Hi I would like to fly over a castle local to me it is owned by national trust, but as I want to fly around sunset I think it would be unmanned. So who would know or care?? But as rpthere is always a busybody around I would like to sure of my facts if challenged and to have documentation with me would help.
Wendo
I was pretty happy with the full experience.
Was a 3 hour drive and it was good to know in advance I was good to fly there.
The Viaduct is on a large estate beside main road and other side of the road is SNT land who have a blanket ban on drones.
Theres not really any way you could fly safely without taking off on either land.
So I paid my £10, was advised on the basic rules (drone code) and If anyone questioned me to show the permission receipt.
Spent a good few hours and ran through 4 batteries.
Took my time and flew from a few different spots.
Was probably one of my most enjoyable flying days given how iconic the site is and that no one would bother me.
I wouldn’t normally pay to fly my drone but on this ocassion it was definately worth it.
It’s very rare to find places like that who haven’t enforced some kind of blanket ban on drones.
4 Likes
I would as long as it was a limited number. I wouldn’t want a swarm up with me
1 Like
It isn’t a business or even his business. He’s the land warden for the estate, i.e an employee. Any funds he “raises” go into the estate coffers and the cost, as I understand, justifies him taking time out of his official duties to “educate” us peasant drone owners 
1 Like
So he’s the rich mans agent taxing the poor (drone flyers in this case)
I tend to agree with @Brian that all photographers should be taxed in a similar way, perhaps cell phone owners too
1 Like
As the Times is firewalled, here is the text of the story:
Drones and heritage chiefs in battle for Britain’s skies
They are the most spectacular monuments, landscapes, castles and stately homes that Britain has to offer. And for a growing band of amateur drone pilots, their majesty is only increased when viewed from the air.
The enthusiasm of a new generation of drone operators for bird’s-eye photos is not shared by the owners of sites they wish to photograph. Yet there appears to be little that those entrusted to look after landmarks can do to stop the buzzing overhead.
English Heritage, which is responsible for Stonehenge, has banned the use of unmanned aerial vehicles over all its sites without approval, saying that they pose a risk to sensitive historic sites as well as to people visiting them. It has recorded about 250 unauthorised drone flights over the past three years.
Drone operators are pushing back, pointing out that landowners do not own the airspace and that if pilots wait until sites close and visitors leave, they are not breaking any rules provided they take off from a public footpath and stay 50 metres away from structures.
Ian Wells, 49, a City business analyst from Chelmsford, Essex, is a hobbyist who has used a drone to film Avebury stone circle, Silbury Hill and the Hackpen white horse in Wiltshire.
He said: “They can’t prohibit drones flying over any more than they could a small plane, paraglider or hot air balloon. We don’t ban cars because of a few idiots who break the speed limits and equally the tiny minority who fly drones inappropriately should not ruin the fun for the majority.”
Other sites that attract drone pilots include Portchester Castle in Hampshire, Conisbrough Castle in South Yorkshire and Housesteads Roman Fort on Hadrian’s Wall. The National Trust has a similar blanket ban on drone flights at its properties without approval. Trust coastlines that attract drone pilots include Giant’s Causeway in Co Antrim, Birling Gap in East Sussex and Blakeney in Norfolk.
In comments posted under Mr Wells’s footage online, fellow drone users discussed plans to film sites and asked for tips. Some discussed fine details of public paths and take-off spots.
Many hobbyists want to share their photographs and videos on Instagram, and other social media sites. Some, drones however, are operated by professional photographers who sell their images for £500 each or more. Mr Wells said: “English Heritage allow you to pay them an extortionate fee to shoot video after-hours. It’s a shame that they don’t offer members out-of-hours slots at more reasonable rates, like they allow members to walk among the stones at Stonehenge after hours.”
English Heritage and the National Trust cite Civil Aviation Authority rules that say drones are not permitted to be flown within 50 metres of any structure or person, or within 30 metres of any person other than the pilot during take-off or landing. They also say that data protection laws mean aerial photographs could breach people’s privacy.
A handful of National Trust houses are particularly sensitive: Osterley and Cliveden are under Heathrow’s airspace and Dunham Massey is near Manchester airport. Many properties also have owners, staff or tenants in residence.
Jon Livesey, English Heritage security adviser, said: “When authorised and used by fully trained pilots, under the strict guidelines of the CAA, drone footage can be a valuable tool within the heritage sector, allowing for spectacular and informative views of historic sites. We want to get the message out that unauthorised use carries considerable risks to visitors, to staff and to the very buildings that the hobbyist pilots are seeking to celebrate.”
A National Trust spokesman said: “Few non-commercial users have the correct training or permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to operate drones and should a drone cause damage or harm, pilots generally do not have the correct insurances to compensate those affected. Drones should not be flown over people and as much of our land is open access we cannot guarantee an area is ever completely empty . . . The special nature of our properties makes the risk of damage more severe.”
5 Likes
Removed as wrong thread
So the NT I’d saying. ‘There’s a risk to ancient monuments and to people around, however if you cross our palm with silver, the risk goes away’
This reminds me very much of a motorcycle trip I made 25 years ago through some of the ex communist states.
The police would pull you over and accuse you of speeding, without so much as breaking any law or shred of evidence, then demand a ‘fine’ be paid to the officer in order to be allowed to continue your journey.
If you argued, you’d have your vehicle confiscated and searched with a night in the cells for defending your rights.
They specifically targeted who they perceived to be rich westerners.
The money or ‘fine’ enhanced the wages of the officer, who were poorly paid.
Let’s hope the NT and other ‘land owners’ don’t see it as a way to enhance their coffers, or soon there’ll be nowhere to fly a drone.
As for the complete blocks of data protection, I bet there’s thousands of people taking photos every day, do they ask EVERY individual for permission in case they are inadvertently photographed. ?
2 Likes
Very interesting article Ian, thank you for sharing.
This, to me, is the craziest part of any defence… the “you’re affecting my / out / their privacy” bo%$^^&&ks.
I’ve had a couple of folks ask me about this when I’m out and I always point at my phone and ask if they feel ‘invaded’ if I used that or my DSLR to take a similar picture? Typically from much closer and in far greater detail and clarity.
4 Likes
Love that the NT and EH have adapted the code to include structure when it actually says ‘people and properties’. This type of thing just adds to the confusion.
But no mention of how much invasion of privacy I could do with a DSLR or phone camera. Idiots. ::sigh::
1 Like
And even more bullshine from the NT spokesperson.
Since when does a non-commercial user require training, permission or authority from the CAA to operate drones.
I would have liked to have asked the NT person what ‘law’ he would have invoked if I took off from public land, flew over the area complying with the ANO and drone code, took some photos and landed back from where I took off from.
A Quango (quasi non- elected government body) should not make up laws or come out with bullshine statements in order to manufacture another revenue stream, and lets face it, this is what it’s really about. It’s about a ‘tax’ upon someone doing something perfectly legally for their own enjoyment and pleasure, under the guise of protecting ancient property or data protection.
3 Likes
Is it actually lawful?
Estate defends Glenfinnan Viaduct drone zone charge
The Oban Times21 Mar 2019By Mark Entwistle mentwistle@obantimes.co.uk
Glenfinnan Estate manager Alistair Gibson.
Glenfinnan Estate has defended its policy to charge drone operators for the right to fly at one of the most popular tourist landmarks in Scotland.
Drone operators in search of the perfect aerial shot of Glenfinnan Viaduct have this week hit out at the estate, which owns the land surrounding the famous railway bridge, for charging visitors £10 to fly drones at the site.
Maureen Johnstone, from Dunoon, contacted the Lochaber Times after being put off visiting Glenfinnan due to the drone flying fee and called into question the legality of such a levy.
She said: ‘It is an outrage to charge the public and tourists for an aerial view of your land. There is no law supporting this.’
Glenfinnan Estate manager Alistair Gibson, however, said drone users must obtain permission from the landowner before flying and the £10 ‘administration charge’ was to cover the cost of checking that operators know the law and to help manage numbers – without which the area could descend into chaos.
‘I’m not trying to milk tourists,’ he said. ‘I’m trying to regulate it, especially for those who need to know the rules. For example, foreign visitors who have bought a drone may not know the law. I don’t mind them being there, so long as they’re responsible.’
Last year saw the annual number of visitors to Glenfinnan top 330,000 with many flocking to see the viaduct now immortalised in the Harry Potter movies.
Mr Gibson said the £10 fee, received in exchange for a Glenfinnan Estate headed receipt, is ‘reasonable’ and that ‘99 per cent of folk’ were agreeable to the charge. He added the estate welcomed drone users but fliers had to know the rules.
The Air Navigation Order 2016, commonly referred to as the Drone Code, stipulates that drones cannot be flown higher than 120m, kept at least 50m from people or buildings and at least 150m from crowds or built-up areas. It is also a criminal offence to fly a drone on, over or within 50 metres of the railway, which includes Glenfinnan Viaduct.
Although the law on whether landowners can restrict drone use remains ambiguous, Mr Gibson has been advised operators must obtain permission for takeoff and landing on private land. However, drone fliers claim they are subject to the same ‘right to roam’ laws as walkers, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, and therefore cannot be made to pay fees for access.
‘It’s a grey area because drones are so new,’ continued Mr Gibson. ‘But they need the landowner’s permission. I don’t like them flying over my house, which is on estate land and therefore illegal, so I warn them not to do that. But I don’t mind people enjoying the area and if that means flying a drone and doing it responsibly then so be it.’
The Scottish Outdoor Access Code does not cover drones and the National Access Forum is due to discuss the issue in May.
Emily Bryce, National Trust for Scotland operations manager for Glenfinnan, said: ‘More than 300,000 visitors are coming to Glenfinnan every year – many specifically for the area’s iconic views – and the use of drones is increasingly popular. This needs to be managed so that everyone can enjoy their visit in safety. Our neighbours and the main landowner in the area, Glenfinnan Estate, has a system in place for this.’
From the above
CAP 722 refers to structures. From that standpoint the NT are correct.
1 Like
Apologies for posting the times article in this thread; it was gone midnight (still on my USA road trip) and I meant to post under the ‘Stonehenge’ thread Groundless prohibition rules (and a nice evening flight around Stonehenge) - #137 by BrianB
I withdrew 2 of the 3 pieces from this thread, but this one piece didn’t remove. Anyway, it’s on the other thread if you want to read the whole thing.
As for charging for drone flying. Actually a land owner can charge for anything on their land; look at English Heritage charging extra if you want to book an evening slot to walk amongst the stones.
In addition, Scottish law is different and far greyer with regards to being able to fly over other people’s property. Either way, EH & NT charge around £1,000 and only allow PFCO operators. This Scottish estate is asking for £10. I think that’s pretty reasonable considering they actually ask you to demonstrate knowledge of the Drone Code and may therefore filter out idiots. If this sort of approach was seen to be popular and working, it may expand far wider and be a good way of flying and filming over other areas that we currently can’t. It also stops dead any interfering busybody from trying to report you… Just my thoughts…
7 Likes
And Stuart, @stubbyd Obviously I’m batting for your team here, but so we’re all barking the same message, article 95 of the ANO states
© within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the SUA operator or the remote pilot of the aircraft; or
So it does use the term ‘Structure’. I also take that as you need to be 70 metres above ground when over a 20 metre high building. Granted, their nice little diagram on the drone code implies a 50 metre bubble over the ground of the structure. So I guess this means this particular rule is a bit grey, which I find surprising given how clear, concise and sensible most CAA regulations are for drones… 
Ian
2 Likes
Yup - you and @leehayes pointed this out and I appreciate the clarification.
2 Likes
Can’t really see how they believe that photographs or filming breaches Data Protection. They make it up as they go along.
1 Like
Yes, it seems to be a good approach but it is hard to shake the general idea that drones - flown responsibly or not - are a potentially dangerous thing but if you pay a fee that danger goes away… ;-). But yes, you are right, landowners can charge whatever they like and, in the great scheme of things, if this is the way it is gonna go at least it’s a move in the sense that things will get a bit more clear as to where one can fly or not.
1 Like