Hobby drone flights to be illegal in Coventry, UK

[UAVNV]

Important moment in drone aviation, it sets a precedent that will be used for study, and future regulation for hobby UAV pilots

Drone concerns prompt council ban

 

[dannybgoode]

Important moment in drone aviation, it sets a precedent that will be used for study, and future regulation for hobby UAV pilots

Drone concerns prompt council ban

Nothing really new here. Sheffield council has forbidden drones on its land for a couple of years now, Leicester has recently introduced the same. Don’t see how this annoucement sets any precedents.

It does not impact your ability to fly on private land and oftentimes flying in city parks breaches the 150m distance rule from built up areas or the 30m rule when taking off and landing from people not in your control anyway so the impact is not that great I don’t think.

I have never had any desire to fly from a park in Sheffield anyway - very boring places to fly with no great footage or photos gone had.

 

[JohnChap]

Does the council control the airspace? I think this has been discussed in other threads.

 

[philbr118]

Knee jerk reaction born from ignorance !

 

[zocalo]

Does the council control the airspace? I think this has been discussed in other threads.

No, the CAA does, but there is some ambiguity in the way things are written over what is permitted once in the air, with any disputes (assuming an otherwise legal flight) a matter for the civil courts.

One interpretation is that they would be treated like regular aircraft that are permitted to overfly provided they do not cause a disturbance to the landowner, but others say this is not the case for drones. It also doesn't help that at different times representatives of the CAA appears to have provided conflicting advice/clarifications on this so it's not entirely clear what the current official line is.

Ultimately, it would be a civil matter for the courts, so the landowner would need to identify the drone pilot, issue a summons, and then sue them in civil court (quite what for is a also matter of debate), which would likely be expensive for both parties. AFAIK, there is no clear precedent on this where the drone is being flown in compliance with the CAA's general rules - every case is likely going to be different. The CAA does seem pretty clear that they would not want to get involved in any such case unless there was also a breach of the Drone Code however.

Here are a couple of relevant (but decidedly lacking in clarity) bits from the CAA's website:

Drones should be flown at a height over the property of another person which is ‘reasonable’ in all circumstances. Failure to do so could amount to trespass if the flight interferes with another person’s ordinary use and enjoyment of land and the structures upon it.

What is "reasonable" would be up to the civil court, but this is absolutely *NOT* a blanket ban as far as the CAA is concerned, who defer to the relevant bits in the Civil Aviation Act, 1982, in particular the section on Trespass and Nuisance:

No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with F1....

So "reasonable" again, and thus left to the civil courts to decide - should they be given the opportunity to do so.

The crux of it seems to be that, yes, it's OK to overfly private land but, per the Drone Code, the flight is entirely your responsibility. That apparently includes an assessment of whether a landowner would consider your flight "unreasonable" and, having done so, take you to court over it. Assuming they can identify you, of course.

 

[Brian D]

No, the CAA does, but there is some ambiguity in the way things are written over what is permitted once in the air, with any disputes (assuming an otherwise legal flight) a matter for the civil courts.

One interpretation is that they would be treated like regular aircraft that are permitted to overfly provided they do not cause a disturbance to the landowner, but others say this is not the case for drones. It also doesn't help that at different times representatives of the CAA appears to have provided conflicting advice/clarifications on this so it's not entirely clear what the current official line is.

Ultimately, it would be a civil matter for the courts, so the landowner would need to identify the drone pilot, issue a summons, and then sue them in civil court (quite what for is a also matter of debate), which would likely be expensive for both parties. AFAIK, there is no clear precedent on this where the drone is being flown in compliance with the CAA's general rules - every case is likely going to be different. The CAA does seem pretty clear that they would not want to get involved in any such case unless there was also a breach of the Drone Code however.

Here are a couple of relevant (but decidedly lacking in clarity) bits from the CAA's website:



What is "reasonable" would be up to the civil court, but this is absolutely *NOT* a blanket ban as far as the CAA is concerned, who defer to the relevant bits in the Civil Aviation Act, 1982, in particular the section on Trespass and Nuisance:



So "reasonable" again, and thus left to the civil courts to decide - should they be given the opportunity to do so.

The crux of it seems to be that, yes, it's OK to overfly private land but, per the Drone Code, the flight is entirely your responsibility. That apparently includes an assessment of whether a landowner would consider your flight "unreasonable" and, having done so, take you to court over it. Assuming they can identify you, of course.

Well I'd have to say ..... per local law .. 51 ft is what is deemed the distance that one is safely not in violation of local ordinances .... if they ( a complaining party ) can show otherwise it's on them ....

 

[dannybgoode]

Again all of this ignores a landowner’s civil rights to forbid trespass if they want and that includes in the lower stratum of the airspace above their land; the lower stratum extending to at least 500’.

See this thread for my email to the CAA asking for clarification on this point.

Detailed National Trust property NFZ map

 

[zocalo]

Again all of this ignores a landowner’s civil rights to forbid trespass if they want and that includes in the lower stratum of the airspace above their land; the lower stratum extending to at least 500’.

See this thread for my email to the CAA asking for clarification on this point.

Detailed National Trust property NFZ map

Citation, in the form of legal statute(s), definitely needed.

You have an opinion, from the CAA perhaps, but others have contradictory ones, as I mentioned, e.g. this in relation to a drone overflight of Stonehenge (NT property and covered by their "no drones" policy):

Dear Sir

Thank you for your email

They do not own the airspace and if you abide by the ANO and other airspace restrictions in that area e.g. NOTAMs then you may operate.

Thank you,
Thomas Guest
UAV Services
Civil Aviation Authority

There is *nothing* in the legislation applying to/by the CAA that I can find that specifies this to any altitude, let alone 500ft, only the uses of terms like "reasonable" and "causing a disturbance".

There may be something in some other statute, perhaps concerning trespass, but I've had no luck finding it. Nor, apparently, have these legal advisers (PDF) offering guidance to landowners on dealing with drones who also defer to the CAA statutes (and specifically to the clause I also used above). Here's the crux of the UK legal ruling that they are making their advice base on from the PDF:

This balance is in my judgment best struck in our present society by restricting the rights of an owner in the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public.

That does imply landowners have at least some rights to airspace over their land it's definitely NOT a specific altitude, 500ft or otherwise, so we're essentially back to "reasonable" again.

Either way, I think it's pretty clear that any dispute between pilot and landowners would be a civil matter. The police are also pretty clear that they have no jurisdication over trespass alone, (that changes if it devolves into a civil disturbance or something), and the CAA won't get involved without a breach of the ANO. Until someone actually gets a court to commit to a definition of reasonable, it seems we're just going to have to just our best judgement in this situation.

 

[dannybgoode]

@zocalo - I absolutely agree we are entirely in the realms of civil proceedings. Because landowners own the lower stratum above their property it is completely outside the CAA's authority hence why it's not in the Drone Code or anything else.

I do not have anything from the CAA yet - that is what I am waiting for and as per my email to them it is this thorny statutory definition of 'property' that is the crux of the matter:

---
The civil tort of trespass provides that a person’s property (and this is the statutory definition as ‘The statutory definition of land under section 205(1)(ix) of the Law of Property Act 1925 includes “land of any tenure, and mines and minerals … buildings or parts of buildings and other corporeal hereditaments; also … incorporeal hereditaments and an easement right privilege or benefit in, over [my emphasis] or derived from land.
---

---
Airspace is then further split in to the lower and higher stratum and in respect of the lower stratum ‘This is the airspace immediately above/around the land. Interference with this air space would affect the landowner’s reasonable enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it. You can prevent people from interfering with or intruding on this airspace [my emphasis]. For instance, projecting eaves or advertising signs, and tower cranes being used for construction work on neighbouring land but which swing across your airspace.’

The higher stratum is thus ‘This is the airspace which exists above the height which is reasonably acceptable and necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land by its owner – around 500 to 1000 feet above roof space level (Section 76 Civil Aviation Act 1982). Landowners have no greater rights to this airspace than any other member of the public.’.
---

But, just because it is a civil matter does not mean that you can do whatever you want and be free of fear of consequence. Large landowners tend to have money and can therefore afford to take a civil action against you should they wish. They don't even have to have a particularly strong case - just money to pay for the action. And you'll need money to defend the action - lots and lots of money.

I would dearly love the CAA to come back to me and tell me civil law doesn't apply and that I can fly with impunity over private land regardless of the wishes of the landowner but I just cannot see that being the case. I can think of no other precedent for civil torts to be disregarded in this manner.

I am with you largely though - I have flown over private land where I know the landowner has forbidden drones and have only once had someone come up to me (Peak National Park ranger). I just packed up as asked and all was good. I will continue to take this stance also but it is important people are fully appraised of the legal situation so they know the right argument to use at the right time or when to simply pack up and go...

 

[zocalo]

I do not have anything from the CAA yet - that is what I am waiting for and as per my email to them it is this thorny statutory definition of 'property' that is the crux of the matter:

---
The civil tort of trespass provides that a person’s property (and this is the statutory definition as ‘The statutory definition of land under section 205(1)(ix) of the Law of Property Act 1925 includes “land of any tenure, and mines and minerals … buildings or parts of buildings and other corporeal hereditaments; also … incorporeal hereditaments and an easement right privilege or benefit in, over [my emphasis] or derived from land.

My feeling is that this was the core of the dispute referenced by the CLA's PDF in my post, and the ruling basically set an upper bound on that without actually specifying what it was, only that it should be "reasonable". Hopefully the CAA will get back to you soon, but for me getting some bounds on "reasonable" would be much more useful rather than a definition of "property", unless setting an upper bound on it. E.g. if the drone is at sufficient altitude that it is inaudible over ambient noise (and by implication only a dot in the sky), then it can hardly be "causing a disturbance", can it? That's going to require a court ruling though, and I doubt very much that the CAA will want to commit to anything on that if asked in any other context.

As you say, it's mostly a matter of being responsible and, as I noted earlier, more about thinking what the landowner considers reasonable than you as the pilot. I suspect the CAA might get back to you in equally black and white terms as the email I posted above, but ultimately a landowner could (if they were so inclined) bring a civil suit on pretty much whatever they please, regardless of what the CAA says. Whether they'd prevail is down to the courts, but whether both the landowner and pilot would incur legal costs is pretty much a given, so fly (or not) accordingly and in the event of being confronted aim to de-escalate the situation and/or leave before things can get out hand.

Hopefully the new legislation due this year will clear things up a bit, although I suspect they'll just add even more restrictions and thicken the mud - as usual.

 

[dannybgoode]

I tend to agree with you - the CAA will say as far as they are concerned so long as you comply with the law they do not care but civil torts still apply in other respects.

I can see a civil case being brought at some point though (hopefully not against me - I can't afford it!) which would hopefully set some precedents.

 

[zocalo]

I can see a civil case being brought at some point though (hopefully not against me - I can't afford it!) which would hopefully set some precedents.

Just a matter of time I think, and with the post-Gatwick hysteria it's not just the cost to worry about, it's the all but inevitable media coverage as well. I think it's pretty obvious which side certain tabloids are going to take, regardless of the facts, so the costs might not be the worst of it.

 

[dannybgoode]

Just a matter of time I think, and with the post-Gatwick hysteria it's not just the cost to worry about, it's the all but inevitable media coverage as well. I think it's pretty obvious which side certain tabloids are going to take, regardless of the facts, so the costs might not be the worst of it.

Indeed - and hence why discretion is the better part of valour if confronted

 

[JDawg]

So shouldn't they know for certain what happened at Gatwick before reacting to what happened at Gatwick?