For UK pilots, especially in East Devon: New drone rules issued by East Devon District Council

[wheelman1uk]

This discussion is most interesting as I live in an area used on an almost daily basis for helicopter pilot training from RAF Shawbury. There are designated areas around the base where flying of non military aircraft are banned. My property is over 10 miles from any area where recreational flying is banned But and its a very big BUT the area where I live has no other properties other than mine for 3-4 miles in any direction and on a daily basis the helicopter pilot training involves low level passes over my house. I know they fly lower than 200ft as they pass by a wind powered generator, the blades of which are 180ft at their upper limit.
I am reluctant to complain to the Station Commander as this might result in an expansion of the "no fly" zone. I just have to keep an eye and ear open when they are flying.

 

[Crispjon]

Yes the military have their own rules it seems and we need to be very aware . I fly from the beach at Axmouth, East Devon and military helicopters sometimes fly very low in front of the cliffs. I also sail and past Lulworth cove, for instance, and we are forced to sail miles offshore to allow the Army to fire their guns. Freedom of navigation is curtailed when they are firing in a similar way to our nfz's however,at least we are notified via VHF when zones are active.

 

[gnirtS]

Freedom of navigation is curtailed when they are firing in a similar way to our nfz's however,at least we are notified via VHF when zones are active.

All the ranges are on NOTAM (and mariners') when hot along with the times and schedules so no problem.
Always check NOTAM before flying, especially in a designated danger area.

Ultimately the whole point of the VLOS rule is the UAV is so close to the operator he can both see and act to avoid any unexpected conflicting traffic in the area.

 

[MavicMikeMinh]

The council has now answered the FOI request I mentioned in my first post:
Click here for the FOI Request

I'll quote the main bit of their answer:

You have the right to the private enjoyment of your land which includes the “corporeal hereditaments” as defined in the Law of Property Act 1925, including minerals under your property and the airspace above it. Anyone who interferes with this is causing a nuisance, effectively a tort, civil wrong, and you are entitled to take private legal action, usually an injunctive to cease the activity and entitlement to compensation for any interference of the enjoyment. Anyone flying a drone over land on which they have no control needs the landowners permission or they are engaging in a private nuisance. There is Civil Aviation Authority Guidance on this also - please refer to Section 76 Civil Aviation Act 1982 and [2]CAP 722 states that it is important for drone operators to have permission from the owner of the land where a drone takes off and lands.

And the subsequent answer by the person who filed the FOI request:

You have misunderstood s. 76 of the Act. It states that no action lies in trespass or nusiance against an aircraft flown over private property at a reasonable height. Your entire guidance is therefore ill-founded.

 

[gnirtS]

Correct, thats incorrect (and has been proven in court).

Ultimately it comes down to " landowner’s reasonable enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it ".

A drone passing over which can barely or not be heard or seen is never going to fail that test.

It would be up to the land owner to explain to the court how the above interfered with their reasonable enjoyment. Quite simply, they couldn't.

Yes if you're constantly hovering low over it then maybe but normal, sensible drone operators are never going to trigger that clause.

It would be up to the land owner to explain to the court how the above interfered with their reasonable enjoyment. Quite simply, they couldn't.

They quote the CAA about take off and landing then selectively ignore all the guidance for overflight and airspace. At best its disingenuous, at worst deliberately misleading.

Also, the offences they quote are not theirs to police....

 

[MavicMikeMinh]

I think we're dealing here with civil servants who see a need to cover their proverbial back. Councils and similar organisations fear nothing more than being taken to court at very high costs and with much involvement. (In the case of this particular council, by contrast, they pressed the expensive and unnecessary relocation of their own admin building through via the courts, hey ho)

They think they need to fulfil a perceived obligation to set up such rules. Main reason: Others have done the same. Very little have these policies to do with protecting the public or sensibly regulating the public's behaviour.

This is a widespread illness and there is very little that can be done.

The FOI requester did unfortunately not ask how many complaints they had received over what period.

 

[wheelman1uk]

Once again we have local authorities etc either trying it on in the hope of intimidating people or being totally ignorant of their legal position.
They are also inserting the "take off and landing" scenario as a red herring. Yes they have the right to restrict take off and landing from publicly owned spaces such as parks etc simply by framing a bye law forbidding such activity.
What they can't do is over ride the law of the land which allows flying over all property with the exception of very specific areas such as military establishments, royal palaces and commercial airfields. The no fly zones are clearly marked and will have had to be authorised by a court of law.
If you are an inconsiderate drone pilot and consistantly ignore the 50 mts rule and fly in such a manner as to alarm or intimidate the general public then you will be the subject of court action and rightly so.
What becomes a "grey area" is if you have taken off and are flying in an open space with no one around at the time of take off and then during your flight some one should walk/ride/drive within the 50 mts radius zone whose responsibility is it to avoid the other. A technical point ,I know, but thats how a "stated case" is established.
Fly legal but dont give in to ill informed intimidation, remember your views and rights as a rate payer are exactly the same as a non drone owning rate payer.
The caviat to all of this is this applies only to non commercial flyers. Those flying for hire or reward are under entirely different rules.

 

[gnirtS]

Once again we have local authorities etc either trying it on in the hope of intimidating people or being totally ignorant of their legal position.

What they can't do is over ride the law of the land which allows flying over all property with the exception of very specific areas such as military establishments, royal palaces and commercial airfields. The no fly zones are clearly marked and will have had to be authorised by a court of law.
rules.

Its the same tactic national trust employ to try to ban drone overflights. They state by-laws when their by-laws state nothing of the sort (they're online on a public website).

Most of these groups have absolutely zero weight legally but they rely on intimidation and drone users not knowing the laws to put them off flying.

Hopefully in July with the release of the EASA drone rules the CAA/Govt can make some public statements clarifying this and put the jumped up little local authorities in their place.

 

[zocalo]

What is council owned land? By means of rhetorical questions--> The beach, at low tide, at high tide?

This one at least is an absolute. The land between the high and low tide lines is the property of The Crown and the general public has explicit permission to access and use it as common land. e.g. if a body like a council, the National Trust, etc. administers the adjacent shoreline they have absolutely zero jurisdiction to prevent you from operating a drone from or over it - the ANO/Drone Code continues to apply though.

Hopefully in July with the release of the EASA drone rules the CAA/Govt can make some public statements clarifying this and put the jumped up little local authorities in their place.

The NT underpin their blanket ban with a statement that runs along the lines of "because most pilots are not registered and have not passed any competency test..." amongst other legal vagueness similar to that used by the Devon councils which is *already* out of date since legally all pilots of drones over 250g should both be registered *and* have passed a competency test (I assume EH, etc. all do similar but haven't specifically checked them all). Of their six bullet points, I'd say the first two are at least questionable and potentially plain wrong, and there are also issues with three of the rest. I have already raised this point with the NT, and I'm sure others have too, but I think giving them until nearer the formal adoption of the EASA regs in July to update this is fair and reasonable. Failing that, it only takes 50 signatures to have it raised at the AGM, which I'm pretty sure we could manage to amass via a thread here alone, let alone if it were cross-posted via BMFA, FPV, forums etc. (assuming it doesn't breach "no-politics" policies).

To be clear, I certainly have no objections to EH/NT/etc. doing a total ban on what could be considered formal (or even semi-formal) gardens around stately homes etc. over and above the ANO, but for the large tracts of open - and often deserted - open countryside this really needs an update. Sure, if there is on-going lambing, protected fauna, or some such, then fine - but that could easily be time limited in the same way they limit the requirement to have dogs on leashes during lambing season. For all other situations, they can just fall back to the criminal law specified by the ANO and let the police and criminal courts deal with any breaches.

 

[MavicMikeMinh]

The National Trust also refers to a byelaw (here) of 1965, no less, in which they speak of 'conveyances' that are not allowed to park or be left on their premises. They note specifically:

Note: In this Byelaw “conveyance” includes any air, land or watercraft vehicle or machine other than wheelchairs and perambulators. Subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) shall have no application to pedal cycles.

Indeed, it's legal vagueness they use as a method to frighten people into submission.

 

[Wavecloud]

The National Trust also refers to a byelaw (here) of 1965, no less, in which they speak of 'conveyances' that are not allowed to park or be left on their premises. They note specifically:


Indeed, it's legal vagueness they use as a method to frighten people into submission.

I’ve been flying on NT land since the 1980’s - once a guy drove his landy over the land to tell us not to cycle! ???‍

 

[Hiwayman]

This one at least is an absolute. The land between the high and low tide lines is the property of The Crown and the general public has explicit permission to access and use it as common land. e.g. if a body like a council, the National Trust, etc. administers the adjacent shoreline they have absolutely zero jurisdiction to prevent you from operating a drone from or over it - the ANO/Drone Code continues to apply though.




The NT underpin their blanket ban with a statement that runs along the lines of "because most pilots are not registered and have not passed any competency test..." amongst other legal vagueness similar to that used by the Devon councils which is *already* out of date since legally all pilots of drones over 250g should both be registered *and* have passed a competency test (I assume EH, etc. all do similar but haven't specifically checked them all). Of their six bullet points, I'd say the first two are at least questionable and potentially plain wrong, and there are also issues with three of the rest. I have already raised this point with the NT, and I'm sure others have too, but I think giving them until nearer the formal adoption of the EASA regs in July to update this is fair and reasonable. Failing that, it only takes 50 signatures to have it raised at the AGM, which I'm pretty sure we could manage to amass via a thread here alone, let alone if it were cross-posted via BMFA, FPV, forums etc. (assuming it doesn't breach "no-politics" policies).

To be clear, I certainly have no objections to EH/NT/etc. doing a total ban on what could be considered formal (or even semi-formal) gardens around stately homes etc. over and above the ANO, but for the large tracts of open - and often deserted - open countryside this really needs an update. Sure, if there is on-going lambing, protected fauna, or some such, then fine - but that could easily be time limited in the same way they limit the requirement to have dogs on leashes during lambing season. For all other situations, they can just fall back to the criminal law specified by the ANO and let the police and criminal courts deal with any breaches.

I do agree with your statement about the land between high and low water being crown estate, but wonder why many miles of coastline are not indicated as being crown land on their own plans, I refer to their online mapping...last time I looked on of the coast around Cornwall for example was coloured to show ownership ???

 

[MavicMikeMinh]

I’ve been flying on NT land since the 1980’s - once a guy drove his landy over the land to tell us not to cycle! ???‍

Which drone were you using in the 1980s ?

 

[Wavecloud]

Which drone were you using in the 1980s ?

Hey good question. Back then we were using thermal soaring gliders - up to 1000 feet or more. FM 4 channel RC. It was way before brushless motors etc.
Really good electric flight started about 2004ish I would say. Li-po batteries had to be charged outside the house or in a fire proof bag.

 

[chadCO]

Would appear the defects on city council need to be singled out and a social media campaign launched to shine some bright light on their failure. Nothing annoys the epic failures more than a light shining on them, and people pointing and laughing.

 

[zocalo]

Would appear the defects on city council need to be singled out and a social media campaign launched to shine some bright light on their failure. Nothing annoys the epic failures more than a light shining on them, and people pointing and laughing.

Even better - threaten to loose Jackie Weaver on them and be prepared to ?

 

[The Fat Controller]

Even better - threaten to loose Jackie Weaver on them and be prepared to ?

Yep, that'll do the trick.