- Joined
- Feb 10, 2019
- Messages
- 39
- Reactions
- 23
i have the same issues in parts of the beacons where i live ,i was challenged once by a national trust employee who told me i could not fly my mav, because they owned the land on the other side of the fence i was planning to take off from,i said fine no problem i will just find a suitable take off point on this side of the fence which you dont own,he then tried to say that i could not fly over NT land no matter where i took off from,my reply was yes i can as long as i follow the drone code rules, it was a week day and there was hardly anyone about,he then said if it crashes on our land you will not be able to get it back,i replied fine that is something i would have to take up with my solicitor should the need arise,by now he could see i was not going to be put off, and he retreated to his little ticket hut ,i then did my flight and he watched me for a while then lost interest, i have never had any reaction from the NT and have flown in the vercinerty on several occasions sinceI sympathise Infotraker
I live in the lake district UK, most of this is National Park but some is National Trust.
It is OK to fly in the National Park but the National Trust have a blanket ban over any land they own.
I have not encountered any signs stating no drones on any National Trust property but after a member of the public told me I couldn't fly in that area I made enquiries.
The National Trust gave the following reasons for the ban with no exceptions, Drones could cause injury to staff or the public and damage property.
I can understand the concern in some places like the grounds of a stately home but not in areas that are basically an open field.
Can the NT actually stop you flying OVER their land? As long as you keep to the Drone Etiquette/Rules I thought the airspace is not controllable by any land owner. I get enough high altitude jets passing over my property.
If your feet are on their land, its another matter......…….
Fly anyway or research the locations beforehand so you won't be disappointedWe just got a back from a 3 week rv trip to the Tetons, Yellowstone, two lava bed parks, grand cooly dam and burney falls in calif. It also rained a lot of the days. Did not get hardly any good video because of no drone fly zones. A prominent drone sign was posted at the falls.View attachment 82222
@zocalo i hope that when the new registration/training scheme comes into force that a lot of the grey areas with regards to drones are finally hard and fast and we as flyers and jo public and land owners are all singing of the same hymn sheetCriminal law regarding usage of airspace says they cannot prevent an overflight that otherwise complies with the law (Dronecode), as this is entirely under the auspices of the CAA and the CAA have confirmed this to be the case in emails etc. on multiple occassions. There's a bit of a misconception over this, but the CAA really is responsible for ALL the airspace from ground up, only there is a little wiggle room for landowners allowed for by a legal ruling that acknowleged that they have a "reasonable right to enjoy their land" or somesuch (paraphrasing from memory here).
The NT can however opt to bring a civil suit, which they could do under a number of grounds - the above "right to enjoy their land", disturbing the peace, trespass, disturbing livestock, privacy violations, and so on. The CAA would generally not want to get involved in these cases unless there were potential Dronecode violations as well, and the outcome would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the specific civil court. Whether the NT would actual want to do this is another matter entirely as it would cost them financially in legal costs, they might lose, and the bylaw that they like to cite here is actually not really applicable to drones given it was written in the 1960s (IIRC) and relates more to commercial photography.
As an aside, the other reason the NT likes to cite for their blanket ban (lack of training and certifications for many pilots) is about to get blown out of the water by the upcoming mandatory training/registration scheme. The NT is apparently aware of this, and also the potential re-jig of certifications to negate the current distinction of a "commercial pilot" - e.g. the PfCO - so we can probably expect some revisions to their approach for 2020. Watch this (air)space...
@zocalo i hope that when the new registration/training scheme comes into force that a lot of the grey areas with regards to drones are finally hard and fast and we as flyers and jo public and land owners are all singing of the same hymn sheet
I sympathise Infotraker
I live in the lake district UK, most of this is National Park but some is National Trust.
It is OK to fly in the National Park but the National Trust have a blanket ban over any land they own.
I have not encountered any signs stating no drones on any National Trust property but after a member of the public told me I couldn't fly in that area I made enquiries.
The National Trust gave the following reasons for the ban with no exceptions, Drones could cause injury to staff or the public and damage property.
I can understand the concern in some places like the grounds of a stately home but not in areas that are basically an open field.
Of course it is ... but you need some pretence and people will start to believe it might be an actual problem.It's funny. Far more likely that a cyclist or a walker will fall and hit a pedestrian or member of staff along 2 dimensional sometimes specific paths than a drone which flies over inaccessible terrain.
As pointed out, they have very little influence anyway, if you pass in proper distance over it, but the general development of putting such signs is worrying ...The sign seems to be specific about what you can do from their property (launch, land, operate) but not what you can do over their property if you are doing it remotely from another location.