Stopped by the Drone Police.

[Derlisz]

No argument on the property vs. open tract of land thing. More nuance in terms of country estates vs. tracts of open countryside with no real fixed structures in would definitely be more in keeping with the "forever for everyone" line. Just stick to the DroneCode with the latter, maybe with exceptions during lambing seasons, etc., and everyone should be happy; even on a still day, it's pretty rare you'll see anyone react when you fly past with over 50m separation.

FWIW, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland fall under the National Trust (NT), Scotland falls under the National Trust for Scotland (NTS). There's a similar setup for some other similar organizations, IIRC, which is basically down to how the Union is structured politically and administratively arising from how they entered the Union.

Pretty sure the NT can't just make their own by-laws, only apply for them, but as a landowner they can make reasonable requests as to what people can/can't do on their land, and over it to a "reasonable" degree regarding privacy and enjoyment of that land. What consitutues "reasonable" isn't precisely defined and would need to be resolved on a case-by-case basis in a civil court as a result of them bringing a civil suit against someone. e.g. there is no altitude stipulated in law above which they have no grounds for a case.

The CAA's view (which they've gone on record with) is that they have the final word on ALL the UK's airspace and as long as an overflight is in compliance with the Drone Code they have no problem with it. Note that this does NOT preclude a landowner such as the NT bringing a civil suit, and you're still going to want a lawyer (and thus incur costs) if they do, it just means it's not a criminal case unless the flight also infringed aviation or other laws.

In civil lawsuit it would fall to them to prove you have caused them damages by your actions. It would only apply if you actually taken off from their land as the airspace is outside of their control. There have been no cases like this that I have heard of. Probably for a reason. Thay would have a hard time to win 1 in a 100 of them at a cost for the organisation.

Quite true. Besides CAA regulations, the NT byelaw they seem to be pinning this on is this:



I think that means they're good on their commerical ban of drones on their property without explicit consent, but also as landowner they do have the right to issue a default ban on flying drones from their land because as pilots *are* supposed seek permission from landowners before operating from them (but not necessarily over them which is more subjective). This is also what gives their staff the right to ask drone operators on their property to pack up, and potentially leave the grounds. Claiming the ban is underpinned by their byelaws rather than just landowner's civil rights, especially trespass, is incorrect though.

So, as I continue to read the situation:

• Non-commercial imagery of their properties taken legally from outside their grounds is perfectly fine.
• Commercial use of the same imagery without authorisation could (on past NT form) result in a civil suit, but would obviously depend on specifics of the footage and where it was shot from.
• Commercial imagery taken within their grounds without permission is covered by the photography byelaw and definitely out. On past form you can probably expect to be on the receiving end of civil suit if the NT finds out as well.
• Non-commerical imagery from within their grounds (assuming the flight is otherwise CAA legal) basically fall down to landowner's rights and their ability to bring a civil suit on whatever grounds they feel has some merit.

Whether they would bring a civil suit or not would likely depend on the circumstances as it will incur cost and inconvenience for all parties, and if they lose it sets a precedent they won't want. It's clearly a grey area and one I personally would prefer to avoid taking too many risks with, but provided a given flight is legal, the footage isn't commercialised, and there are clearly no safety or privacy angles they could cite in civil court (e.g. deserted open countryside) I expect they'd be more inclined to let it slide.

I absolutely agree with the above. I have been asked in the past for footage by TV companies and if I was filming any NT or EH properties I advised them that thay can purchase it providing that they apply for retrospective permit form these entities. I understand that commercial use could end up in court otherwise. On their page they famously claimed that flying over their properties is against the law as set by CAA to which CAA said it was absolutely not true if the flight is legal within air navigation order. They have used the bylaw argument in private correspondence before as well and also have been shot down. On another note I would also urge everyone wanting to film any of these places to do it safely best before or after opening times.

 

[zocalo]

In civil lawsuit it would fall to them to prove you have caused them damages by your actions. It would only apply if you actually taken off from their land as the airspace is outside of their control. There have been no cases like this that I have heard of. Probably for a reason. Thay would have a hard time to win 1 in a 100 of them at a cost for the organisation.

That's my interpretation of potential civil suits too. They would have to demonstrate some form of harm sufficient to convince a civil court judge. They are, however, free to try and do that both for people on their property and people flying drones over it, even if the pilot is not physically on the property. (There is some legal precedent that UK landowner's civil rights *do* extend to the airspace, but "only to a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land", e.g. a civil court gets to decide.)

The crux for me is the ANO enforced by the CAA, because that's actual criminal law and makes the pilot responsible for the safety of all aspects of their flight. Comply with that, especially the safety aspect, and you're probably good because 50m (150m for built up areas/crowds) with a typical wideangle lens and level of noise from a modern drone is going to make an invasion of privacy or inability to enjoy the land quite hard to demonstrate. Not being on their land in the first place obviously severely weakens any trespass argument as well.

Personally, I think it highly unlikely the NT, EH, etc., would pursue anyone not blatently commercialising footage of their land if it was clearly legal by CAA requirements, and had no other clear cut privacy/safety issues they could argue. Even without the legal costs they will incur, they're simply not going to want the risk of losing and setting a precedent for future cases.

 

[The Fat Controller]

That's my interpretation of potential civil suits too. They would have to demonstrate some form of harm sufficient to convince a civil court judge. They are, however, free to try and do that both for people on their property and people flying drones over it, even if the pilot is not physically on the property. (There is some legal precedent that UK landowner's civil rights *do* extend to the airspace, but "only to a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land", e.g. a civil court gets to decide.)

The crux for me is the ANO enforced by the CAA, because that's actual criminal law and makes the pilot responsible for the safety of all aspects of their flight. Comply with that, especially the safety aspect, and you're probably good because 50m (150m for built up areas/crowds) with a typical wideangle lens and level of noise from a modern drone is going to make an invasion of privacy or inability to enjoy the land quite hard to demonstrate. Not being on their land in the first place obviously severely weakens any trespass argument as well.

Personally, I think it highly unlikely the NT, EH, etc., would pursue anyone not blatently commercialising footage of their land if it was clearly legal by CAA requirements, and had no other clear cut privacy/safety issues they could argue. Even without the legal costs they will incur, they're simply not going to want the risk of losing and setting a precedent for future cases.

Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. They are not going to want to be seen coming down like a ton of bricks on Mr Ordinary Citizen who just wanted a few nice drone shots and did so in a safe manner and without annoying anyone else. It would put off potential customers for them to be seen using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.You can get great shots really early in the morning (4 or 5am in summer) and can almost guarantee there will be no one else around. From a flying perspective the air can also be a lot calmer at that time of the morning.

 

[madmax319]

I found it interesting that one of the reasons for no drone flights was taking unauthorized photos of people with the drone, then what about all the people with cell phones taking photos lets see them stop all of them first.

 

[Myha]

I know that I will attract a few comments from some, but no matter.

My attitude is to abide by the CAA guidelines for safe flying, remain more than 50 metres from any monument like this stone circle and then fly in from over a 1km away as I have done in the past. At 50 metres altitude it is unlikely that anyone will hear the drone and operating from at least 1km distant means that you are unlikely to be spotted by any "Jobsworth".

I note that you say that visitors appear at the site before sunrise and this does give rise for concern as I prefer to fly during high summer and very early in the morning when there are no people about for no other reason than it is safe to do so! Plus no people in the shots!

I know that many will disagree with my attitude, but personally I am usually done within a 10 minute sortie and away. Job done!

I had a similar problem at Stonehenge, despite arriving at 5am after travelling 75 miles. I stupidly asked the security if it was ok to get some aerial shots of the henge - "Nope, you cant fly in this area!". This was despite the fact that the site didn't open to the public until 9:30am - that was four hours before anybody would enter the site. So I politely said "thanks and bye" and drove to a small hill with bushes about 1km distant and got my shots. No I was not LOS either.

Obviously many will say that my attitude was reckless, but they can explain to me why if they are so desperate to do so!! These people will say that I am the reason why all these rules are being introduced - it is not! It is about control and money - nothing more and nothing less.

I have been flying remote controlled aircraft for years. I have only crashed once and this was due to Vortex ring state effect whilst descending.
I know the rules and I make a calculated assessment of the target area and proceed from there - and I always will. Commonsense is the name of this game and to be as crafty as possible.