These Bye Laws are quoted by NT as the substantiation for not permitting the use of drones on OR over NT properties. I’ve had a good look through the document and cannot find any reference to drone whatsoever. The nearest “hit” is the term “conveyance” either by land or air.
Anyway - what I believe is the most interesting section is “Penalties for Infringement of Byelaws - Para 26” It would appear that the maximum penalty for infringing their Bye Law is a maximum of £20 - compared to NT fees for an official permit, I would suggest the penalty is a bargain
I’m not sure you can be sure that is still the penalty although I guess there’s one way to find out for sure! The main bye-law that’s relevant is 24: it is illegal to overfly NT land if you cause annoyance, nuisance, disturbance, interruption or accidentally knock over anyone’s cup of tea. Bye-law 17 is also the one they use to prohibit commercial photography.
Bylaw 11 is the actual one that seems to prohibit aircraft.
However, I am uncertain to what height a property ‘owns’ the airspace directly above it.
If the height of airwave owned is actually <400 feet then there should be no reason why you can’t fly over it.
As for taking a picture on this flight bylaw 17 says no photos ‘on’ Trust property can be taken, so any photos in free airspace would be ok.
So it all comes down to how much airspace do you own above you.
But do they prohibit the general public from taking photos with a normal camera or phone? No! Therefore this sets a precedent if a test case was ever to come up that their reasoning on that is flawed. So they would not be able to use that.
I believe they have been known to issue legal letters if they discover you are selling those photos, though. There was a lengthy discussion here although it didn’t shed much more light. There’s a letter from the NT half-way down this discussion thread which is probably the clearest version of their policy that I’ve seen.
The trouble with NT and i am a member may i add . Is they are hypocrits . I go to a NT property just about every week . I take a big Foook off camera and take pictures . Nothing is said . Absolutely nothing . They even encourage you to send your pics to the NT site …
I post all my pics and vids on line . Nothing is said .
I take a drone then the full wrath comes down on me …
The NT are nothing without me and thousands of others like me paying for membership each year and also the public who pay the top fee who are not members .
If we stop paying they go under It’s as simple as that . We pay to keep them going .
You would have thought they would have a little leeway . But sadly not .
I have a an idea . This is just an idea .
why not get on board and make some extra cash . Let us fly even for a small fee throughout the summer months , When we have the light . They close their properties at 6 and loads of light left . Maximum of say 5 at a time . No one around .
What would be the problem .
The NT is run and controlled by a bunch of left swinging gang who hate everyone outside they’re bubble .
And this is from a member …
Not actually true. You do own the airspace directly above your land, that’s why you can build a skyscraper on it, subject to planning permission, and why others can’t build a bridge above your garden without your agreement. You have legal rights over that airspace up to a certain height, above which you have no control. There is no exact height set in law - the legal test is what is reasonable.
I agree . If i take a pic with my Canon camera of a scene and people are walking within my view . The people don’t give a toss. If i did the same with a drone i get burnt at the stake for being a witch … Burn the witch . Burn the witch …
I think this needs looking at very carefully. Whilst I too would would dearly like to fly over and around some NT properties and legally I agree that they can’t stop flying provided you do not take off or land from their property. As far as I’m aware nobody owns the airspace above their property, even down to roof level, so yes in theory you can overfly above 50m. The CAA legislate what the airspace can be used for with the agreement of Parliament.
Playing devils advocate I can to some extent see their point. You only have to look through the drone forums to see how many people crash or lose theire drones for some reason or other, generally because they don’t check things correctly before taking off. Having a PfCO doesn’t necessarily mean that they are competent. I have seen a team from a National Park trying to get a Matrice 600 of the ground. Not a clue and when they did finally get it in the air it was all over the place.
We all like to think we are good pilots, just like we are all good drivers, but occasionally things go wrong for unknown reasons. About a year ago some emergency service Matrice 200s were dropping out of the sky and the CAA advised not to fly them. Turned out to be a fault in a particular DJI battery firmware so they were temporily grounded.
So it is really worth the hassle? The NT are a rich organisation with the backing generally of the establishment so I would think it’s pretty unlikely anyone is going to win a court case.
All it would acheive is more bad press for drones generally.
My concern is that if one organisation can prevent over flying others will follow suit and eventually very little airspace will be left for recreational flying.
I live near the Gower and here we have the crazy situation of Rhossili Bay. The southern half of the bay is NT property and therefore cannot be overflown by a drone - theoretically. The northern half of the bay is Crown Estate which can be overflown. So where is the sense and logic in this situation.
Bye Law 11 states “conveyance” - once again putting on my pedant hat - the definition of conveyance is “the action or process of transporting or carrying someone or something from one place to another.” and therefore technically is not a drone as payloads (as yet) are not allowed by CAA regulations.
The Bye Laws are vague and open to inerpretation - I believe this is our get out of jail card.
They get the backing from members not the establishment . They are a trust .
I also have seen and flown with PICO guys . Not a bloody clue some of them … One took off and crashed straight away into a wall . One didn’t even calibrate his compass before the flight , Even though he was miles away from his last flight . Not putting PICO down may i stress , But it does not teach you how to fly or take pics or good footage ,
Ready for the onslaught … Fire away .
I think the killer is No 24. I reckon the NT could easily gather enough folks to say their enjoyment was spoiled by a drone. Unfortunatley the public perception of drones is fairly poor.
