Groundless prohibition rules (and a nice evening flight around Stonehenge)


#41

Thanks for that. I did view the stones as a “Structure not in my control” so I made sure I was more than 50 metres above them.
That keeps things within the rules.

And there was plenty of rubbish bits of video. It’s all in the editing! :slight_smile:
Ian


#42

50m above - clever. Good idea.

You’re a braver man than me though. I’d be too worried about binning it / user error / prop failure and knocking lumps off a scheduled monument.

Experience counts I guess. That’s why you got to play at Stonehenge and my MP stayed in the boot of my car.


#43

I think the monument wouldn’t show a scratch … as for your MP, though … :-1:


#44

My current MP I like. Previous one, not so much. Therese Coffey. Might need to drop something larger. What is the load capacity of a Mavic Pro? I’m thinking ‘anvil’.


#45

Now I’m worried about Terresa staying in your boot during this heatwave!
At leas RSPCA won’t be interested. :wink:


#46

Don’t think she’d fit. Small car and she doesn’t have collapsible arms.


#47

This in very interesting to me as, being a Worcestershire resident, I have been having the same problem with the Malvern Hills AONB. The Malvern Hills Trust have this policy: http://www.malvernhills.org.uk/media/1124/drone-policy-mht.pdf

However - as the hills’ highest point is around 1,394ft above sea level finding land one can take off from and land on that is within 400ft of the top is impossible, so I guess they get us on the “take off and land” permission rule. Some people however have been complaining for some time! This is from July 2016: http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/14635792.Conservators__39__Malvern_Hills_drone_ban___39_ludicrous__39___says_flyer/


#48

On this topic … has anyone considered/challenged/seen ruling on … the ability of the NT,EH, or any other such organisation, to render “Public Footpaths” as not being usable for take-off and landing of a drone?
By definition, and protected by very robust law, they provide “a right of public access”.

Certainly the land itself can be privately owned, but the right of public access cannot be overthrown very easily at all.

(Ask that obnoxious Nicholas Van Hoogstraten who spent millions attempting to terminate such paths across the ground of his hideously obnoxious “Hamilton Palace” estate in East Sussex. He never “won” that case, but was just willing to squander millions on the fight that the council couldn’t afford. It ended up with the paths being blocked by a stalemate and razor-wire across the paths.)


#49

@SteveBell I’ve admittedly only skim-read those two links, but they all seem to refer to taking off from their land (which is fair enough).

But as per first post here, there’s nothing to stop you flying over their land if you take off from somewhere else?


#50

Funny you write this today as this morning i contacted an organisation. https://www.oss.org.uk/what-we-do/rights-of-way/ asking them this exact question. They said they would look into it and get back to me, i’ll post their response once received. As for the NT i’ve contacted them asking them to supply me with documentation that shows in law they have powers to ban flying over their land as their claim contradicts the CAA. I also pointed out to them that their statements on drones on the website is incorrect, misleading and is not what the CAA states. I doubt i’ll get a reply as i never have. The NT does have powers granted to them to create byelaws controlling/prohibiting activities on their land but have seen nothing about over land.


#51

Search other posts both here and on other forums. It’s repeatedly agreed that they don’t, nor do they / can they ban “flying over their land”. They can only stop you taking off from their land, as can any land owner.

As often mentioned in other posts, both here and other forums, you can legally take off from appropriate land outside of their property and then over fly theirs, at appropriate height.
However - for many of their properties, doing this probably means you’re not flying VLOS because (a) such properties are often surrounded by high walls or woodland, or both, and (b) the point of interest is often too far from the nearest suitable location outside of their property.

Add to this that they can charge good money to production companies that want to use their prime properties, where the drones are piloted by people that hold the PfCO and relevant insurance - they are probably even more determined to not change their attitude toward recreational flying.

Whilst it’s a shame, it’s not very difficult to see why they have this ban.


#52

Thanks for the reply mate. Yeah i get all that and i have contacted NT on many occasions more to do with what they state on their website regarding the flying of drones etc, much of it is incorrect and misleading. I contact them more to request that they support their statements with the appropriate legal documentation. What i’m now trying to establish is whether or not it is legal to take off / land on public footpaths, public bridleways and other public right of way land even if it is through privately owned land.

The NT does have some valid and understandable reasons to want to ban recreational drones, however my argument with them is engage in dialogue, please respect our rights and please ensure your website is accurate information to the general public and add links to the CAA so the public can check for themselves and links to NT byelaws showing they have that right to ban over land. I’ve also requested legal documents showing they own the airspace over their land if they believe they have that right. I’ll do the same to all and any private land owner. It’s my personal belief that if any private organisation, corporation etc makes claims and statements on their websites that they back it up with the relevant documentation, if their claims are not supported by relevant documents then is that not dishonest and even intentionally misleading the general public ? I’ve told them that either they are wrong or the CAA is wrong. If they produce the documents then i shall request the CAA advise us on our position so we may keep within the law, if they can’t produce the documents then i shall request they change their website to reflect what is honest and true. It’s one of my pet hates that ‘authorities’ and corporations can make statements and claims to Joe Public which is inaccurate, misleading and think they can lord it over us. I am a nature lover but i’m not gonna sit back and let these organisations dictate especially when they have no legal basis. I’m ex military and thought i served to protect the rights and freedoms of the British people and way of life, so i feel strongly against corporations and organisations stripping these rights and freedoms away - now if they want me to respect their rights i expect the same.


#53

I’ll expand … I was knackered last evening …

Many NT/EH/etc properties are islands of peace and tranquillity in our hectic environment. The last thing most members of those bodies, and other visitors, want is the incessant buzz of drones. It’s a noise I detest, it’s why I rarely take off where others will hear my MP, and I never loiter. It’s a quick up/takes pics/back down/pack/gone.
I’ve been on a most idyllic beach where there’s not a breath of air and even the waves were struggling to lap. Ten minutes of an inspire was infuriating.
The organisers of those bodies would engender fury amongst their members if they were to permit.

Most of those organisations are charitable, NFP, trusts. They don’t spend money without a view to earning more in return. Ignoring the above, could they charge for drone flying? Yes. But the cost of risk assessments at each of their hundreds of properties, collecting money, having someone to ensure that specific restrictions within each property were followed (parts are often a private home, for instance), and general admin and, not least, extra insurance, would be far, far, higher. That’s another “No.”

General, and perceivable, risk to public. Really picturesque locations would attract dangerous numbers of drones. This would (a) ramp up their insurance, (b) ramp up their admin.
A recent crop-circle was reported, by one Mavic pilot, to have more drones over it than the whole of Syria. He chose not to fly.

etc, etc.

They’ve made a decision. They have no need to explain, really. It’s the right of land owner to simply say “No drones.” It costs them less, and they have that right.

Honestly, my personal opinion, (and don’t take this the wrong way - I do agree with your viewpoint - but anyone else reading this thread can see my take on it) requesting them to explain this, justify that, just ends up with the like of the NT taking a harder line, as and where they can, and the CAA eventually just banning drones.

As far as they are concerned, that’s then the end of any dialogue. Their lives are made so much easier. Everything is crystal clear to everyone. And, let’s not forget that they do have to power to do that.
We could complain to MPs (people version) and anyone we like, but we are a minority. There would be far greater public support for a ban than there are of us. Let’s not get to that tipping point.
Sometimes one just has to accept that this is how it is, and live within the lines.

We have more freedom with our drones in the UK than in many countries, and I’d like to keep it that way. If anything changes, it will be to the detriment of that freedom.

I’d happily overfly their property, legally, any time I want to.
So - what happens …
Firstly they have to locate me, then they have to actually attempt to prosecute me.
Let them. They’ll lose. Egg on their face.

I hope that all reads how I intend it to. :slight_smile:


#54

I totally get ya mate, i really do. None of my comments nor my communications to NT have been confrontational nor intended to be and i make that very clear to them. The way forward to avoid all this confusion and problems is education, but that has to be true and honest education so everyone knows where they stand. If they are making claims on a website then they have to back these up with legal documents, it is that simple. If the CAA say one thing and they say the opposite then it stands to reason one of them is wrong, and i want to know where i stand in law as i don’t want to break the law. I respect others rights i really do, i’m not a trouble maker, i’m a really peaceful person, i’ll be very open and honest here now, I live with aspergers syndrome which for me means i love nature and animals more than i do people, i relate to nature not people, i find it hard to communicate what i mean, i live in London and do not drive so have to use public transport which believe me is stressful and causes me great anxiety, i don’t like being in shops, cafes, restaurants etc etc and avoid at all costs. I have never flown in the countryside ( i have only ever flown at Richmond Park which i do quite regularly, only place i can get to relatively easy and know i won’t be hassled ) as it means i have to travel on public transport etc etc to get out of London. I have no friends as i find relationships difficult, i live alone and keep myself to myself, yet i am very friendly, polite and generous. So trust me i don’t communicate with these organisations etc for the fun of it. I need to know where i stand legally so i can plan with great detail and prepare myself to travel to an area in the countryside where i know i will not be harassed by anyone, where i can enjoy nature, be left alone to enjoy something i have found that gives me the motivation to actually go out. I don’t need the hassle so all i ask is information from ‘authority’ that i can rely on so i know before i plan a day out i am not going to be met with police etc etc. If someone says i can’t do this or that i want and need to see it in writing. When i get conflicting information, which i have from the police, NT, CAA, it causes me problems, when i first came across drones i thought i had found the perfect thing that would give me a reason to go out, be in the countryside away from crowds and people, see and film the countryside from the air, something that gives my life some enjoyment, what i get is hassle and problems because of conflicting information etc. Many people with aspergers have very inquiring minds, we ask questions of everything, we have a great sense of injustice and are often misunderstood because we ask questions of everything, its the way we are wired. We don’t do the ‘small talk’ stuff we like factual not fiction, we are quite literal in our communication and often come across very blunt and to the point which is mistaken for confrontational. So, at the end of the day i’m not looking for confrontation with anyone i just NEED to know things so i can plan a simple day out and enjoy a simple thing in life.


#55

I have seen, in real life, a sign on a property that says “Trespassers will be shot!” It’s not going to be legal, it’s not going to happen, but it does make you check your stride, for a few seconds. Some will walk in the other direction. He sure can’t back it up with legal documents. :wink:
An extreme situation, I accept. But it changes nothing. Trespass is illegal if the owner declares his wish that you refrain from doing so.

I’d half worked that out … it takes one to know one … :+1:
The bee in the bonnet that one can’t put down … .
My problem was being in my 60s before I was diagnosed, OCD too, which now explains so much about the previous 60 years.
Now, more often, I can laugh at their manifestations as they are happening … but still struggle to divert their inevitable path. Hence …

I can know exactly how I mean what I’ve written … others don’t always see the same intonation.

Totally get all of your last part … totally!
One thing I seem to have learnt in recent years is how to chill more and be more tolerant and pliable and find a few of the shades of grey that apparently exist outside my black/white mentality. Not always easy. Not at all. And it’s easy to revert to type without me realising.


#56

LOL cheers mate - i was 58 when identified as aspergers after decades of misdiagnosis etc etc … i am coming to terms and acceptance that i don’t belong on this planet ( i actually thank God that i am different as this world is totally insane ) thats for sure LOL problem is because of all the misdiagnosis and the ignorance and neglect by ‘authorities’ and the finding out in most cases they have misinformed and proven to them they are wrong, i don’t trust nor accept in blind faith anything they say anymore, and because of my questioning and not just complying with any profession or authority i’m not that well accepted LOL ( not that i want to be mind ) someone once said ’ i would rather spend a lifetime seeking truth than spend a day in the comfort of a lie ’ i’d probably get on well with him !!

I’ve always remembered this statement ’ it is difficult to get someone to understand something, especially when their salary depends on them not understanding it. ’

I’ve never found myself fitting in with this world and for that i am eternally grateful.

Anyway, all the best to you and enjoy your flying.


#57

your more pliable I wish I was with me bad back…


#58

I was in hospital in a cast and traction for 6 months when I was 9 years old.
I was standing on the back of the sofa when my older brothers stood up, the sofa tipped over, and I came down on the wooden front edge on my back.
It’s never been right since. It’s why I still do loads of walking. It’s the only thing that keeps it bearable.


#59

And Pliable…


#60

Correct, problem is, any other land is way below 400 ft lower than the top of the hills. So you still could not fly over them. Ahh well…