Detailed National Trust property NFZ map

[Manty]

mmmmmmmmmmmm back where you started really...The Drone Code. Along with other regs for hot air balloons, microlights, military low level flights all of whom could be flying below 1000 feet.

 

[dannybgoode]

mmmmmmmmmmmm back where you started really...The Drone Code. Along with other regs for hot air balloons, microlights, military low level flights all of whom could be flying below 1000 feet.

And the thorny and unresolved issue of civil law

 

[DavidJL39]

They are not by-laws. Any landowner can forbid drone flights over their property just as they can stick up a ‘Private Property - Keep Out’. You ‘own’ the air above your property to a certain, slightly vague, altitude and can ‘reasonably’ expect to enjoy your land below it free from trespass and nuisance. Horribly legalistic and would take a court case to sort out the exact intent of the meaning but there it is.

Enforcement is exactly the same also. The police aren’t going to do anything (unless you happen to be breaking some other law - breach of the peace, public nuisance etc) so they’d have to issue proceedings through the civil courts.

This is *very* expensive and so unlikely it depends on the landowner. Some are very rich and would do it for fun. The National Trust has been known to be less than humourous in its approach...

To Hatch a Crow: National Trust targets photographers and film makers over image rights.

Again - I am not saying such action will be successful or that you shouldn’t make the flight. It is simply to raise awareness of the fact there is more to the law than the regs.

Actually they are By-laws. The National Trust Act empowers them to make by-laws. The current byelaws were made in 1965 ! The penalty for breach of the by law is a fine payable on “on summary conviction” which I take to be proceedings in the Magistrates Court.

I have not been able to find any record of such proceedings involving a drone.

 

[Manty]

It could get worse! The Conservative Manifesto says that "Trespass" will be made a criminal offence. This to allow illegal traveller sites to be quickly removed. It could impact the drone fraternity.

 

[Ren57]

Danny whilst I do not challenge your comments about overflying private land, the comments made about landowners stopping one flying over land they own up to 500 feet leaves me confused. I have to hand an email from the CAA in response to a drone flyer who asked them about overflying private land if taking off from adjacent common land. the reply, dated Jun 14th 2018 , says "Thank for your email. They ( the landowners) do not own the airspace and if you abide by the ANO and other Airspace restrictions e.g. Notams then you may operate". Can you please give me a link to the legislation that mentions the 500 feet as many on my other forum are obviously not aware of this. Many thanks.

I too have had the CAA confirm that nobody owns the airspace. There is however an unwritten rule that landowners 'may' have a right to the airspace up to the highest point on the land that they own. In the majority of cases this will be the height of highest building. If there's a hill on their land it could be described as the height of peak of that hill. But this is not law... Look at the deeds of your house and see if it mentions anything about what height of airspace you own above your property. I bet it doesn't say anything about it. That'll be because you don't own it. If you did, then you'd have to have paid for it, just like you paid for the rest of your property.

 

[gnirtS]

Someone has just found this - very interesting.

No Fly Drones

Its a website that's been around years and has *no legal validity at all*.
Absolutely anyone can fill in a form on that site and get their toilet, garden, castle, tree,favourite rock declared a 'no fly zone' on that site.

So most of what it displays is completely and utterly invalid legally. Use the proper NATs data for seeing your airspace restrictions.