National Trust Policy Correspondence

Legal & Privacy
86

Hi,

This is a really good reply actually and so full of common sense. Yes, they should be up-to-date with the current regs.

I fear though, that they will not change their stance. I think you’ve got summarised the risks perfectly well.

I guess we have to ask the question; do we blame them? Probably not - but they should be clear on the reasons for their decision and document it clearly.

It’s easier for them the get our understanding for their decisions - if they explain things logically and in fairly simple terms.

I guess putting ourselves in their position - not sure I’d want to allow it either, but I would absolutely be clear on the reasons why.

Problem is, where there are exceptions - or even if there should be. Perhaps there should be a ladder to climb for an approved pilot to be fully allowed to fly on their land. Passing stricter assessments and obviously having the correct levels of documentation. Perhaps also with a greater separation so as to reduce risk. Perhaps also a fee to do so. Most of the above will weed out those not serious about their bylaws etc…

Plus, perhaps, a nominal royalty free and reference for any imagery taken for commercial work.

Maybe… but I don’t imagine them changing their stance.

Regards,
Clive

1 Like
87

@kvetner @MavPro2 Some good points raised. BUT, at the end of the day, whatever “arrangement” we have with NT, you will always get the idiots who are not on our wavelength and which will b****r it up for the rest of us and then we’ll be back to square one again.

6 Likes
88

That’s the nub of the problem for me. Even if, and its a big if, an agreement could be reached that satisfies both the NT and the drone community there will always be that one bell end that plants his newly bought Mini 2 through a 15th century lead glass window of a Grade 2 listed building somewhere.

I just want them to acknowledge they cannot dictate where we fly from or over, encourage responsible piloting and word their website accordingly.

3 Likes
89

This is true… and has been since the dawn of time.

90

Yes, thank you. that’s certainly an option. But on reflection, I’m going to stick with my Fimi A3 for now and see which way the wind eventually blows. In a couple of years’ time the way the CAA are going I fear that National Trust muttering will be of no consequence - we probably won’t be able to fly within 150 metres of anything or anybody unless it’s a paper dart!

Cheers,

Peter

1 Like
91

They can on that bit, no body wants all and sundry tipping up in their back yard

2 Likes
92

Interestingly. More damage has been caused by Paragliders at the sites I flew my gliders at. Due to misreading conditions and getting thrown back into peoples cars. Certainly with quads, the noise would be the main issue for the NT. Most people visiting their land go for the peace and quiet as much as for the views. I am constantly aware of how loud my mini is, compared to my 3.5kg Swift S1 glider travelling at 60mph across a Slope. That said. When a glider goes for a swim in 2m high Bracken. Someone always has a drone with them to go look for it.

1 Like
93

But the extortionate amount they charge means that only the likes of film studios and advertising agencies can afford their charges.

2 Likes
94

Exactly, they can charge what they want, and I dare say they take a cut of the royalties from postcards, posters etc etc.

2 Likes
95

Thanks Bielzibubz for your pragmatic, diplomatic yet tenacious efforts with NT, and also for updating us with progress.

3 Likes
96

The National Trust is a business. What’s in it for them to have drones flying around their properties? I suspect they will change their by-laws to fit in with current legislation but unfortunately I don’t think it will benefit us.

97

I’d like to think that any request to local governments for changes in local regulatory bylaws will be assessed on risk based on known data, likely threat to persons and property, noise levels and nuisance levels and although the NT just can’t arbitrarily makes changes to be made to their bylaw they do know how to lobby the right people in order to get their own way. As I’ve said it makes sense for them to work with the drone community but realistically there has to be something in it for them otherwise they’re just going to double down on their perceived legal right to dictate their rules.

It’s also worth noting that if you or I feel that a bylaw isn’t valid for whatever reason it can be challenged to the relevant central Government body that overseas that bylaws (highways and byways etc) They also have to show in any renewal or changes applied for that ALL other alternative avenues to address the issue have been exhausted. I think that is sowmwhere teh NT may fall down on based on their existing bylaw being 65 years old and clearly not fir for purpose.

2 Likes
98

As I understand it if you wish to make by-laws you must consult ALL interested parties. Have they done that?

99

I would think back in 1965 … No. hence why they’ve never updated it. How do you consult the NT membership on drone flying when its one bylaw covering the whole of the country.

100

I think that if they were to change their bye laws they would have to consult a drone flying interest i.e. FPV or similar I don’t think the membership ever get an input judging on recent decisions! Don’t get me wrong, the guys trying to wake them up to the 21 century are doing a great job

1 Like
101

Malcolm needs to understand the rules before he sends emails like this.

How much ignorance of the subject in one email.

102

It’s such a shame that the NT aren’t more accommodating. I get they’re a business (charity) and get a lot of government funding (including from the National Lottery fund). My biggest problem is the amount of land they have and what they consider to be no fly zones. I agree that flying over a 500 year-old church should be limited, but not the million miles of woodlands and beauty spots they ‘own’.

Am I right in thinking that by keeping within CAA rules but getting ‘caught’ breaking the National Trust bylaw will only lead to a £20 fine due to that being the maximum penalty of the 65+ year?

1 Like
103

Correct Rob. £20.00 initial fine and then £2.00 for each indiscretion thereafter up to a maximum of five times. So, if you break that down you can get caught and charged by a magistrate five times and be fined a maximum total of £28.00 in any one year. No doubt the NT would say it’s consecutive and cumulative and a total of £144.00 although that’s not how it reads.

Far more costly to have a criminal record, no mate how minor. The chances of them actually following through on any prosecution are minimal at best. And of course you have to get caught and it has to be proven first :wink:

1 Like
104

I’ve done some reading on this today; specifically the “they don’t own the air” argument that we all use. It turns out, they might, kinda

Back in 1974 there was a court case between a property owner and an aerial photography company. The owner alleged that in taking the aerial photo, the defendants had trespassed in the plaintiff’s airspace. The defendants admitted taking the photo but claimed that they had taken it whilst flying over an adjoining property. The defendants also argued that if they had flown over the plaintiff’s land, then they had the plaintiff’s implied permission. As part of his judgement, the judge stated: “I can find no support in authority for the view that a landowner’s rights in the air space above his property extend to an unlimited height.” The case established that the rights of a land owner over his land extend only to a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land.

Kind of obvious, right? I mean I couldn’t build something right over your garden and claim you don’t own the air - I would be spoiling your enjoyment. However you only “own” the air up to a height that is “reasonable” for any infringement of that height to impinge on your enjoyment of your land - . It turns out this “reasonable” height has never been tested in law.

The right of overflight (the reason the NT aren’t fining BA 2 guineas every week) was then further enshrined in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, section 76. This says:

76 Liability of aircraft in respect of trespass, nuisance and surface damage.

(1)No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with F1……

So, as long as your flight is at a “reasonable” height and you are not in breach of the ANO then on that basis you’re good to go, however…

This doesn’t cover any copyright issues or article 241. Should something go wrong, being in breach of the byelaws could be considered to be a breach of 241. It could be seen to be negligent to fly where a byelaw restricts it. The fact this prosecution is yet to be brought doesn’t mean it won’t be; someone has to be first and if UAV usage explodes like it could do over the next summer, someone may well get prosecuted - should they hit Cliveden house, have a LIPO start a forest fire or wound a prize bull.

As has been said before, the way to deal with this is to get ahead of it. What we need is a representative body to offer to work with the NT on designing rules that suit both sides. We as individuals will struggle to change much. By helping with focus groups and workshops we might be able to get somewhere. By demonstrating we are not asking for blanket countrywide access, but an accredited scheme they may be more accommodating. I can guarantee you now, the general public will be against it. This will take a lot of time and effort, and it may only result in 3 midweek evenings per year when NT accredited UAV pilots can do their thing.

We shy away from “Drone police” here, yet this is something that needs a hobby-wide unity of voice if you ever want to change it.

Apologies for the much longer post than intended when I started typing. Well done for making to the end, you deserve a special badge.

17 Likes
105

Nice one Lee. Research can take on a life of its own :wink:

Now, with Grey Arrows membership on the rise and looking likely to continue (assumption on my part) would they be in a position take up the kudgle and make some enquiries with the National Drone Association or other such body as to whether the NT or EH have plans to alter their drone rules and invite them into some kind of meaningful correspondence to come to an amicable solution.

As has been mentioned previously, this summer could be the turning point with regard to the regulations and being ahead of the game is essential if we all want to carry on enjoying the new regulations and freedom we have now. I’m up for getting involved where I can but being realistic one or two people as individuals have very little clout or influence on matters.

3 Likes