Quote Originally Posted by X View Post
but why would being low enough be relevant if you own your airspace (and I'm sure lots of Iraquis and Afghans would be interested in your legal view on this)?? Surely you cany own airspace?

Because today the presumption that you own up to the heavens doesnt apply anymore (although the theory that you own to the center of the earth still prevails). This is because today, at a certain height (sometimes suggested at airplane regulations height, others at just a nuisance level) the air is "public domain" (meaning anyone approved, licensed, etc can fly free of charge). What happens today, however, is that if you fly low enough on someone's land and for enough of a period of time --> you actually create a nuisance and detract from the lands value/use. The suit then is usually based on the lands lesser value because of a flying/noise and not the actual trespass of the sky. This is why airports try to be way out in the middle of nowwhere and buy lots and lots of land around the airport. (Law is different everywhere but a simple bastardized explanation.)

But the owning down to the middle of the Earth is still accurate. For example: one case had a cave that went underneath two pieces of property; however only one of the landowners had access to the cave and started a tourist/guided type entertainment in the cave to the public. The landowner who owned 1/3 of the cave but did not and could not get access to the cave sued and was thus entitled to a pro-rated 1/3 of the profits from the business.