Not that any of this effects me at all as I am in Canada but I do share an interest in such things. Seems Canada is very quick to say Oh that's a good idea and adopt it.
This is model legislation which may, or may not, be used by any states.
The altitude being in brackets is intended to invite the states to make their own determinations on that question.
From a quick read, it seems consistent with what has been argued regarding the Causby case.
It leaves unanswered the question of how, if the airspace is private property defendable through a trespass claim, it can also be part of the “public superhighway” that is subject to FAA regulation.
As a hobbyist, you should be more concerned with protecting your right to fly over the immediate reaches of your own property, than that of others.
But as a commercial operator you should be very much worried about flying over other's property, and if this will preclude you from doing so in the future.
That’s where there’s kind of a split between the interests of the casual hobbyist and the commercial folks, if enacted as written, it will be extremely detrimental to all aspects of the UAS industry. Not to mention having to negotiate a different set of rules any time you shoot\fly in a different state.
It is very poorly drafted in general from what is being said.
It would turn trespass law on its head - requiring affirmative advance permission prior to entry.
On land, you generally don’t commit a trespass unless you’ve been told not to enter (hence the classic “posted - no trespassing” signs).
If this passes you'll either see a mass exodus of commercial pilots (too many barriers to enter the industry) or a lot of people just doing what they do today and break regulations/laws.
