Finding it difficult to legally fly my drone

[Infotraker]

We 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.

 

[ZX14-R]

Well that SUX!!!

 

[Skywatcher2001]

That stinks man . . .

 

[zocalo]

Yes, it's definitely getting frustrating, with lots more places (globally) seeming to be posting "No Drones" signs, especially around some of the more photogenic sorts where tourists congregate. Sometimes they have a point, especially where there are going to a be a lot people milling around below, but often it seems to be more "because we can" (or think they can). It's definitely worth doing a little more research into the local laws than it used to be as, while they may be able to prevent takeoffs/landing from their own property/park/whatever, they may NOT be able to prevent an overflight that was launched from elsewhere. Note that flying in from outside the property boundary may not be possible without infringing more general national rules, especially regarding VLOS.

Of course, if you're doing this overseas, then this approach might entail you having to explain the local legislation in a language you might not be familiar with, in which case I'd recommend having a printout of the law in any applicable languages. You might also end up having a discussion with local police or similar, so YMMV whether the specific situation is worth the potential complications or not required for getting the shot.

 

[THE CYBORG]

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.

 

[MJ224]

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......…….

 

[old man mavic]

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.

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 since

 

[zocalo]

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......…….

Criminal 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...

 

[THE CYBORG]

I am working on a video of a stone circle that is on National Trust Land, got the footage but still to edit.
As there are no signs mentioning drones how is anyone supposed to know ?

I intended to get some footage of the summer solstice but the site was full of new age hippy's.
At the gate was a large sign stating no camping, no fires, no radio equipment & a few other things, this was totally ignored by the new age crew but I didn't fly that day.
The sign was removed after the solstice giving no visible restrictions only that it is National Trust land.

I spent days at the site waiting for times when there was no tourists,
It was difficult getting the place deserted, at 5am (depending on the time of year) the photographers are all lined up waiting for the sunrise and by the time they leave the tourists start to come, this continues until sunset when the photographers come back.

I have no people in the video only some ancient stones that my little piece of flying plastic couldn't damage if I tried.

I now wonder how I stand if I host the video on the internet, I would not have taken the video if I had known a ban was in place.

 

[Stealthbomber]

Saw a few of those signs on my recent trip to Iceland. They were usually posted in the main busy tourist attractions, where common sense should prevail.....not so much these days!!!!! The drone rules are pretty much the same there as in Canada, no flying in national parks......however I did break that rule a couple times while on back roads (F roads) and no one around for miles. Got some nice vids, now im at home trying to figure out a way to piece the vids and pics together without a computer. Getting frustrated trying iMovie on my iPhone. May have to go get that $2K laptop!!

 

[globetrotterdrone]

I do have to say, it's a pretty underwhelming development here in Europe too.
I've not been a drone operator for more than 6 months, as previously always had a bad taste or an uneasy feeling of flying with them.

However I cherish photography for a very long time (20+ years) I finally took the step to take photos with the Mavic on locations I could have only dreamed of and not looked back. But as the society itself got more tight and paranoid (for instance after the refugee crisis in Europe), the feeling of doing something dangerous somehow remained. Although I made very good experience with people (whether they are from family or people on site) curious about the drone and its possibilites, one bad encounter can outlast many positives.

There are such beautiful places in the world and it's more than clear, that we have to share those together and should not annex them on our purpose alone. Common sense should aways be applied first and foremost.

However, I always do that and would certainly not behave in a bad way with a drone. Upcoming general bans and distrust are something I fear ...
I would somehow welcome a mandatory training and certification if I am then able to fly by the rules alone and not some rank growth additions, so people would accept the regime.

 

[MAGA]

We 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

Fly anyway or research the locations beforehand so you won't be disappointed

 

[old man mavic]

Criminal 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

 

[zocalo]

@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

Definitely my hope too, and I've engaged with the NT a few times over this (yes, I'm aware this applies to EH, etc. as well, but the NT is the largest single applicable landowner by far, and flights at EH's properties are mostly going to be blocked under the Dronecode, and chances are many other bodies will follow any change of policy by NT). I can assure you that the NT is aware of the developments, but until the registration and test are online it's kind of hard to judge what to do and so I wouldn't expect them to commit to any new rules yet. I have also raised the specific issue of flights over their open land with them, pointing out that houses/gardens etc. would in many cases already be covered by the Dronecode's proximity rules - which has the benefit of being criminal law rather than civil - and that they already have notices about things like dogs being on leads during lambing season that could cover also seasonal drone bans when there is good reason.

Personally, I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that this be done on a per-property basis; most houses etc. have an entrance gate for fees where any drone restrictions can be outlined, even if that's just to say because of the 50m/150m proximity rules they're not permitted at all. Drone flights over their open land can then be permitted by default with specific caveats for things like lambing season, nesting birds, etc. as required with local signage, which would also be much closer to the spirit of their charter to provide their properties for the enjoyment of all, which currently isn't the case regarding those wishing to fly drones.

 

[Paul2660]

To the OP, you appear to have visited two prominent National Parks, in the US, Teton and Yellowstone, both have been NO drones since 2016 as have all national parks in the US. Can't speak to the falls mentioned but if it's a state park, probably the same issue. In my state, all "state parks" have a no drones policy. However you can apply for a permit for a day flight, (process is next to impossible intentionally).

However you still have millions of acres of National Forest in the US where you can fly. Which IMO is a god send. If the National Forests become no fly zones, it will be a sad day for sure. You can also fly in BLM lands, not near the US border, and there are many acres of that land also.

Paul C

 

[Drinu]

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.

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.

 

[globetrotterdrone]

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.

Of course it is ... but you need some pretence and people will start to believe it might be an actual problem.
Paired with rather sloppy news about drone crashes, you might really think it's dangerous.

You could also argue, they don't know how they would do with too many drones in one place, so rather ban them completely instead of issuing limited daywise permits for instance.

 

[old man mavic]

there is one reason that i think why NT do not want drones to fly over their property, and that is because they charge the public to view their structures and land, and they do not like the fact that a drone can do a similar job for free ,although at the distances allowed by the drone code preclude any close ups, unless you happen to own a MPzoom i suppose,

 

[Deleted member 93449]

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.

 

[globetrotterdrone]

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.

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 ...
Looking from the other side, the owner may had problems in the past and I would certainly understand it. That's why I always try to be as briefed and friendly as possible when someone approaches me for that reason (not saying it's easy).

Couple of weeks ago, I made some shots of a rural train station (in about 60 m height) for someone who worked their for a very long time. It made him smile and is a great gift for his retirement.
20 mins after the perfectly legal flight, someone determindly approaches the station and asks, if we had seen 'that' drone. After a short conversation it turns out, the allotment gardens on the other side of the railroad had problems in the past where someone with a drone was flying into their property, descent to head level and badgered people.

I could understand his frustration, as this was a bad and unlawful example of drone flying which people got a glimpse of.
Bad for them and bad for our hobby.