Restrictions uk

[johnberrieroberts]

Hi, does anybody know where you can fly around the Nottinghamshire - Lincolnshire Uk, area without getting hassled. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to find an Area which isn’t farmland where you might have to seek permission or somewhere away from buildings or people. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. John

 

[adam3112]

Hi, does anybody know where you can fly around the Nottinghamshire - Lincolnshire Uk, area without getting hassled. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to find an Area which isn’t farmland where you might have to seek permission or somewhere away from buildings or people. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. John

Hi John, Parks or any other open area should be alright. If you have a garden in your house, you could even fly it there if it's not too close to an airport.

You shouldn't have to seek permission if it's not in a restricted zone. As long as you're at least 50m away from people and 1KM away from an airport you should be alright.

One of the good things about Mavics is they are quite Stealthy once they are at a certain height so it shouldn't attract too much attention.

 

[dannybgoode]

Hi John, Parks or any other open area should be alright. If you have a garden in your house, you could even fly it there if it's not too close to an airport.

You shouldn't have to seek permission if it's not in a restricted zone. As long as you're at least 50m away from people and 1KM away from an airport you should be alright.

One of the good things about Mavics is they are quite Stealthy once they are at a certain height so it shouldn't attract too much attention.

Note also I am only commenting so you have a full picture of the law and I am not for one minute suggesting that, in reality you are not right. The chances of you getting in to bother is very, very remote.

The strict legal position is a little more complex than that. The CAA only regulate airspace above a certain - slightly indeterminate altitude - but certainly higher than the 120m we are allowed to fly at in the UK. Mess around in regulated airspace, over crowds, over built-up areas or near airports and you'll in trouble.

Below that altitude the landowner 'owns' the airspace and to fly a drone in it is very strictly speaking trespass. However, trespass is a civil matter and not a criminal one so the police (unless the landowner has taken out a specific injunction) cannot arrest you.

The landowner however is within their rights to either prohibit the flying of drones over their land (Sheffield City Council for example do not allow drones to be flown in their parks, the Peak National Park do not permit drones over their land and nor does the National Trust) or to ask you to cease flying on a case by case basis.

If you refuse to move on or if you fly over land where the landowner has prohibited it, enforcement is quite another matter though. As per the above it is not a criminal offence so the police should not really get involved. That said the landowner may well know the local plod better than you and between them may concoct some form of public nuisance offence to at least forcibly remove you from the land!

The landowner could also bring civil proceedings against you but this would be an exceptionally unlikely albeit a very expensive outcome if they did.

I generally fly by rule 1 - don't be a knob.

I do fly over the Peak National Park and I would happily fly in one of Sheffield's parks and over private farmland or other private land (at the minimum requisite height of 50m) but if the landowner asked me to move on I would do. Indeed I did get challenged by the Park Rangers once and they were more than reasonable, let me finish my flight, chatted about the drone and what it could do etc and then I packed up and left. We were both happy - I got my footage and they had done their job.

You have some great countryside around the Notts / Lincs area so get flying but be sensible, be polite and you'll get many happy hours of airtime

 

[FoxhallGH]

The sky is ruled by CAA regulation, and not by the owners of the land beneath it. So as long as you are sticking to 'the Drone Code' [Drone code - Dronesafe] you can fly in lots of places ... However, remember that if you are standing on somebody's land, or your drone has crashed onto that land - you will need to seek the permission of the landowner to be there or do the recovery! I've attached text from an e-mail and letter that I found on the internet in an article asking this question.
Note that you ARE going to get hassled anyway! ... I have friends - who I've known for years - just assume that the only reason people fly Drones is to spy on neighbours, and who would "shoot it down if it flew over them!" We are fighting a lot of prejudice! ... Best thing is to be very sure of your responsibilities and 'restrictions' as a drone pilot, and to be polite if you are hassled. If you are sure that what you are doing is within the Drone code - then invite the person to call the Police if they believe you are breaking laws. Insist that you can't talk to the person while you are controlling the drone, because you are responsible for its safe operation. Bring it back and land it before you enter into any debate (which is also a way to show them that you are taking responsibility seriously!). It's also a good idea to make sure that you know how to access your Flight Data in your Go 4 app' so you can show people where you have flown e.g. that you were actually over 50 metres from them or their house. Have a valid reason for the flight - even if its just "training to get better landscape photographs and videos" - because you are bound to be asked "What are you flying here for?" ... I also keep a folded copy of the drone code in my flying case ... Keep enthusiastic, non-confrontational and have fun.

 

[FoxhallGH]

I was writing my text above at the same time as dannybgoode obviously, as it sprung into view as I posted - but I agree that there are areas where Drone Flying is prohibited and you do have to be careful in that regard ... Agree with his rule # 1 whole-heartedly

 

[dannybgoode]

@FoxhallGH

The sky is ruled by CAA regulation, and not by the owners of the land beneath it...

I used to think the same but having spoken to my bezzie mate who works in the planning dept at the Peak national Park and done a bit of digging as well as speaking to a solicitor friend and an drone insurance underwriter (note I am an insurance underwriter myself but for another class of business but I know the right people to talk to) this is not the case.

Airspace

You also own, and have rights in the airspace above your property; however, these rights are limited. There are two types of airspace – the lower and upper stratums.

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. 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

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.

Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act reads (and its worded in the usual opaque way):

76 Liability of aircraft in respect of trespass, nuisance and surface damage.
(1)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....

(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, where material loss or damage is caused to any person or property on land or water by, or by a person in, or an article, animal or person falling from, an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, then unless the loss or damage was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom it was suffered, damages in respect of the loss or damage shall be recoverable without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action, as if the loss or damage had been caused by the wilful act, neglect, or default of the owner of the aircraft.

(3)Where material loss or damage is caused as aforesaid in circumstances in which—

(a)damages are recoverable in respect of the said loss or damage by virtue only of subsection (2) above, and

(b)a legal liability is created in some person other than the owner to pay damages in respect of the said loss or damage,

the owner shall be entitled to be indemnified by that other person against any claim in respect of the said loss or damage.

(4)Where the aircraft concerned has been bona fide demised, let or hired out for any period exceeding fourteen days to any other person by the owner thereof, and no pilot, commander, navigator or operative member of the crew of the aircraft is in the employment of the owner, this section shall have effect as if for references to the owner there were substituted references to the person to whom the aircraft has been so demised, let or hired out.

The bit I have highlighted in bold and italics is the Act's way of saying the CAA has remit over the upper stratum and landowners cannot object to overflight in CAA controlled airspace. Below that (and note the really annoying but highly legalistic use of the word 'reasonable') the landowner does have rights of recourse for nuisance and trespass. It is because of the word 'reasonable' that the altitude is somewhat indeterminate and it is because of the verbose nature of the Act that I have spoken to three people with the requisite experience to decode it!

The only reason I decided to investigate is because the Peak Park rangers (very politely) told me to bugger off and I was interested under what authority they could do this.

Again and to reiterate - I am not for one minute saying that a landowner is going to have someone in court for flying over their property - be nice and be polite and it''ll resolve itself. But, UK civil law is a pain and it gives landowners some archaic rights (did you know for example you have a right to light in to your property due to some law dating back to the 1800's) and they do indeed 'own' the airspace above their property at least to the height to which we are permitted to fly.

 

[choo choo]

An interesting debate. Section 76 was written in 1982, long before drones were invented. I suspect it may apply only to aeroplanes.
The drone laws are a separate item within the air navigation order.
Of course we all have a civil right to the air above our property, and again I suspect this was more to do with overhanging buildings or other structures. If you fly into your neighbours garden at 20 feet, he’s not going to be a happy chappy.
Fly over at 50 metres which is what the drone law says you can do and there shouldn’t be a problem. I agree it’s about not being a ‘plonker’ and flying with due regard to others.

 

[dannybgoode]

An interesting debate. Section 76 was written in 1982, long before drones were invented. I suspect it may apply only to aeroplanes.
The drone laws are a separate item within the air navigation order.
Of course we all have a civil right to the air above our property, and again I suspect this was more to do with overhanging buildings or other structures. If you fly into your neighbours garden at 20 feet, he’s not going to be a happy chappy.
Fly over at 50 metres which is what the drone law says you can do and there shouldn’t be a problem. I agree it’s about not being a ‘plonker’ and flying with due regard to others.

It’s the bit about reasonable enjoyment of your land that’s important (the nuisance part of the Act). Hover above someone’s garden at 100m they could argue you are interfering with this right.

Fly over multiple times in a short space of time the same applies.

Absolutely the law was written before drones came in to being but ultimate the Act could still apply. Remember the data protection act which was hideously out of date given that it was introduced in 1998 only got replaced on 25 May this year

As I say, the chances of anyone actually getting into real legal trouble is remote but a good knowledge of the law as it stands puts you in a good position to argue your case if necessary.

I myself put in some legally questionable flights but I am always happy I am not endangering myself or others so am prepared to take the slight risk.

Again, rule one gets you an awful long way in this game and keeps you out of trouble to the most part.

 

[DuffMog]

me too I fly in area Ng5 and find problems where to go away from Kids and other problems even found signs Bradgate Park no Drones allowed .Any new restrictions will ,or should apply to fixed wing modeller s So they should be on board, giving us a greater say in any future legislation .

 

[FoxhallGH]

me too I fly in area Ng5 and find problems where to go away from Kids and other problems even found signs Bradgate Park no Drones allowed .Any new restrictions will ,or should apply to fixed wing modeller s So they should be on board, giving us a greater say in any future legislation .

The BMFA Handbook in Section 8 - pretty much repeats the Drone Safe code - but does so in a way that 'small unmanned aircraft' with a surveillance capability (i.e. a drone with a camera), are placed under a separate set of rules. So the average RC flyer with a model aircraft that doesn't have a camera, are under a less strict set of rules ... However, that said, RC aircraft pilots do tend to fly from designated club-sites and don't usually have the same capability to just pop their a/c up in a back yard. If you want the BMFA to support drone users, I think you'd need a whole lot more drone users as members to get some weight behind any lobbying. I have BMFA membership because it's also a good way to get third party insurance to cover damage caused by me if I crash into someone's property.

 

[choo choo]

The part that applies to drones, with a mass under 20kg is a separate section contained within the air navigation order 2016. The rules are 94, 94a, 94b and specifically relating to drones with a camera.. regulation 95. This prohibits the flying of a drone over 400feet all, and within 50 feet of any ship, building or structure not within the pilots control.

 

[dannybgoode]

The part that applies to drones, with a mass under 20kg is a separate section contained within the air navigation order 2016. The rules are 94, 94a, 94b and specifically relating to drones with a camera.. regulation 95. This prohibits the flying of a drone over 400feet all, and within 50 feet of any ship, building or structure not within the pilots control.

Thing is none of this overrides civil law such as trespass.

You can fly absolutely legally according to the CAA but still fall foul of civil law.

The best analogy I can give is driving a car on someone’s private land. The Road Traffic Act dictates how you must drive - speed limits, sides of the road, what to do at traffic lights etc so this is the equivalent of the CAA and ANO. No dispute - those Acts state very clearly what is legal and what is illegal drone activity.

Now we come to civil law. I can drive quite legally according to the RTA but I could face a private prosecution if I was to tear around someone’s land without permission. Whether and how I would get caught etc is open to question but nonetheless it could happen.

Similarly a landowner could put up signs and notices saying ‘no trespassing - private land’ and expect you to comply. How they would enforce this again is open to question.

So you can drive according to the law but still face a civil prosecution of trespass.

Exactly the same applies to drones. You can fly perfectly legally according to the Act but still be breaking civil law - most notably trespass and nuisance. A landowner is absolutely entitled to prohibit drone flying over their land, particularly at 120m or less - it doesn’t matter what the CAA states - how they would and whether they would enforce a prosecution is another matter altogether.

TL;DR Criminal Law and Civil Law are two very different things in the UK and you can comply with one whilst breaking the other.

 

[phil_b]

This has been a very interesting read. I was under the obviously wrong impression that a land owner did not own the airspace over their property and we could fly as we wished although obviously following the CAA rules. I am researching this after reading a lot of conflicting replies to a thread discussing this video Fox hunters appear to shoot a protester's drone out of the sky as bullets fly past the camera | Daily Mail Online

Land owners were claiming that the drone was trespassing while the drone fliers think they can fly at will. It ended with the drone being shot at.