Other than misunderstanding of the law, the biggest reason their policy fails is that they’re trying to apply a blanket policy over a diverse property portfolio. The risks of me flying over some of their farmland is very different to me flying over a stately home.
I’ve said it before, but tighter legislation will come. The fact that any idiot can rock up at Argos and ten minutes later be in the air pretty much anywhere they like is a recipe for disaster
I think that you’d need to be very careful following that path as already highlighted by @OldSoulBoy and @AIRAC. As I ve mention before in another thread I would lean towards some sort of agreement with these organisations to fly out of hours when the sites are closed to the public. They may want to charge a small fee if using there land to TOAL from but so long as this was reasonable surely there wouldn’t be an issue.
I would quite happily pay a fiver to have permission too TOAL from their land. The same with English Heritage. As I suggested in my email to them it just makes sense for them to work with the drone community to find a solution that works for everyone. There is an ever growing revenue stream for them if they only opened their eyes and saw it. After hours arranged flying. Closed day flying with allotted TOAL times. Best video competitions. Payment for use and copyright ownership of images and videos. There is so much scope for them to actively work with drones owners and clubs to the benefit of all.
@OldSoulBoy The only thing the National Trust could cite would be byelaws 1965 which has the following declarations
“Then states every person who shall offend against any, of the foregoing Byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 and in the case for each additional continuing offence a further fine not exceeding £2 for each day during which the offence continues…”
Bargain £28 for a working week of flights.
What we need is a update to that byelaw!
Great…eventually wind up with a criminal sheet!
Brilliant Phil, thanks for taking the time. At least we know they’ve been notified of the CAA regulations and can say they’re updating the website.
If that ever went to court a pound to a pinch of salt it would get thrown out as a 56 year old bylaw doesn’t take into account changes in both law and society and that’s not taking into account the cost of them actually bringing a prosecution to court, especially if someone were willing to fight against it and anyway as of 2008 some bylaws were changed and are enforced by fixed penalty notice, not conviction by a magistrates court which I believe, being a private entity and not council run, the NT would come under this change.
@AIRAC personnel choice, hence why said what we need is to get the byelaw changed. I’m happy to follow the rules.
Oh don’t get me wrong, so am I and will be TOAL from public and following the CAA regulations. If they want to try and enforce an outdated and archaic 56 year old bylaw they can. First off they need to get your name and address for any fine to be implemented which would mean contacting the police as they’re the only ones who can demand it and that is only when they have reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence is about to or has taken place.
As an aside. I’ve found it very difficult to actually ascertain where some NT land ownership stops and either other private or public land starts. OS maps give no guidance and Google maps is about as much help as a chocolate teapot.
Very interesting and informative, Phil, well done. It will inded be interesting to see if and how the NT responds. I’ve been a member for many years now (actually NT for Scotland but that covers England as well). Most properties forbid photography inside, even if I turn off my flash. I’ve always felt they do that to encourage purchase of a guide book. Fair enough I suppose, the books generally have beautiful photos taken by professionals, lots of interesting information and the printing etc. has to be paid for. But of course I’ve never been challenged outside, either by officials or other visitors, so as you say, justifying a ban on aerial photography would be very difficult. And yes, they don’t own the air space.
Nevertheless with the multiplication of capable drones under 250g, I’d wouldn’t be surprised if the CAA don’t clamp down more on them. And for the majority of us with heavier drones life is becoming more difficult. The most obvious change is the overfly rules. Previously if above 50 metres it was ok to fly over small groups of people and relatively isolated properties, but now it would seem that the no fly zone instead of being a hemisphere is effectively an infinite cylinder (looking at the drone code guide). Not actually infinite but might as well be for us - it will apply up to 120 metres height anyway. Very difficult to comply - hedges, trees etc. can easily mask the presence of people even though the drone can be above 50 metres height in plain view.
‘Ordinary’ registration to fly a drone over 250 g is of course straightforward and relatively inexpensive. I’m a bit fuzzy regarding advanced tests. I believe they can be quite expensive, and do they make that much difference? I suspect we are still limited to line of sight and maximum 500 m distance. ( I can’t see my Fimi A3 even when it’s much nearer than that!) I’ve a hankering after a Fimi X8 now that I have access to a good tablet which will run the Fimi app. 8000 metres advertised range is silly of course, but almost doubling the flight time and a 4K camera is very tempting. But the regs are so restricting now I wonder if it’s worth it 
Keep well,
Cheers, Peter
good job well done
Hi All,
Thank to Bielzibubz for raising this with the NT.
An addtional alternative approach to consider is going to each of the 4 CAA recognised model flying assocations and ask them to make a formal approach to the NT on behalf of their members.
I have received assistance from FPV UK to approach Bristol Council (who are actually very progressive, pragmatic and inclusive as they DO allow model flying in special designated areas of 3 specific parks, subject to flyers meeting very reasonable pre-conditions).
I still waiting for the outcome of this request, however, it was really satisfyin to get FPV UK to help by presenting the (minor) request to Bristol council.
If any of you are members of the above associations and are half inclined to raise the NT issue with them, seeking their support, then may I suggest you proceed please?
Best wishes,
JJ-FPV
BTW Bielzibubz,
Totally agree with you, just like you I say it as it is and no! It doesn’t always work lol. When it comes to the NT they will more than probably defend there policy with regards to no drone flights because of the live stock they have on their land. The CAA regulations do stipulate not to fly over animals that could be freaked out especially during mating season.
So good luck.
I had considered a Fimi X8 recently but decided on a mini 2 for the very reason you have quoted. I am also downsizing from a 450g drone but wanted something that was capable. Would definitely recommend one for flight time and camera ability!
What do you think Simon? Especially the idea of working WITH the NT/EH and allowing TOAL outside of business hours for a small fee. Surely they would benefit from that - see @OldSoulBoy entry No.23.
Worth printing that OP here and if anyone from NT approaches you just show it to them and tell them thats why you are flying (ie legally ) and there is nothing they can do about it … if they get the police again you will have the relevant CAA wording which the Police wouldpresumably respond to.
wouldnt do any harm …
I have also approached my local authority via email which is the only method at the moment and have not received any acknowledgement or response. I think a more formal approach would be the way to go as there only seem to be individuals attempting to bring the changes.
Although I am aware of the changes it is not a simple thing to do by individuals especially to bodies who do not want to engage.
In my case I did not want to cause friction so I simply pointed out that the 2016 policy that they had was outdated in light of the recent changes and I selected a few points to clarify, the rules applicable to flying over property, taking off and landing, distances from people and so on, all items that were either incorrect or omitted from their published policy and as I am retired I offered to assist the department if so required but so far no response.
Well done Claretcass, offering your help is a good approach to help foster the changes needed.
I only hope they are gracious to take up your generous offer.