Almost Arrested

[gnirtS]

As a Brit, I'm really sorry this happened to you. I am willing to bet that if you had been British, he'd not have been nearly as nouty with you. Unfortunately, the drone laws in this country do really strangle our ability to fly drones legally. It's ironic really- people worry that drones might be used to spy on them while living in the country with the largest number of cctv cameras per capita of any country...

UK drone laws are very relaxed. They allow most sensible flights in most areas. The issue here is a security guard threatening things he cant do against someone acting within the law.

 

[Reverend Ron Gunn]

The only people claiming its still a subject of dicussion are NT and EH - presumably because they know they cant prevent it and have no mechanism to prevent it. They'd like to ban it but cant.

Sorry, didn't make myself clear. It's certainly not the subject of rational discussion by EH and NT but they are claiming on their websites and, presumably, elsewhere that they have banned overflying unless they get paid by a commercial operator. working out of hours. I think they are worried about liability claims if a paying customer gets hit by a drone when on their property as well as seeing it as a source of income,

 

[Mcguyvertwo]

Maybe I should have known better, but I was an Aussie traveling in Britain with my trusty M2P and wanted to get a shot of Stonehenge. I went out the preceding day to check it out and there were thousands of people everywhere. I wanted an early morning shot with long shadows so returned the next morning to the place I'd identified as a good launching spot, with a good view of any people or other problems.

I went at 5.30am and there was no-one around and no-one near the Henge so I launched the Mavic and did some shots. Now at no time did I fly over the stones, nor did I fly anywhere near people (there was no-one there except a couple of security guards). The weather was overcast so I had to forget about long shadows but about 10 minutes into the flight a car pulled up with a security guard inside. I made no attempt to hide what I was doing and he got out of his car and told me in no uncertain terms to get the drone away from over the stones.

I politely pointed out that at no time was I ever over, or near the stones and that I didn't fly over people. I also pointed out there were no signs prohibiting flights. He took exception to this and said the site was National Trust run and flying over National Trust land is illegal. At this point he threatened to arrest me. I hit the return to home button setting things in motion and apologised for my transgression. He waited until the Mavic returned then told me to leave the area immediately. I did as he said but I don't believe he had the authority to move me from a public road, especially as there were at least a dozen camper vans parked in the lane nearby. Anyway I did manage to get a few shots...

View attachment 79047View attachment 79049

Hey noosaguy,

Wow! Did you research whether is was legal to have a control station on National Trust property before or after your education event?

Ya know, It really does not matter where we are from, if there was signage, if there were people around or how close you got to the stones. It is simply against the rules to have a control station (hope you know what that is), setup on the National Trust property. Might have been good to check out something like this before flying to save some hassle. Flying over Stonehenge and staying within the rules...

They do not own the airspace but the property.... yes. Bonus: In some countries you might not even get your drone in the country and if you do fly, you might be branded with the "T" word, jail and let's just say your travel home will not go as planned.

We fly and learn,

M2

 

[unionglzr]

When you click on the attachment : this is what you get.

View attachment 79052

Mine comes in fine

 

[Downundershooter]

And we wonder why it is becoming more and more difficult to find places to fly.
The most important thing the drone flyer has missed is that virtually the whole of Salibury plain is military controlled land, so you might think you are clever by saying that to a couple of blokes trying to do their job by quoting the law at them, lets see how you feel when an attack helicopter shoots your drone down and they arrest you for espionage.
You will have more than a couple of ordinary working people to deal with.
I vote that this person deserves a place at Mr.t's school for fools.

 

[gnirtS]

I think they are worried about liability claims if a paying customer gets hit by a drone when on their property as well as seeing it as a source of income,

In NT case they're worried about their bottom line. They make a fortune selling images, both ground and aerial commissioned by themselves.

 

[gnirtS]

Hey noosaguy,

Wow! Did you research whether is was legal to have a control station on National Trust property before or after your education event?

Why do you think he was on NT property? Chances are he wasn't.
And even if he was, the security guard has the power to ask him to leave, no more.

 

[noosaguy]

Okay, this thread has caused some controversy. Understandable really because al lot of you weren't sure where we are referring to... Well here's a Google Earth image with my approximate location marked. The road (dirt track) runs through the fields to the west of the stones and is bordered by a flimsy wire fence. There ware at least a dozen campers parked in the lane nearby and you can see vehicles parked there in the screenshot. I suspected the track was a public thoroughfare because the guard didn't mention I was on restricted land and pointed to the field beyond the fence suggesting that was private land and illegal to fly over. For what it's worth...

 

[noosaguy]

And we wonder why it is becoming more and more difficult to find places to fly.
The most important thing the drone flyer has missed is that virtually the whole of Salibury plain is military controlled land, so you might think you are clever by saying that to a couple of blokes trying to do their job by quoting the law at them, lets see how you feel when an attack helicopter shoots your drone down and they arrest you for espionage.
You will have more than a couple of ordinary working people to deal with.
I vote that this person deserves a place at Mr.t's school for fools.

What are you talking about? I did what I could to check the legality of flying there including downloading an Ap that purported to define restricted flying zones (don't recall its name now cause I deleted it). It was next to useless. Also, Mavic Go4 gave me an 'All clear' to fly in that area. And there have been multiple posts on this thread vindicating the legality of flying there. I checked the area out the previous day and knew there was a military base nearby (MILITARY) and I made the assumption they would have an airfield... BUT I was flying at a much lower altitude than any aircraft would fly (less than 50m), and in any case at that time of day I would have heard an approaching aircraft well in advance and taken appropriate action. In addition I traveled the 30 miles from where I was staying at 4.30am so that there was no risk of overflying people. The were NO public in the vicinity whilst I was there. And, I didn't fly over the acual Henge at any stage. I suggest you wake up and put another blanket on.

 

[noosaguy]

Why do you think he was on NT property? Chances are he wasn't.
And even if he was, the security guard has the power to ask him to leave, no more.

He didn't at any stage say I was on restricted ground. He pointed to the flimsy wire fence and the field beyond and told me it was illegal to fly over that land. Not the laneway I was parked on. When he asked me to leave the location after bring my M2P home, I suspected he was out of order but decided to not push the matter.

 

[Pietros]

The irony is that before we left Australia on our 7 week drive around the Old Dart, we coughed up the AUD$220 to join the British National Trust

If you're coming from Oz it's cheaper to join the Oz national trust. They have a reciprocal arrangement with the UK organisation so access is free.

 

[CelticShadows]

What are you talking about? I did what I could to check the legality of flying there including downloading an Ap that purported to define restricted flying zones (don't recall its name now cause I deleted it). It was next to useless. Also, Mavic Go4 gave me an 'All clear' to fly in that area. And there have been multiple posts on this thread vindicating the legality of flying there. I checked the area out the previous day and knew there was a military base nearby (MILITARY) and I made the assumption they would have an airfield... BUT I was flying at a much lower altitude than any aircraft would fly (less than 50m), and in any case at that time of day I would have heard an approaching aircraft well in advance and taken appropriate action. In addition I traveled the 30 miles from where I was staying at 4.30am so that there was no risk of overflying people. The were NO public in the vicinity whilst I was there. And, I didn't fly over the acual Henge at any stage. I suggest you wake up and put another blanket on.

British jets fly as low as 50ft in some scenarios, and so do the helicopters. It's unlikely they'd have done so around Stonehenge but you never know and jets can be on you before you know it. The dirt track is likely to be private land, but you'd need to check with the landowners registrar so the guard had the right to ask you move on.

 

[deleted member 877]

The dirt track is likely to be private land, but you'd need to check with the landowners registrar so the guard had the right to ask you move on.

But only if the track is on land controlled by The National Trust.

Look at me - I have been drawn into this Nit-Pick fest - LOL

 

[wes93j]

listen to how absolutely stupid this is ....you're flying over a bunch of rocks for god sakes ,..get over it! If you are flying over a group of people or a police scene or something of that nature ,maybe I could understand it. But getting in trouble for flying over thousands of years old rocks is being a bit over the top. I say as long as you're not interfering with First Responders or any aircraft in your vicinity, then I believe that pretty much anything else should be allowable to fly over... now that's just my opinion ,because I fly and obey the same rules that most all of you do . Come on you're several hundred feet in the air!

 

[noosaguy]

If you're coming from Oz it's cheaper to join the Oz national trust. They have a reciprocal arrangement with the UK organisation so access is free.

I learned that too late unfortunately.

 

[noosaguy]

listen to how absolutely stupid this is ....you're flying over a bunch of rocks for god sakes ,..get over it! If you are flying over a group of people or a police scene or something of that nature ,maybe I could understand it. But getting in trouble for flying over thousands of years old rocks is being a bit over the top. I say as long as you're not interfering with First Responders or any aircraft in your vicinity, then I believe that pretty much anything else should be allowable to fly over... now that's just my opinion ,because I fly and obey the same rules that most all of you do . Come on you're several hundred feet in the air!

Thanks but there's no way I'm above 50m in the image I posted.

 

[RobertJC]

The National Trust DO NOT own the airspace, so as long as you didnt take off from their land, I suspect there is nothing they can do, as long as you stick to the code, secondly, the security guard CANNOT arrest you, he can call the police who most likely wont bother. If he had touched you, you would have grounds for assault. He most certainly cannot move you on from a public road.

Sorry to spoil this one, but on the National Trust website (UK) I found the following text:

All aerial activity above our sites is prohibited unless specific permission is granted, according to an existing byelaw. The overall legal position regarding drones is somewhat unclear and subject to forthcoming government consultation.
Drone flying by our members or by the general public

• We do not grant permission for private flying for the following reasons;-
• CAA regulations state that drones should not be flown above or near to people. As our properties often have staff living or working on site, visitors present or have open access, unauthorised drone flying is both illegal and potentially puts people at risk.
• Few non-commercial users have the correct training or permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to operate drones.
• If a drone causes damage or harm, pilots generally do not have the correct insurances, or level of insurances, to adequately compensate those affected.
• Some sites may have wildlife or agricultural animals, or animals which are sensitive to disturbance, such as birds and deer herds, which could be alarmed or stressed by the presence of drones, especially at breeding times.
• Many drones have cameras attached and these could infringe data protection laws (filming people without permission) and potentially could contravene National Trust rules on commercial photography and filming.
• The presence of drones can impinge on the quiet enjoyment of our sites by other visitors and therefore potentially presents a public nuisance risk.

If you look at the reasons, many could be counteracted by appropriate actions. Indeed, a forthcoming government consultation may change things (after all National Trust objects belong to the people of a country). A general member of the public (security guard) has no powers of arrest, claiming to do so is an offense. I also believe that CAA has said that it is not illegal to overfly National Trust sites...

Cheers,

Robert

 

[kensteele]

listen to how absolutely stupid this is ....you're flying over a bunch of rocks for god sakes ,..get over it! If you are flying over a group of people or a police scene or something of that nature ,maybe I could understand it. But getting in trouble for flying over thousands of years old rocks is being a bit over the top. I say as long as you're not interfering with First Responders or any aircraft in your vicinity, then I believe that pretty much anything else should be allowable to fly over... now that's just my opinion ,because I fly and obey the same rules that most all of you do . Come on you're several hundred feet in the air!

right. we are at the point where "flying over" something is a problem. i understand touching things and handling things but flying over them? if you can't look at something, you probably can't fly over it. but if you can look at something with your eyes from the ground, how is that any different from looking at something from up above? i guess the concern is crashing down but how can anyone really have that concern when maybe one or two landmarks have been crashed up. i guess that is two too many.... can you sail in a balloon over the rocks?

again, my opinion is we let this happen to us.

 

[ICHOTT]

If a guy is employed as a security guard they have to have something to be security conscious about, you were just an opportunity for him to write something in his log! Your problem was that you were geographically too close and in his face effectively, in other words you gave him the opportunity to do his job. Answer: distance is your friend, ‘you’ didn’t need to be there, fly from further away and use your app. Fly in and rth from other directions and always still fly responsibley ie taking height and people into safe consideration.

 

[HornetAP]

Is it illegal to fly over national trust property though???