The CRT can’t even police the waterways effectively for boats that don’t pay their licence fee or abide by the rules of continuous cruising so I don’t think us drone pilots have much to worry about.
2 Likes
Tagged locations are the devils work ;o)
1 Like
I emailed the CAA a while ago pretending to be a land owner regarding the 500ft thing. They didn’t even acknowledge it. But then they didn’t exactly provide the most up to date information either.
Hello,
I am probably messaging the wrong department, if you could forward to the correct one if necessary, that would be helpful.
I am after clarification of section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. A number of online sources claim that the upper stratum airspace above a property is considered to be 500 to 1000 feet above roof space level and this is considered public space, giving no legal rights over it.
Drones have a maximum flight altitude of 400 feet from the ground. So therefore if someone is flying a drone directly over my property at between 50 and 400 feet could I consider it trespassing on my land.
Again according to some online sources the legal definition of lower stratum airspace states this is airspace immediately surrounding your property and that any interference of it could affect your personal enjoyment. Essentially, you own the airspace immediately around your property, which means you have a legal right to prevent people intruding on that space.
However, despite these sources saying this comes from section 76, having read it here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/16/section/76/2019-05-08 I see no mention of these definitions.
Could it be clarified please, ideally in plain English where possible.
The Response was:
Thank you for your enquiry.
In the UK, airspace is not legally owned by anyone, that includes the airspace immediately above residential properties.
Drones are subject to operating restrictions, which includes the requirement to not fly within 50m of any people or property. Additionally, drones should not fly within 150m of built-up urban areas.
You may find this factsheet useful DRONE RULES: FLYING IN TOWNS (OR BUSY AREAS) (caa.co.uk)
I hope this helps.
Kind regards
Richard Taylor
Communications Department
Civil Aviation Authority
2 Likes
Meet Ms Clarke
1 Like
It all suddenly makes a lot of sense. Drone pilots overflying their canals are threatening their capability to monetise filming and photography.
1 Like
I’m guessing by “a while ago” you don’t mean before the EASA regs.
1 Like
Was less than 12 months ago.
They refer to case law regarding the height of the airspace ownership. Funnily enough:
Ownership of airspace extends to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land: Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] 1 QB 479; far enough to prevent oversailing by cranes, for example, but not so far as to render the flight of a 747 thousands of feet above the rooftops a trespass.
There is a basic principle in law that the owner of a property will also own the airspace above that property, to such a height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of it. This was established in the aptly named legal case Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd .
https://www.rhw.co.uk/airspace-what-are-your-rights-what-should-you-consider/
As indicated above, it has long been recognised that landowners’ rights to the airspace above their land cannot be allowed to inhibit the use of that airspace, above a reasonable height, for powered flight.
I would love to know which case(s) they are referring to because all I could find pretty much say the same I have quoted.
Strictly speaking citing Bernstein v. Skyviews directly isn’t correct in modern jurisprudence because it was superseded when it was codified into the Civil Aviation Act 1982 which modified it into
“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… all the circumstances of the case is reasonable”
So while a crane overhanging in the airspace directly above your land is likely to hinder your enjoyment of the land, it’s far less clear that a small UAS overflying at 60m is going to do so. It’s also a misconception that trespass to land is strictly being on land but rather interference with the enjoyment of land or structures thereon, which is what allows some cases involving airspace to be defined as trespass when, as the CAA has correctly said, all airspace is a public asset.
Good luck to whoever wants to argue to a judge that a small UAS over land is an interference.
2 Likes
Just refer to a CAA 250k aviation chart for that area. If no restrictions are shown on the chart (NOTAM etc. permitting), you can fly over it. Simple as that.
Cheers - Rob. Real life pilot, fwiw!
5 Likes
CAA guidance to local authorities CAP722C point 4.3.2
CAP 722C: UAS Airspace Restrictions Guidance and Policy (caa.co.uk)
Whilst byelaws may exist which protect council land, and those using it, these are not UAS
Geographical Zones and the management of this airspace is only possible following
establishment of an appropriate airspace structure, in accordance with the documents
referenced throughout CAP 722C; the airspace remains a State asset, and is managed by
the sponsor. As such, the details of these Byelaws will not be promulgated as UAS
Geographical Zones within the AIP and will therefore not be displayed on online charts or
apps. If Councils deem a UAS Geographical Zone is required in addition to any Byelaws,
then they should follow the guidance within this document and the relevant referenced
documents.<
I believe it is the same for private land, note the term “state asset”.
There’s more than a degree of truth to that. But, there’s more than 2000 miles of canals, so you’re not likely to bump into anything “official” happening, unless you’re somewhere popular like the Anderton Boat Lift.
Most boat owners, us included, have something of a love/hate relationship with CRT. They do have a difficult job to do, trying to maintain a 200 year old infrastructure that involves water. Like a good many organisations, the staff and engineers on the ground (a lot have been outsourced, and there are a lot of volunteers too) are fantastic - it’s when you have to get involved with head office and the contact centre things frequently go awry. Which is not to say there aren’t some great people there too, there are (particularly in the tunnel/passage booking teams) though they are often hamstring by
inadequate systems and procedures. But, it’s always obvious there’s a huge disconnect between heat office/contact centre and real life on the canals - it’s like two different organisations.
There are, of course, some miserable boaters out and about, but on the whole, if it’s necessary (or you feel obliged) to ask (as the subject is a scenic aqueduct where people are moored, for example, like the below on the Macclesfield Canal) you’ll almost always get a positive response.
I’d just apply usual common sense, and not even bother trying to contact head office.
1 Like
I think you got the wrong end of the stick as to what I was trying to say. I mean, if there’s someone who wants to film or photo CRT canals, they want their cut. That’s the vibe I got from the video that was posted.
1 Like
Well given the canals are a public area, and there must be hundreds of photos of them taken every day (whether the camera flies or not) I don’t see how that would work.
I do see the CRT would like (and do) to sell location services to tv and film companies (which is what I thought you meant).
Whatever next - Network Rail wanting to charge for all the selfies taken on stations (actually, I’m sure they’d love to do that!)
1 Like
Don’t forget to email a copy to Cassie Clarke (she/her)
I think almost everyone on this forum is a real-life pilot.
Trespass doesn’t come under their jurisdiction or expertise. It would be decided on the circumstances of any case by a court, and there’s nothing in the CAA’s guidance that’s especially relevant.
To be honest this is one of their biggest mistakes - they do sometimes pronounce about issues like privacy and data protection, usually in a way that shows they haven’t got much of a clue (see also: anyone who talks about “privacy laws” - which laws?) They’d be much better if they just said that they deal only with aviation safety, and not get sucked into talking about wider issues.
2 Likes