State and National Parks No Fly Zone

[sar104]

Under UK civil law that is exactly the situation. Of course it is most often ignored and rarely tested in caught but technically overflying private land at anywhere from 500-1000’ (the exact height is purposefully vague) is trespassing and a civil case could be brought about by the landowner.

It is not however a criminal matter and the CAA have no say in the matter either so there is no breach of their regulations either.

The police however have been given greater powers to clamp down on drone pilots who are perceived to be causing a breach of the peace.

How do aircraft land at airports without trespassing? With a 3° glide slope they are going to be below 500 ft from around 3 km out.

 

[dannybgoode]

How do aircraft land at airports without trespassing? With a 3° glide slope they are going to be below 500 ft from around 3 km out.

Commercial aircraft always fall under the remit of the CAA.

English civil law is a nightmare - expensive and precedent led so until a particular circumstance is tested (usually at huge cost to each party) the outcome is uncertain.

It also uses words like ‘resonable’ in the strict legal sense. So for example the Civil Aviation Act states that landowners can expect to have ‘reasonable’ enjoyment if their land free from nuisance.

So, as an example, a farmer puts up signs on some remote fields which are not used for livestock saying ‘no drones permitted’. You overfly one at a height of 120m and a speed of 30kmh whilst he is in his farmhouse 2km away. He takes you to court and the judge has to decide whether the flight prevented his reasonable enjoyment of his land. The answer is probably not but it would cost me £££££ to defend the position just as it would cost the farmer ££££££ to prosecute. In the end rule 1 - don’t be a knob applies. Farmer turns up and asks you to move on; pack up and go (after all he may be more friendly with the local plod than you!).

Similarly - a country house has no signs up but a drone pilot spends an hour a day hovering over the garden at a height of 50m. After a week the homeowner has had enough and threatens court action. The pilot carries on citing various CAA drone regs that show he is flying legally (ie within the bounds of criminal law) etc and suddenly finds a very expensive civil writ on their doorstep. Were they preventing ‘reasonable enjoyment’? Quite possibly but again it is going to cost money to find out.

English lawyers love arguing over a point of civil law as it usually means a healthy pay cheque .

I need to look more closely at the new police powers but they essentially extend things like public nuisance, breach of peace etc so if you’re being a knob in a public space (and by public I mean open to the public, not necessarily publically owned) they have greater powers to move you on or confiscate your equipment.

 

[Brian D]

We need to engage with other users of Public space, not take the default stance of playing the Victim.

The Alcatraz restriction for instance is totally understandable, there are known issues with small aircraft and drones dropping drugs and even escapes from Gaols using Helicopters.

That was about the most daft thing I've ever seen

 

[Tymaxboy]

I think it is childish to NOT consider National parks an NFZ. also, having a part 107 doesnt teach you ANYTHING that should make you feel better about flying at a NP.
The parks CANNOT control airspace, or what is done outside of their margins. It would be different if they could.
But you would have to be a complete idiot to not understand the parks wishes when it comes to drones. And finding workarounds doesnt make you look smarter, or better at all.

Who is looking for a work around? What is childish about wanting to capture pictures of our natural sights? I even said I wouldn't want to go from the outside due to the lack of sight. Are you a part 107 pilot? I'm betting you're not. The only idiot is the person who thinks you can't take anything from educating yourself to make you better at your craft. Having the part 107, to me, at least shows you spent some time and have made an effort to educate yourself.
Why are you in this sight? What do you fly your drone for? I'm really curious as to what you actually deem worthy of a flight??

 

[ac0j]

Who is looking for a work around? What is childish about wanting to capture pictures of our natural sights? I even said I wouldn't want to go from the outside due to the lack of sight. Are you a part 107 pilot? I'm betting you're not. The only idiot is the person who thinks you can't take anything from educating yourself to make you better at your craft. Having the part 107, to me, at least shows you spent some time and have made an effort to educate yourself.
Why are you in this sight? What do you fly your drone for? I'm really curious as to what you actually deem worthy of a flight??

Wow, No. I am not a part 107. Because that is for people who want to use their toys professionally. OR to say they are somehow better than hobby pilots. If you think it makes you “better” at drone flying, well, you are wrong. I see no need to educate myself on charts and maps used to navigate manned aircraft to landing sites or to mark towers and obstacles in the dark.
When I fly my toy it is well below where manned aircraft should ever be, and I can see any towers or obstacles with my own eyes flying legally in VLOS. I also have no desire to fly near airports where any mishaps are far more likely to happen. That is unsafe practice with or without a part 107.
I fly for fun. I don’t take many pictures if at all with or without a drone. I mainly use the camera to see things that are hard for me to get to. I don’t have a need for terabytes if pictures that I may or may not ever look at again. AND I don’t want to be the guy that busts out the photo albums every time someone stops for a visit.
I fly over closed roads under repair to see what is happening. I fly over construction sites to see the progress (after workers have left for the day) and I might check my gutters now and then. Whatever I want a better look at.
As to the question about childish, Flying a drone into a park from the outside when the park obviously does not want drones flying around in it is very similar to a child sneaking a soda to their room after their mommy tells them no soda tonight.