Nigel_ Posted at 2017-1-15 05:26
Sorry, but that does not give the byelaw that prevents us flying.  Legally the NT can create their own laws, which they have done, but when I read the actual byelaws I was surprised not to see anything on flying, not sure model aeroplanes existed back when they were written!

What you linked to is a list of rules and reasons, it is not law and they can't take you to court over those rules, only over their byelaws.

From my days of shooting there are different owners of the beach.

Sand between low and high water marks is owned by the Crown for public use unless specifically given to the neighbouring land owner. Land below the low water mark, i.e. covered by the sea, is owned by the Government for a distance of 12 miles out to sea. (12 mile exclusion zone.)

So, technically a drone can take off and be flown over the beach but no further than the high water mark. If you wish to wear waders and stand in the sea water then the land is definitely not owned by the neighbouring land owner.

The following may make interesting reading.

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk ... t_briefing_note.pdf

peter6 Posted at 2017-1-15 11:59
From my days of shooting there are different owners of the beach.

Sand between low and high water marks is owned by the Crown for public use unless specifically given to the neighbouring land owner. Land below the low water mark, i.e. covered by the sea, is owned by the Government for a distance of 12 miles out to sea. (12 mile exclusion zone.)

That does say "Other owners of foreshore include, for example, the Duchies of Cornwall and
Lancaster, Local Authorities, RSPB, National Trust...", so if you are on NT land, how do you know if the foreshore is also owned by them or not?  Only way to be safe is to wait until a low spring tide and then you can fly your drone from a safe position without getting wet, or fly from a boat!

I think legally the NT could only ban you from controlling your drone while standing on their land, and to do so they would have to put it in their byelaws (https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk ... st-byelaws-1965.pdf) and get it approved by the government.  Their statement "All aerial activity above our sites is prohibited" is totally unreasonable and would not stand up in court, presumably it also bans the International Space Station from passing over and Frisbees being thrown!

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-1-15 12:55
That does say "Other owners of foreshore include, for example, the Duchies of Cornwall and
Lancaster, Local Authorities, RSPB, National Trust...", so if you are on NT land, how do you know if the foreshore is also owned by them or not?  Only way to be safe is to wait until a low spring tide and then you can fly your drone from a safe position without getting wet, or fly from a boat!

They don't realy need to put it their byelaws.  The simple fact is we don't have the right to fly our drones from any private land without the landowners consent, to do so without consent would probably be trespass which is generally a civil matter.  If they wanted to make it a criminal offence, i.e punishable in the magistrates courts then yes they would need to change their byelaws.
As an aside I think what all this really shows is that the laws of the land are not fit for purpose when it comes to drones.

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-1-14 12:40
Just read the National Trust Byelaws and failed to see anything about flying!

It bans me from climbing over any gate, might get into trouble for building a sandcastle, can't let the dog go for a run, can't train the dog to walk on a lead, can't leave the car in the car park while watching the sun set (bicycle is OK) - I think I have done all those on NT land in the past, but I don't see anything on flying...

As you say, not a bad price,
But would you also be liable to costs ?           

This has been an interesting read.  
I'm hoping to fly over the NT reserve at Blakeney Point, Norfolk this week.  The NT seem to hate drones and have always refused my requests point blank but if I were to take-off & land from my boat in Blakeney Pit (and outside of the pit in the open sea) would they be able to do anything?  Do they own the water in the pit or as it's within their boundaries still does it count as being on NT land for the taking off & landing?  My other question is that looking on SkyDemonLite I see that Blakeney reserve has a green Bird Sanctuary restricted zone (or is green just advisory?) restricted from Ground to 500ft.  Would I potentially be breaking any of their by-laws if I flew from my boat within this area or not?

I'm not planning on any low level flying which would upset the seals and there are no nesting birds as yet as far as I know to disturb so they couldn't use that one on me.  Would really appreciate any info.
Thank you.

AeroVisuals Posted at 2017-4-8 03:16
This has been an interesting read.  
I'm hoping to fly over the NT reserve at Blakeney Point, Norfolk this week.  The NT seem to hate drones and have always refused my requests point blank but if I were to take-off & land from my boat in Blakeney Pit (and outside of the pit in the open sea) would they be able to do anything?  Do they own the water in the pit or as it's within their boundaries still does it count as being on NT land for the taking off & landing?  My other question is that looking on SkyDemonLite I see that Blakeney reserve has a green Bird Sanctuary restricted zone (or is green just advisory?) restricted from Ground to 500ft.  Would I potentially be breaking any of their by-laws if I flew from my boat within this area or not?

They will hate you and hunt you down with pitch forks, they have a special stake in Blakeney where they burn drone pilots every Friday night

If you're in a boat there's not much anyone can do, but if you on the land I'll give you 10 minutes before someone turns up moaning at you. You could argue the toss with them and see if police turn up an hour later and argue it with them, doubt much would happen.

Good luck and have fun, let us know how you get on

Matt-and-Riley Posted at 2017-4-8 03:36
They will hate you and hunt you down with pitch forks, they have a special stake in Blakeney where they burn drone pilots every Friday night

If you're in a boat there's not much anyone can do, but if you on the land I'll give you 10 minutes before someone turns up moaning at you. You could argue the toss with them and see if police turn up an hour later and argue it with them, doubt much would happen.

Haha, I'll be swimming with the fishes as they say!

Thank you, will see how I get on, just double checking with a local birder that nothing is likely to be nesting yet as the local press seem to love any opportunity to demonize drones, I don't want to give them any excuses.  I'm planning on shooting most of it from water level on the boat using the iphone 7+ & DJI Osmo Mobile but some aerial shots thrown into the mix would be good and the forecast for the next couple of days looks great.

Most of the local coppers know me (not through criminal reasons, just because it's a small place & everyone knows everyone as you probably know!) ,  other than some angry self-righteous NT employees I'll hopefully be OK although being half a mile out at sea I'm not sure I'll hear them!  

As long as I'm not breaking any laws and using the drone responsibly (as ever) then they shouldn't have anything to get shouty about.  Cheers.

I had thought that the NT was setup to hold the land in trust for the nation, i.e. us. When rich folk give their properties to the NT when they die they would have had a contract drawn up that would c over the sue of the land. I imagine most owners would not have wanted severe restrictions placed on land use by responsible people as it was given for the nation to enjoy. A blanket ban would seem inappropriate therefore, however, I can see how they would wish to protect the property and lands for the future use of the nation. By restricting use so much, even kite flying I believe, they could be in breach of those individual contracts, and perhaps the contracts for the money given to them by our government and others. Clearly a blanket ban is not in the best interests of everyone, it does however, limit the taking of pictures of NT's property that could be used for commercial gain and they would noit receive any of the money. (I understand that NO images can be produced from NT land for commerical gain unless they do it themselves.
There is also the problem that emergency services can in fact break the NT law if the have to search for a lost walker on the moors using a helicopter or drones.. WOuld the NT fine them, and if not then perhaps they are then showing bias, especially as it appears they will allow drone use by themselves for the purposes of making images for commerical gain.
A complex picture indeed, but one that could be easily resolved by dialogue and sensible and lawful (CAA law) use of drones for everyone's gain.

AeroVisuals Posted at 2017-4-8 03:16
This has been an interesting read.  
I'm hoping to fly over the NT reserve at Blakeney Point, Norfolk this week.  The NT seem to hate drones and have always refused my requests point blank but if I were to take-off & land from my boat in Blakeney Pit (and outside of the pit in the open sea) would they be able to do anything?  Do they own the water in the pit or as it's within their boundaries still does it count as being on NT land for the taking off & landing?  My other question is that looking on SkyDemonLite I see that Blakeney reserve has a green Bird Sanctuary restricted zone (or is green just advisory?) restricted from Ground to 500ft.  Would I potentially be breaking any of their by-laws if I flew from my boat within this area or not?

"but if I were to take-off & land from my boat in Blakeney Pit (and outside of the pit in the open sea) would they be able to do anything?  Do they own the water in the pit or as it's within their boundaries still does it count as being on NT land for the taking off & landing?"
I don't know the area, but it probably depends of if it is considered tidal, if it is tidal and you are further out than the mean low tide point then you can be fairly certain that you are not breaking any rules.

"My other question is that looking on SkyDemonLite I see that Blakeney reserve has a green Bird Sanctuary restricted zone (or is green just advisory?) restricted from Ground to 500ft.  Would I potentially be breaking any of their by-laws if I flew from my boat within this area or not?"
Yes, they have control of the airspace up to an altitude which is reasonable for what they are using it for, and since they are using it as a bird reserve they can easily argue for 500ft.  If it goes out over the water beyond low tide then it is probably not valid since that is not their land to control, but as a seabird reserve you probably wouldn't get much support for violating it.

I don't expect this has ever been tested in court but they might decide to do so and get it clarified given an easy opportunity.

"I'm not planning on any low level flying which would upset the seals and there are no nesting birds as yet as far as I know to disturb so they couldn't use that one on me."
It is getting close to bird nesting time now for some species, some are certainly claiming territories.

I think when someone sets up a no fly zone for good reason then it should be respected and nature reserves are supported and enjoyed by a vast number of people, presumably including yourself or you wouldn't want to fly there.  For some of them no-fly zones are perfectly reasonable, although I don't support the NT's global ban on a large proportion of our most enjoyable land/airspace.

There are other places to fly, including places with seals etc.

You could consider flying over above the 500ft limit, making sure you observe the rules for FPV flying which allow you to go to 1000ft, then you are not subject to NT rules or the no fly zone, and in that area it will be easy to stay within line of sight even if you can't actually see the little Phantom.  You are not going to worry the wildlife at that height except for maybe a hunting raptor.  You will need a co-pilot/observer to look out for other aircraft.  (Looking at your user name - Don't think you can do that for commercial purposes...)

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-4-8 04:07
"but if I were to take-off & land from my boat in Blakeney Pit (and outside of the pit in the open sea) would they be able to do anything?  Do they own the water in the pit or as it's within their boundaries still does it count as being on NT land for the taking off & landing?"
I don't know the area, but it probably depends of if it is considered tidal, if it is tidal and you are further out than the mean low tide point then you can be fairly certain that you are not breaking any rules.

Thank you Nigel, all very true and I agree that I do appreciate the area and wouldn't want to knowingly break their rules so I think the answer for me would be to fly the drone from the boat in the open sea a decent way off and get the other footage using the Osmo Mobile.

The 1000ft rule is new to me, I've seen people hinting at it online but never really known how factual it is, not sure how I missed it previously, has it been in place long?  So as long as I have an observer with me I can fly to a max of 1000ft, does the observer need binoculars?  There's no way I'd be able to see the Phantom at 1000ft or is the observer supposed to be looking out for other aircraft to avoid?

AeroVisuals Posted at 2017-4-8 04:20
The 1000ft rule is new to me, I've seen people hinting at it online but never really known how factual it is, not sure how I missed it previously, has it been in place long?  So as long as I have an observer with me I can fly to a max of 1000ft, does the observer need binoculars?  There's no way I'd be able to see the Phantom at 1000ft or is the observer supposed to be looking out for other aircraft to avoid?

Here are the FPV rules: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/moda ... =detail&id=7344

No binoculars allowed so this is generally of no use for flying a Phantom, I think it was created mainly for flying large radio controlled gliders in thermals.

However, if you can make your Phantom visible at the required distance and you have an observer to watch out for other aircraft that you may have to give way to then there is no reason why you shouldn't use these regulations.

If you are flying near the end of the day then a bright strobe light can help make the Phantom visible at long distance.  Or maybe you could trail a large flag, or kite tail, behind the Phantom to make it more visible, if it is not too windy!

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-4-8 06:32
Here are the FPV rules: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7344

No binoculars allowed so this is generally of no use for flying a Phantom, I think it was created mainly for flying large radio controlled gliders in thermals.

Interesting, thank you Nigel, so if I'm just doing this for myself (which I would be) as opposed to a paid job then I can go to 1000ft (as long as the Phantom can be seen) but if I was getting paid I couldn't.  I don't understand why the exemption would apply to usage apart from work.  If a drone is up that high who cares why it's there?! (Obviously the CAA do but why?)

AeroVisuals Posted at 2017-4-8 06:58
Interesting, thank you Nigel, so if I'm just doing this for myself (which I would be) as opposed to a paid job then I can go to 1000ft (as long as the Phantom can be seen) but if I was getting paid I couldn't.  I don't understand why the exemption would apply to usage apart from work.  If a drone is up that high who cares why it's there?! (Obviously the CAA do but why?)

Maybe because there is little risk from people occasionally flying a large glider using FPV in an appropriate location, and it has been proven that there is little risk since the rules have been in place for some time now with no incidents, while anybody doing it for work purposes probably wouldn't be in an appropriate location and would be doing it far more regularly creating a more significant risk.

The real reasons are that first, the CAA like to know how the airspace is being used so that they can stay in control of safety and so want commercial pilots to register, and second, the CAA are paid for by the people they serve, not the general taxpayer, and so unless you pay a registration fee the CAA will go bankrupt.  For amateurs it is not really worth them collecting the fees but for professionals it is.

Note that if you are a professional then you can request permission for any flight, so flying at 2000ft is not necessarily banned if you can show in advance that it will be safe.  However you probably wont be able to satisfy them that it is safe since you won't be able to see the aircraft at that distance.

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-4-8 08:48
Maybe because there is little risk from people occasionally flying a large glider using FPV in an appropriate location, and it has been proven that there is little risk since the rules have been in place for some time now with no incidents, while anybody doing it for work purposes probably wouldn't be in an appropriate location and would be doing it far more regularly creating a more significant risk.

The real reasons are that first, the CAA like to know how the airspace is being used so that they can stay in control of safety and so want commercial pilots to register, and second, the CAA are paid for by the people they serve, not the general taxpayer, and so unless you pay a registration fee the CAA will go bankrupt.  For amateurs it is not really worth them collecting the fees but for professionals it is.

I am a fairly new  trainee pilot, the proud owner of a Phantom 3 Pro. I treat the hobby very responsibly and have spent hours reading do and don't online and learning good piloting skills. I have taken out PI Insurance.  Like the other pilots in the blog, I am very frustrated at the attitude of the NT and various other organizations who dislike drones. But I have to say that having viewed many videos where the CAA guide lines have been flouted I can to some extent, appreciate the NT's ruling, although I have to say it is too arbituary. My wife and I are going to visit the Jurassic Coast for a few days and I was hoping to take some video of the wonderful coastline. Prior to accessing this site, I was viewing a video taken on the Jurassic Coast at "Old Harry Rocks". The pilot flew the drone over the heads of several people at well below the permitted height, clearly showing their faces and expressions.

A few weeks ago on a piece of communal land outside my house, a 12 year old boy (rich kid) was flying a Phantom 3 Standard with groups of young children besides him  as he proudly showed them how he could land it on his hands and this just a few feet from them. Fortunately i did manage to get the children to stand well back.

fans3da90483 Posted at 2017-7-15 09:43
I am a fairly new  trainee pilot, the proud owner of a Phantom 3 Pro. I treat the hobby very responsibly and have spent hours reading do and don't online and learning good piloting skills. I have taken out PI Insurance.  Like the other pilots in the blog, I am very frustrated at the attitude of the NT and various other organizations who dislike drones. But I have to say that having viewed many videos where the CAA guide lines have been flouted I can to some extent, appreciate the NT's ruling, although I have to say it is too arbituary. My wife and I are going to visit the Jurassic Coast for a few days and I was hoping to take some video of the wonderful coastline. Prior to accessing this site, I was viewing a video taken on the Jurassic Coast at "Old Harry Rocks". The pilot flew the drone over the heads of several people at well below the permitted height, clearly showing their faces and expressions.

A few weeks ago on a piece of communal land outside my house, a 12 year old boy (rich kid) was flying a Phantom 3 Standard with groups of young children besides him  as he proudly showed them how he could land it on his hands and this just a few feet from them. Fortunately i did manage to get the children to stand well back.

It clearly states an 18 year age limit on the boxes of the Phantoms, so more down to irresponsible parenting, or more likely them not being aware of the damage this 'toy' could do.

birdingbilly Posted at 2017-1-15 03:37
at least we can fly in National Parks !

National Parks and Monuments are NFZs in the US

fans3da90483 Posted at 2017-7-15 09:43
I am a fairly new  trainee pilot, the proud owner of a Phantom 3 Pro. I treat the hobby very responsibly and have spent hours reading do and don't online and learning good piloting skills. I have taken out PI Insurance.  Like the other pilots in the blog, I am very frustrated at the attitude of the NT and various other organizations who dislike drones. But I have to say that having viewed many videos where the CAA guide lines have been flouted I can to some extent, appreciate the NT's ruling, although I have to say it is too arbituary. My wife and I are going to visit the Jurassic Coast for a few days and I was hoping to take some video of the wonderful coastline. Prior to accessing this site, I was viewing a video taken on the Jurassic Coast at "Old Harry Rocks". The pilot flew the drone over the heads of several people at well below the permitted height, clearly showing their faces and expressions.

A few weeks ago on a piece of communal land outside my house, a 12 year old boy (rich kid) was flying a Phantom 3 Standard with groups of young children besides him  as he proudly showed them how he could land it on his hands and this just a few feet from them. Fortunately i did manage to get the children to stand well back.

Well they can't stop you taking off from the beach when the tide is out and then flying over NT land, so take the drone!  

In reality, there are plenty of places along the Jurassic Coast where it is fine to fly a drone as long as you follow the Drone Code.  Plan to do it in the evenings or early morning when there are less people about and the light conditions are better for photography.  Respect other peoples peaceful enjoyment of the countryside and their holidays, don't fly near anyone for long enough for them to get annoyed with the noise.  Same goes for normal cameras, taking a few photos is fine, hogging the best viewpoint for an hour with a semi-nude model and a load of lighting equipment is not!

Most NT staff in that area will be happy for you to fly as long as you are doing it safely, well away from people they might feel they should be protecting and wildlife they want to protect.  If they do have an issue they will ask you to stop.  Don't ask because then they have to say no even if they don't want to!

As a new pilot please be careful, you need experience, and remember that on the Jurassic Coast rescue helicopters can fly past at -200 foot from your launch site and 140 mph, so never fly out of sight or in a position that you can't see what is approaching, helicopter sound does not always travel around the corners.

johnwarr@live.c Posted at 2015-4-9 11:13
Instead of trying to find ways round the NT's wishes, why not for the good of the hobby just accept them and keep everyone happy ?
Speaking as a long time NT member.

As long as pilots are following the rules of the CAA as well as the drone code, the NT can do absolutely nothing, they are charity that preserve and maintain land, they have absolutely nothing to do with drones and drone pilots.
If you're an NT member, why not take advantage of the opportunity of the technology behind drones and allow them to be used. Pilots can take stunning photographs which can be used on the NT website which would encourage more visitors.

So, I've been looking at buying a drone to take photos of buildings at height (up to 100ft or so because it's better than being stood on the floor or using Google maps) and decided on what to buy (DJI Mavic Pro Platinum) and then found this thread.

So my question is this:  Is there any point in spending c£1,000 for something which I don't think I'll ever be able to use because of the restrictions imposed by NT, EH, et al?

I would register, when it's becomes required, and stick to the rules!

Thanks

The NT can not in any way stop you from flying over the buildings ect,  I would get good insurance and write to them again and explain that you are fully covered for xxx pounds.

I have had the same sort of issues in real life weddings that you cant fly drones at the wedding,  However as soon as you tell them you are covered with insurance and can prove it they seem to be a little more forgiving to the idea of flying

I have a copy of a reply from the CAA in regard to flying over English Heritage Land. They said that no one owns the air and that providing the pilot took off and landed outside there property there was no law against it.

CAP 722C 4.3-4.3.2-4.3.3 refers, but read CAP722C in its entirety, unless a geographical zone is in place ..it is really good to understand CAP722C