hmm… I wonder if one was to attach a laser pen to a drone and return the favour would be taken with such acceptance?
(bundle of laser pens at the ready with a roll of duct tape added to the bag…)
1 Like
I reckon if the cmos sensor was damaged, you’d have a claim against the security guard at least, and possibly his employer and possibly NT as they are contracted to them. 
NT are quick to reply on that thread stating “Its English Heritage not us”.
If the sensor is damaged its criminal damage.
However anything that interferes with the safe operation of the drone would be an offense so disrupting the camera feed, affecting control or anything of the sort is also a criminal offence.
Paying to fly sets a precedent
Never will I
I know I hate it.
It just the location is so good and I cant find a better one in the south-west.
Happy for the you or mods to take it down. If it goes against the ethos.
No its your post, this was my view
My question to them is do you charge for selfie sticks
I not defending it ! I think it is crap. The discount I got was not a simple step.
If it was just myself (and of course my spotter), or just a pair of us flying - I would fly from public land and enjoy myself.
1 Like
I know mate, i am just giving my point of view, if i was closer I still wouldnt go
But
Your are trying and thats what matters, lets see if others are willing to pay
It’s interesting to see if anyone sees a value in paying to fly
1 Like
@bmsleight Did EH explain or breakdown what the £30 per person, per day, charge is for?
Not meaning to put words in anyone’s mouth so take this with a pinch of salt, but my understanding based on how it was described to me (though not explicitly stated thus) is that the £30 is an admin fee for them to process the flyer documentation (flyer, operator, and insurance checks) which would be on par with for example a GDPR SAR request.
I know people don’t like the idea of paying to fly because NT/EH/others don’t “own the airspace” but actually, I don’t know how long that ““loophole”” will exist and I personally don’t begrudge them making a small profit from this.
Not much of a breakdown - (actually Tommy’s just replied as I type this)…
The fee was £36 per person as admin to process the flyer documentation (flyer, operator, and insurance checks). I failed to get a relaxation on flyerID, failed to waive the fee for those on benefits (Hence the offer to cross subsidise). Mutter mutter.
“enabling people of all ages to share in and pass on the story of England.” [Our Priorities | English Heritage]
noncommercial use and appears to align with English Heritage charity’s priorities
The best I could get was £36 per person to £30 per person if I do all the pre-check and file as one submission, with one flight plan. Rip-off.
In theory it is not per day. I could have gone with a longer session. Which could be camping near-by next time. One step at a time.
Ah good, I did recall the conversation correctly then! 
Yeh, making it such a high charge per person does feel like a rip off, but I do wonder how new this is to them? Maybe if we’re good guests and maintain good relationships with the EH people involved we can coax them into a “fairer” admin charge in the future. It’s possible they simply don’t have any policy/framework to handle this right now and have to just do what “the book” says until we can get the book changed.
In theory it is not per day
@bmsleight Is it worth stating on your meetup post (apologies if you did and I missed it) that the fee will cover them for future trips until whatever the expiry is?
1 Like
Added a poll about the costs - to help understand the feeling of people with regard to the costs.
1 Like
Forever - unless we will all have a chunk
Playing devil’s advocate more than expressing an opinion I hold here, but wouldn’t one argue that selfie sticks are unlikely to fly into priceless x at 60mph and therefore don’t need insurance verified? 
Hopefully, yeh. Probably even. But I doubt it would be hard for an entity such as gov to put up enough fear mongering propaganda to push through a change if they so desired. I don’t think handing over airspace to NT/EH/others solves anything, but they might?
Scaremongering 
- There is no legal requirement for insurance
- These are pieces of plastic
- £30 to see a certificate
- Setting a precedent
I would be asking to see their insurance and charging them £30
Let’s say what it is, it is rubble that’s falling down
2 Likes
To you and I, sure, it’s a pile of dis-used stone that’d be fun to fly around. But, my baby sister is a historian ( 
) , and I can already feel the wrath of her hatred were I to show up to some historical site and chip a piece off the ruin by accident. Point being, I guess NT/EH have a responsibility to those people that do care, so whilst I think their admin charge does need to be lowered and include heavy bulk discounts, I don’t mind paying it for now if it might improve our relationship/image with them.
I guess there’s two tacks to dealing with these people, and not saying one is right/wrong/better/worse; there’s the “You don’t own airspace so you can’t stop me” crowd which I may also have been known to partake in, and then the softly softly approach. I’ll try the latter as it hopefully doesn’t hurt to tackle from both directions (yeh, aware of setting precedents, but feels worth a shot).
And insurance will put that right, never mind the amount of damage done to these historical sites by inept human beings that frequent them daily with no insurance
By the same token, insurance is required for the Big Meet part 2 and you’re literally just flying around a farmers field