That’s the only reason I replied to them on shitbook mate. And the only reason I ask for permission to fly on their site, knowing full well what the answer will be. Then telling them I’m going to fly anyway as I don’t really need their permission. I know I’m being a bit of a dick about it, but see, if they just updated their policy to reflect current laws, and then politely asked you to maybe think about visiting after hours or at quiet times? Or maybe even arranging an out of hours visit for you? Instead they tell me NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. That really gets my back up, so fuck em.
Ahh NTS. I have just returned today from East Lothian. I was going to fly over Dirleton Castle yesterday, but sadly , due to mainly operator error, my mini 3 pro took a head dive onto a paved area, the day before, breaking the bloody gimbal. I’ve claimed off my insurance and have dropped it off at Heliguy’s in North Shields on my way back. ( could possibly have it back by Friday)
Luckily ( or not) it was only the gimbal that was damaged. It still flies, but the gimbal sort of points upwards at about 30 degrees. Still, could have been worse. 
1 Like
Remember with National Trust everything is about money.
Drones? There’s an expensive permit for that.
Commercial photography? Expensive permit for that too
Car parking? There’s a formerly free, now expensive car park for that.
Its their one and only motivation and has been for years.
1 Like
For anyone wanting fly over historic sites in Scotland the following is a worthwhile read.
4 Likes
Just read the document. This is great news! Thanks for posting about this.
1 Like
Now that’s what I call a fair & balanced policy. Wish my local authority would take a leaf out of their book!
Absolutely brilliant policy. Someone with intelligence working there!
3 Likes
nice policy… suggest copy and paste required by other organisations concerned with drone usage as it seems to be fair and cover everything plus impose some reasonable AND EXPLAINED restrictions.
then again … NT and other quangos are too busy trying to protect and enforce their own authority to realise that they don’t actually have any authority here… and even fly a drone from their property is a civil matter of trespass… I’m still awaiting someone to be actually prosecuted for that one…
3 Likes
Which is why some opt to give to English Heritage instead.
The public highway is the public highway, open access, Island Roads may cut the grass verges and get paid for it by the local council, has the council sold off any of it’s land inventory to this private company, if not the council remains the legal landowner for and on behalf of the people.
No permission is required to TOAL from open access public highways unless the council has enacted bye laws prohibiting TOAL and that such bye laws were legally enabled, published and posted adjacent to the areas affected.
2 Likes
Makes absolute sense, and would be great to see NT and others expressing such a clear position. Given the recent prosecution of a UAV owner / operator, suggest current CAA rules must surely be sufficient, and especially where one applies the LOS requirements. I recently completed both the CAA and IAA (Irish equivalent) on-line tests and can’t remember which, but one stipulated LOS as requiring visibility of the direction the craft is facing at all times. When you take account of craft size + height + distance + conditions for visibility + the pilots capability…suggest rather difficult to fly very far from TOAL point
1 Like
Orientation is the key. Essential for safety and avoidance.
Hmmmm, I’m not so sure about the avoidance bit. If another aircraft encroaches on your space, there’s surely only one direction you should fly your drone and that’s down ? If there happens to be a lot of people there, then surely you shouldn’t have been flying over an assembly of people in the first place ?
I do wish they’d at least change the orientation rule a bit ( more so for those with sub 250gm drones, which are inherently safer than something weighing 10kg or upwards ) Even if the CAA perhaps allowed us to use the screen to determine orientation, that would certainly be at least a bit safer. After all, they seem keen to open up the skies to delivery companies to allow them BVLOS operation with drones which from all accounts will weigh in at a tremendous weight compared to my mini 3 pro. If they trust Amazon etc with whatever technology they’ll be using, why not trust us with the tech we have at our fingertips ?
Sorry if I’m getting off the subject, it’s just a reply
1 Like
Down is that useful if the conflict is below you.
Ultimately you need to know the orientation and be able to judge in 3 dimensions any hazard around the drone.
If its a dot a long way away then you realistically have no chance judging distance, direction or speed of any other potential conflict.
Screen for orientation is a terrible idea as it gives you absolutely no situational awareness and absolutely no ability to see any potential hazards approaching.
BVLOS will all have detect and avoid hardware for that reason. Something no consumer drone currently has.
Until reliable detect and avoid is rolled out and fitted the only safe operation is visually and close enough to judge orientation and a 3D overview of the area.
Getting sidetracked now off the thread subject, but if your flying at say 100- 300ft, I think the chances of an aircraft encroaching your airspace below you is virtually impossible ( unless it’s another drone)
Or an Augusta Westland 169 or 189.
These screenshots just a few days apart when I had the specific intention to fly a drone.
Can we get this back on topic, please.
Sorry if this has been asked. So TOAL is not allowed on NT sites but you can fly over them. If you were to take off from public land and fly over the NT land, are you allowed to walk onto the land as although they do not own the air space, you are in control of the drone standing on their land. Or is it the fact that once you take off, where you stand is not a problem as long as your landing is back on private land. Also when you say that you can not take off from their land, is that actually from the physical land or within the boundary of their land… I.E can you get away with taking off from your hand and doing a hand grab to land???
My friend said he friend wants to climb snowdonia and asked me if a drone would follow him. I had to explain the fact of VLOS and if it was following then you are not doing VLOS (which is a bit of a daft feature). Ok it if is in front of you maybe but do you really want to be looking at a drone all the time when climbing. I also said a spotter would probably not wanna go climbing. I said that he could take off from public land but upon going up the hill, should the battery get low or he need to get back to the public land he will have to navigate down the hill rather then just come flying towards the space as where he was going was over 1000 ft. So he has to keep within 400ft of the ground. Pulling away towards it would not take long to go above the 400ft depending on the rate of the incline of the hill. (I may have put him off lol)
None of this has been tested in court yet but the safe assumption is to replace “TOAL from their land” with “flying from their land”.
Which you can apply to any land owner, not just NT.
Which means:
No, because then you’d be flying from their land.
No, because then you’d be flying from their land.
Thanks, that did clarify it. As my friend was asking for info, I wanted to let him know.
I could not see a practical way of doing it as it would require someone to fly off site and VLOS would not be practical and trying to stay safe with 120m from ground and getting back to the TOAL point just does not seem practical. May advise gaffer tape and a selfie stick lol.