First member of public to have a go.

[Chip]

I did want to stand my ground but when she told me the car park was private it threw me so i thought it better to leave than cause any more trouble.

When you went to the Buddhist Mediation Center, what were you seeking and what did you find? If you stand your ground against enlightenment, then wherever you are and whatever you are doing, you should stop. Whether it be flying a drone, arguing with some lady in a parking lot or whatever...

 

[Max Headroom]

If you stand your ground against enlightenment, then wherever you are and whatever you are doing, you should stop.

I was standing my ground against a rude woman who didn't introduce herself as management or an employee who told me i was invading their privacy, as i have already said it was late in the day on a weekday there wasn't many people there and i was a few hundred yards from the place where they pray so there was no way they could hear the drone.

As for your question what was i seeking i was seeking footage of this amazing building which was built in 1821!

 

[Chip]

I was standing my ground against a rude woman who didn't introduce herself as management or an employee who told me i was invading their privacy, as i have already said it was late in the day on a weekday there wasn't many people there and i was a few hundred yards from the place where they pray so there was no way they could hear the drone.

As for your question what was i seeking i was seeking footage of this amazing building which was built in 1821!


View attachment 182209

I get it. Its a beautiful place. I was simply opining that it comes with high risk of negative encounter. I was also appreciating the irony of the whole thing. Getting kicked out of a Buddhist Meditation Center for flying a drone. I brought up the seeking question because from my quick review of Buddhist teachings, it is our constant seeking for the wrong things or in the wrong direction that causes dissatisfaction. I would never have thought or learned anything about it today but for your post. Its karma!

 

[Felix le Chat]

I was standing my ground against a rude woman who didn't introduce herself as management or an employee who told me i was invading their privacy, as i have already said it was late in the day on a weekday there wasn't many people there and i was a few hundred yards from the place where they pray so there was no way they could hear the drone.

As for your question what was i seeking i was seeking footage of this amazing building which was built in 1821!


View attachment 182209

Originally Conishead priory, from the Anglo Saxon: Cyninges Hēafod meaning Kings Head. Late Regency/early Victorian Gothic Revival built between 1821 and 1841. Replaced the original priory house (demolished: 1821). Very impressive structure. Cost a bob or two for consolidation and conservation.

 

[Split-Infinitive]

This is the problem for pilots you are saying she had the right to tell me to leave and @Felix le Chat said she didn't, i am siding with Felix its a visitors car park there is no signage telling members of the public they can only park there if they are going into the priory in fact if you look on trip advisor many say they use it to park then go for a walk through the woods to the nearby beach.

If the car park is owned by them then yes they can tell you to leave. Its their land. They dont need signs to specify every allowance or ban.
Perfectly entitled to do whatever they want on it. They cant stop overflight but can tell you to not operate from their land in the same way you could tell someone to get out of your garden if they decide to have a BBQ.

 

[Felix le Chat]

If the car park is owned by them then yes they can tell you to leave. Its their land. They dont need signs to specify every allowance or ban.
Perfectly entitled to do whatever they want on it. They cant stop overflight but can tell you to not operate from their land in the same way you could tell someone to get out of your garden if they decide to have a BBQ.

I think all that, reasonable as it is, hinges on one important factor. Was the individual a responsible member of staff: or was she a patron (visitor) herself. If the latter - she had no business dictating terms to anyone.

 

[Max Headroom]

I think all that, reasonable as it is, hinges on one important factor. Was the individual a responsible member of staff: or was she a patron (visitor) herself. If the latter - she had no business dictating terms to anyone.

Spot on Felix, if she had walked up to me and said calmly that she was an employee and that due to me being in the car park I couldn't fly then I would have brought the drone down and moved on immediately but because she came at me like a bull at a gate with no introduction whatsoever I decided to argue about them not owning the airspace etc.
I have had no contact from the police so I assume she was a member of the public and she pretended to phone the police to scare me off.

 

[Mrktn]

Spot on Felix, if she had walked up to me and said calmly that she was an employee and that due to me being in the car park I couldn't fly then I would have brought the drone down and moved on immediately but because she came at me like a bull at a gate with no introduction whatsoever I decided to argue about them not owning the airspace etc.
I have had no contact from the police so I assume she was a member of the public and she pretended to phone the police to scare me off.

Yep, that certainly wouldn’t have helped start things off on a good footing. Very difficult to not match the other persons conduct when it starts like that. I try to not match but it’s easier said than done

 

[Max Headroom]

Yep, that certainly wouldn’t have helped start things off on a good footing. Very difficult to not match the other persons conduct when it starts like that. I try to not match but it’s easier said than done

As the title says this is the first time someone has had a pop at me, I have had several decent conversations with interested members of the public in the past and most people do seem interested especially when you show them the screen with the drone in the air they are usually impressed at how much they can see of the area and how clear it is, fingers crossed this will be the last Karen I meet.

 

[Split-Infinitive]

Spot on Felix, if she had walked up to me and said calmly that she was an employee and that due to me being in the car park I couldn't fly then I would have brought the drone down and moved on immediately but because she came at me like a bull at a gate with no introduction whatsoever I decided to argue about them not owning the airspace etc.
I have had no contact from the police so I assume she was a member of the public and she pretended to phone the police to scare me off.

Unlikely. Usually take the police 3-4 weeks to follow up on drone reports like that as its low priority. And generally a Sunday. Ususally though they wont bother. If the person has gone theres no offence anyway.

Ultimately if its private land the CAAs own drone code and CAP (and standard UK laws) state the default assumption to do anything is no unless the owner says yes.
So a 3rd party private car park the default is no drone BUT if the person doesn't work for the owners, she has no powers.
If the car park IS owned by them and the person is a representative she can quite legally ask you to leave. Arguing airspace was just wrong as it ignore the operation from/trespass clause.

Again the correct thing to do is just leave when asked if you're on private land. The airspace argument is only valid if you're flying from public or allowed land.


Relevant parts from CAP722:

1.2.9. Additional Legal Considerations
UAS Operators and Remote Pilots must not break other relevant laws when operating UAS. UAS regulations and CAA authorisations only primarily address the flight safety aspects of UAS operations.

Nothing in these operating principles or any CAA authorisations constitute a permission for UAS operators or flyers to disregard other laws whilst operating and flying a UA. This means the UAS Operator and Remote Pilot must always be mindful of other legitimate legal interests and laws when operating and flying UAS.
CHAPTER 1 | General



Other considerations include any local byelaws, the need to obtain permission from landowners to operate from their land, and any flight within the vicinity of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs).

So ultimately this isnt a drone law thing (airspace is irrelevant), its a trespass law thing. In Scotland thats a little different.

 

[Gazwas]

Arguing airspace was just wrong as it ignore the operation from/trespass clause.

Not aimed at the OP but whenever I hear the "you don't own the airspace" argument on here or some youtube video it makes my toes curl....

 

[Max Headroom]

Not aimed at the OP but whenever I hear the "you don't own the airspace" argument on here or some youtube video it makes my toes curl....

Those auditors have a lot to answer for

Joking aside if you are on public land and you are flying over one of the places listed below and Karen or Ken decide to give you grief about their privacy why wouldn't you use the phrase?

 

[Split-Infinitive]

The UK actually has very little public land. Thats the problem.
Crown estate/foreshore but not much else.

If you're going use the "airspace" argument, you need to make sure youre on public land first.

 

[Max Headroom]

The UK actually has very little public land. Thats the problem.

Not for me i live in the lake district

 

[Gazwas]

Those auditors have a lot to answer for

Joking aside if you are on public land and you are flying over one of the places listed below and Karen or Ken decide to give you grief about their privacy why wouldn't you use the phrase?

Just because the airspace is free to use as we choose under certain circumstances it doesn't automatically give us the right to pee people off.

Just as the middle lane of a motorway is there to rightfully use how any tax paying motorist wishes, it doesn't stop slow lane huggers infuriating other motorists.

If your drone is driving someone mad regardless of if you feel you are allowed to fly in that location, isn't it just easier and friendlier to just hold your hands up and say sorry, I'll land and come back when there aren't as many people about rather than just getting stuck straight in with the free airspace line...

 

[Max Headroom]

Just as the middle lane of a motorway is there to rightfully use how any tax paying motorist wishes, it doesn't stop slow lane huggers infuriating other motorists.

This is not relevant It's illegal to hog the middle lane if the lane to the left (in UK) is clear its not illegal to fly a sub 250g drone over private property.

I do agree if you are annoying someone by flying over their house and they ask you not to then yes move on but if it's a Karen or ken (and we have all seen them) to me it's fair game to me.

 

[Gazwas]

This is not relevant It's illegal to hog the middle lane if the lane to the left (in UK) is clear its not illegal to fly a sub 250g drone over private property.

That’s like the law where you can be prosecuted if found drunk in a UK pub.

Why does it have to be about the legality?

Just fly responsibly and respectfully. Karen or Ken will be always be a Karen and Ken and don’t care who’s the sky belongs to so move on.

 

[Max Headroom]

Just fly responsibly and respectfully. Karen or Ken will be always be a Karen and Ken and don’t care who’s the sky belongs to so move on.

If you gave read the whole thread you will have seen lack of respect is what got my back up in the first place, I will repeat what I said if she had approached calmly introduced herself as a member of staff and asked me not to fly I would have stopped immediately but she came at me like a bull at a gate which immediately got my back up, in this instance I was in the wrong being in a private car park so didn't have a leg to stand on legally so left as soon as I could the next Karen or Ken that approaches me in the same manner and ruins my day when I know I am in the right will wish they hadn't.

 

[Gazwas]

If you gave read the whole thread you will have seen lack of respect is what got my back up in the first place, I will repeat what I said if she had approached calmly introduced herself as a member of staff and asked me not to fly I would have stopped immediately but she came at me like a bull at a gate which immediately got my back up, in this instance I was in the wrong being in a private car park so didn't have a leg to stand on legally so left as soon as I could the next Karen or Ken that approaches me in the same manner and ruins my day when I know I am in the right will wish they hadn't.

Good luck.

 

[MS Coast]

Joking aside if you are on public land and you are flying over one of the places listed below and Karen or Ken decide to give you grief about their privacy why wouldn't you use the phrase?

"You don't control the airspace." Why not use it?

A. It sounds whiney.
B. It's almost certain not to alter the behavior of that person.
C. There's a good chance that it will prompt an "Oh, yeah? Let's call the police and see." response which will certainly be time consuming and almost certainly unpleasant.
D. That person may have a legitimate complaint, if not based on law but on courtesy and consideration.
E. I'd rather be flying somewhere else than arguing about whether I can fly there.