of the article. In good faith, I left the important bits of the previous text. There was a minisection "other development rights" folloiwng. This didn't need to be a separate section; I moved the links to the "see also" section. Again, they don't even need to be kept.12.11.127.253 (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

A separate article has been created at Transferable development rights. Moreau1 (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Griggs case identified that when the government allows flight below 500ft,, th elandowner is entitled to just compensation. This case law has been re-cited numerous times. see Argent v. U.S. 124 F.3rd 1277,1281 (1997) citing Lacey v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 551, 595 F.2d 614, 616 (1979) (treating 500 feet as line of demarcation between compensatable property taking and non-compensatable overflights); Matson v. United States, 145 Ct.Cl. 225, 171 F.Supp. 283, 286 (1959) (providing compensation for flights under 500 feet).Aaron v. United States, 160 Ct.Cl. 295, 311 F.2d 798, 801 (1963) (allowing claims based on flights below 500ft, while denying those based on flights over 500ft).​

I'm going to remove the text about 14 CFR 91.119: "The general rule is that airplanes must fly high enough that, in the event of an engine failure, the pilot can land the plane without undue hazards to persons or property on the ground. The exact altitude requirements (except for purposes of takeoff and landing) are as follows. In congested areas, airplanes must stay 1,000 feet (300 m) higher than any obstacle (building, antenna, etc.) within a 2,000 feet (610 m) radius of the aircraft. In non congested, sparsely populated areas, or over bodies of water, the pilot must remain at least 500 feet (150 m) from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure.[2]"

As included on the page, the text made it seem as if the regulation defines the limits of public airspace or property owners' air rights. That is not the case: this is simply a safety regulation for aircraft operations. If the regulation had any relevance to air rights, it would apply to all aircraft, but it does not: helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft are specifically exempted as long as operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljosa (talk • contribs) 10:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference [10], which is currently given as a reference for the statement that mentions "felony", does not itself anywhere in the document mention the word "felony", and the summary section listing the major provisions of the law does not list anything relevant. Therefore it seems the statement mentioning "felony" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I searched the document and came to the same conclusion. I've removed the statement pending some other reference. Sperril (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is a felony to "interfere with" the operation of any "aircraft", and the FAA lists drones as an aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEA5:CF20:4D1A:2A0C:BDA:2EFD (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

"The low cost of unmanned aerial vehicles (also called drones) in the 2000s re-raised ..."

Drones got cheap in about 2015. The cited sentence should bester read "... from 2015 on ..." or " ... from the 2010s on ...".

Helium4 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply