Remembering a old Cecil Adam’s answer that airspace is sort of a public highway, and with respect to restricted airspace, could I legally fly an airship with the purpose to blot out the sun from a person?
Not planning it, just want to know if it is legal - and if the person effected (/affected?) has any legal recourse (besides entering restricted airspace for refuge, or getting above such offending airship).
Don’t need answer soon.
So you imagine an airship that somehow follows you around wherever you are outside and blocks the sun just for you? I don’t see how you could really pull this off since I could simply walk near trees and the airship would be unable to stay at an angle that only blocks the sun for me without running into the trees. Or I suppose I could just get in my car and go to a park and wait for your airship to figure out where I am and come look for me…
To answer your legal question, I don’t see how this wouldn’t be construed as a form of harassment, but it probably depends on where you live. All I have to do it take out my .22 rifle and shoot these airships down… I hope you have a lot of money to keep this going for a while.
Simpsons did it.
Haven’t air and sun rights been extensively litigated in courts that looked at buildings and whether or not you could enshadow another hotel’s pool or something like that? I thinkthis is what I’m thinking of. I don’t know about charges of harassment, but if a ginormous corporation could lose the argument, I can’t see a court finding a personal right.
I think since this is something movable, building-related air and sun rights aren’t applicable.
The OP also specifies that the airship stays in legal airspace.
So, I think the legal issues are two:
The first is airship-related: can an airship legally follow such a whimsical flight plan? Any thoughts from pilots? [Note that the issue is the same whether or not the person is willing to be shaded]
The second is independent of an airship: Can I legally follow someone around (with an airship or just a giant hand-held parasol) and continually shade them against their will (assuming no trespassing)?
I’m sure there’s no law specifically against it, but it wouldn’t take much for the victim to get this to be considered some kind of criminal harassment. My guess is the first offense would lead to a warning to knock it off rather than jail time, but once the victim got a restraining order, persisting would lead to the kind of pissed of judge that means someone is headed for a little semi-quiet time for reflection with free meals.
Commercial and science purposes are legally different form harassment. The SC decision would have no bearing on that aspect, as the persons “air rights/air space” has been violated “without any legal or exigent purpose”.
I don’t know if you can do it with an airship but it has been done with architecture several times. There is even a term for it: spite house.
Here in the Bay area, one homeowner sued another in court (and won) over the fact that homeowner #2 grew his trees so tall and without trimming so that #1’s solar array no longer worked.
If done 24/7, could an argument be made that you are physically harming him since his body can no longer make Vitamin D?