Almost Arrested

[gnirtS]

In this case the lane where the OP launched appears to be owned by the NT, but is there a general rule/law in the UK prohibiting launching from near a public road?

No assuming its truly public (and no county council restrictions on the roads in that area).
The main potentially legal issue with roads is maintaining that 50m separation from people and property if there are other vehicles on the road and so on.
But no, if its truly public then its legal.

 

[sar104]

No assuming its truly public (and no county council restrictions on the roads in that area).
The main potentially legal issue with roads is maintaining that 50m separation from people and property if there are other vehicles on the road and so on.
But no, if its truly public then its legal.

How do estate agents legally operate drones to get house photos etc. in built up areas?

 

[gnirtS]

How do estate agents legally operate drones to get house photos etc. in built up areas?

They have a PfCO (UK equivalent of a part 107 except it costs $2000 for the same thing).
That allows exemptions and so on provided theres adequate risk assessment, insurance and so on.

 

[The Editor]

How do estate agents legally operate drones to get house photos etc. in built up areas?

They are Estate Agents - so the rules don't apply to the parasites of society!

To be honest - they have been operating illegally without PfCO for years just to save money on hiring qualified operators.
Why should a little thing like flying in a congested area or contravening the Air Navigation Order worry them in the slightest. (Rhetorical).

 

[gnirtS]

They are Estate Agents - so the rules don't apply to the parasites of society!

To be honest - they have been operating illegally without PfCO for years just to save money on hiring qualified operators.
Why should a little thing like flying in a congested area or contravening the Air Navigation Order worry them in the slightest. (Rhetorical).

They are at least now actively being caught. But yes lots have been getting away with it for years.

Of course, the PfCO costs 5x what it SHOULD actually cost. This merely encourages people to not get one.

 

[sar104]

They have a PfCO (UK equivalent of a part 107 except it costs $2000 for the same thing).
That allows exemptions and so on provided theres adequate risk assessment, insurance and so on.

OK - so they can get exemptions from that rule. Over here Part 107 doesn't include a specific separation requirement, so no waiver required. Not that all realtors bother to get Part 107 certified pilots, of course.

 

[gnirtS]

Actually i badly worded it. Exemptions to the "drone code" recreational flying rules.
A PfCO needs to have an audited operations manual, risk assessments and so on to be allowed to operate commercially.
You can get permission for most things if you provide detailed enough assessments. Quick example is a wedding photographer on YouTube got permission to film a wedding roughly 400m from the active runway of a major airport.

But without PfCO all the rules discussed above apply (and the OP is not PfCO). I think a lot more people would get it and be safer as a result if the cost wasnt prohibitive.

Currently the chance of getting caught without one is low and the risk of a large fine even if caught is low. Combine the 2 together and lots of people (including estate agents) "risk assessment" is that its worthwhile risking the low odds of getting caught and fined (unlikely first offence) vs the extortionate price of the PfCO itself.

 

[Hiwayman]

Looking on the map of NT lands that track *is* national trust land so you were operating against their rules (byelaws)

View attachment 79384


So in this instance the security guard WAS entitled to ask you to move. However,he is NOT entitled or legally allowed to threaten arrest. You've committed no offence legally, a breach of byelaws maximum allows them to ask you to leave the property.

FWIW the other road just up from there is NOT NT land so is perfectly legal to fly from provided you can maintain the minimum 50m from people and property (ie cars using the road).

That road is now the route of the shuttle buses that serve Stonehenge...I do wonder why it's not included in the NT ownership??

 

[gnirtS]

That road is now the route of the shuttle buses that serve Stonehenge...I do wonder why it's not included in the NT ownership??

If NT own it they'll pay for the maintenance on it.... It most likely suits them to let someone else own it.

*Possibly* its English Heritage owned to access the site but i cant find a map showing their land claims online.

 

[Hiwayman]

If NT own it they'll pay for the maintenance on it.... It most likely suits them to let someone else own it.

*Possibly* its English Heritage owned to access the site but i cant find a map showing their land claims online.

Agreed...but they couldn't have exclusive use of it if it is still public highway...

 

[gnirtS]

Going into full cynical off topic mode here but the only access things NT like owning are car parks. Because they can charge absolutely crazy money and make a large profit off them for almost no outgoing.

 

[sar104]

Going into full cynical off topic mode here but the only access things NT like owning are car parks. Because they can charge absolutely crazy money and make a large profit off them for almost no outgoing.

I'm curious about your absolute disdain for NT. I was never a huge fan and preferred to give my money to EH instead, but I didn't feel they were that bad. They seem to do a reasonable job of protecting sensitive sites, and parking is a necessary evil at many of them. What am I missing?

 

[gnirtS]

I'm curious about your absolute disdain for NT. I was never a huge fan and preferred to give my money to EH instead, but I didn't feel they were that bad. They seem to do a reasonable job of protecting sensitive sites, and parking is a necessary evil at many of them. What am I missing?

OK off topic so might get removed but basic summary.

(i) im a photographer
(ii) i make money from photos
(iii) im a drone operator
(iv) i like the outdoors

To address that, NT has a policy of no commercial photography on their lands (note not just properties the lands in total). Although this seems relatively innocuous in practice NT has slowly been buying up vast areas of the UK countryside and coastline. They "own" a sizeable percentage of the UKs rural areas and its growing all the time.
See here for example:- Follow the history of our places with Land Map

What these 2 things mean in practice is NT claim its illegal for any commercial photography even of completely unimproved natural landscapes. Want to take a commercial photo of the mountains here in Wales? In theory No because the land is all NT for miles around.
Want to take a picture of the millions of years old White Cliffs of Dover? Sorry nope, thats NT land.
Want to photograph some amazing natural coastline on a walk? Nope. NT have that too.
What about this huge, empty golden sandy beach? Dream on. NT land.
Some nice images of the Lake District national park? Umm No.

This is the organisation that a few years ago (i) tried to get all images of things like the above removed from stock agency sites and who threatened to sue people uploading photos of Whitby Abby on Flickr (photos from public land, for non commercial use and where the Abby was in the background not even the main image). They were made to back down there but it highlights the mentality.

In addition to that their attitude towards drone users is dishonest. As well as banning operation from those huge areas of the UK above (even if no people literally within miles) they also misleading claim *overflight* is not allowed and that byelaws forbid it.
I went to the effort of finding and then verifying the list of byelaws and they contain no such provision (which likely would not be legal even if it did) yet they still openly claim overflight is not permitted on websites - something they have no authority to ban (so keeping it on topic!).

On paper they're a registered charity, in reality they're a profit making business that has provisions to create its own byelaws and is slowly taking over.

Add to that their car park hobby where they takeover a previous free or cheap car park (or field) and up the price massively and pile in the cash. Nobody is against paying some money for upkeep but they go far beyond that.

Note here im NOT referring to the NT properties and buildings/houses which i agree should not be allowed commercial operations, do cost money for upkeep and so on. That to me would be acceptable. Im referring to the huge natural landscapes of the UK which have been around thousands of years which suddenly now are banned from commercial photography, drones and everything else. They've taken a policy to crazy extremes.

If you don't do any commercial photography, ever sell a photo and don't own a drone then chances are the above wont bother you. But for those of us that do, its a big issue.

 

[sar104]

OK off topic so might get removed but basic summary.

(i) im a photographer
(ii) i make money from photos
(iii) im a drone operator
(iv) i like the outdoors

To address that, NT has a policy of no commercial photography on their lands (note not just properties the lands in total). Although this seems relatively innocuous in practice NT has slowly been buying up vast areas of the UK countryside and coastline. They "own" a sizeable percentage of the UKs rural areas and its growing all the time.
See here for example:- Follow the history of our places with Land Map

What these 2 things mean in practice is NT claim its illegal for any commercial photography even of completely unimproved natural landscapes. Want to take a commercial photo of the mountains here in Wales? In theory No because the land is all NT for miles around.
Want to take a picture of the millions of years old White Cliffs of Dover? Sorry nope, thats NT land.
Want to photograph some amazing natural coastline on a walk? Nope. NT have that too.
What about this huge, empty golden sandy beach? Dream on. NT land.
Some nice images of the Lake District national park? Umm No.

This is the organisation that a few years ago (i) tried to get all images of things like the above removed from stock agency sites and who threatened to sue people uploading photos of Whitby Abby on Flickr (photos from public land, for non commercial use and where the Abby was in the background not even the main image). They were made to back down there but it highlights the mentality.

In addition to that their attitude towards drone users is dishonest. As well as banning operation from those huge areas of the UK above (even if no people literally within miles) they also misleading claim *overflight* is not allowed and that byelaws forbid it.
I went to the effort of finding and then verifying the list of byelaws and they contain no such provision (which likely would not be legal even if it did) yet they still openly claim overflight is not permitted on websites - something they have no authority to ban (so keeping it on topic!).

On paper they're a registered charity, in reality they're a profit making business that has provisions to create its own byelaws and is slowly taking over.

Add to that their car park hobby where they takeover a previous free or cheap car park (or field) and up the price massively and pile in the cash. Nobody is against paying some money for upkeep but they go far beyond that.

Note here im NOT referring to the NT properties and buildings/houses which i agree should not be allowed commercial operations, do cost money for upkeep and so on. That to me would be acceptable. Im referring to the huge natural landscapes of the UK which have been around thousands of years which suddenly now are banned from commercial photography, drones and everything else. They've taken a policy to crazy extremes.

If you don't do any commercial photography, ever sell a photo and don't own a drone then chances are the above wont bother you. But for those of us that do, its a big issue.

Interesting. The photography issue seems completely out of order. Has that been challenged in court? The attempt to claim airspace jurisdiction is less surprising - various entities in the US have tried that too - but still wrong, obviously. The car parks bother me less. It's a charity, and so presumably the revenue is used for appropriate purposes.

 

[gnirtS]

Interesting. The photography issue seems completely out of order. Has that been challenged in court?

I dont think anyone has the finances to risk it. In theory, they're likely legally OK with such a rule. Its private land so they can ban whatever they want just like anyone else.
The overreach is a relatively new thing, 5 or 6 years ago they started pushing the policy and removing images from stock agencies. Before that they weren't overly bothered.
It came at roughly the same time they had a big stock library of images they can sell you at a price. Coincidence that....
Like i said, i have no issue with the rule applying to their *properties*. I have an issue with it applying to grass, trees and sedimentary rock.

It's a charity, and so presumably the revenue is used for appropriate purposes.

That is somewhat debatable. They're a hybrid charity on paper but a profit making business in reality. Most people just park 50m up the road and dont pay it. Not always possible though.
Or the Giants Causeway incident last year that made the news. They set up an entrance, started charging a fee. It was perfectly legal to walk past or around the gate and not pay but obviously they didnt want to tell people that.

 

[braz]

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

 

[4wd]

Another point worth knowing about many roads (n the UK anyway) is that the landowners either side technically still own them to the midpoint of the carriageway.
Highways departments are tasked with maintaining the surface and associated drainage, and other maintenance such as cutting back vegetation possibly making the route hazardous or encroaching. Neither they nor any local council actualy own any of it.
You can see how this came about when originally a road was just a track through fields.
Not sure it applies to the M25 though

The original agreements were standardised with widths of 8ft, 12ft. 16ft etc being taken on as maintained Highway. Prior to that the landowners would be obliged to maintain the track in reasonable condition and would often be allowed to charge a toll - not an ideal situation.

 

[braz]

Been there done that had that... Sorry you had that here in the uk, was at the music festival there and used my drone from the public road two joker idiots in uniform tried to stop me told me same as you, but i quoted all that member girtS posted on here. when they said they will arrest me i said go on then but i said if you put one hand on me i will drop you for assault this was 6.30 am so they said they would go and get the police hour later no police seeing red by then, so went to the music reception desk and seen the guys ask where the police was they said couldn't see any so they got a mouthful they said they didn't know the rules for drones maybe it was my presence me and my friend 17 and 18 stone had. left calling them two f....king bullies..

 

[charlas]

Yeah I've had the same issue, I had a security fella tell me I wasn't allowed to fly over trust land in Wales, when I pointed out I took off from public land, and the airspace above the ruins were nothing to do with the trust I was warned that I would get a visit from the police, and to give him my details, I kindly pointed out I wasn't on their 'private' property, he was out of his area of influence, and if he wanted my details to call the police and I'll wait.

He mumbled away, saying he'd be back, I finished my flight, landed, packed up, and wandered down, paid my fee to enter and took some video and pics from inside, and asked on the way out if I should await the police, was told to just leave, so I did. Bunch of muppet the lot of em, pitty so many of the nice historic stuff is controlled by them.

Early footage/flying but here it is.

 

[braz]

Yeah I've had the same issue, I had a security fella tell me I wasn't allowed to fly over trust land in Wales, when I pointed out I took off from public land, and the airspace above the ruins were nothing to do with the trust I was warned that I would get a visit from the police, and to give him my details, I kindly pointed out I wasn't on their 'private' property, he was out of his area of influence, and if he wanted my details to call the police and I'll wait.

He mumbled away, saying he'd be back, I finished my flight, landed, packed up, and wandered down, paid my fee to enter and took some video and pics from inside, and asked on the way out if I should await the police, was told to just leave, so I did. Bunch of muppet the lot of em, pitty so many of the nice historic stuff is controlled by them.

Early footage/flying but here it is.

Hi Charlas love the video especially over the town what drone you have. Braz