?Dronefanning"

[davepallant]

Perhaps then I should have put this on this thread as well??

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92806-kite-vision-calstock-area/

That's a great example of how photography from a quadcopter could be so useful to model makers. There are bound to be Google and Bing images of the area but to see it with the camera moving around it and to see the layout of the area and the relative colours are priceless. The fact that the camera is moving gives you a sense of 3D that you do not get from a gallery of photos.

 

It is also a good example of how quadcopters can move around over private property in some instances but could not be seen as trespass in any way. Looking up case law around Focalplane's message above I dont see any reference to any particular height, 50m or any other. The best case I can find is Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd 1978 where someone tried to sue after an aerial photograph was taken of their house. Apart from the fact that the photo was probably taken above someone else's land the judge ruled:

 

"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.

 

The Calstock Viaduct video is a perfect example where very few people probably even knew the quadcopter was there even if it was briefly above their houses. Buzzing around other peoples gardens 20 feet up might be seen as a completely different thing altogether!

 

Dave

[Maltazer]

 

 Looking up case law around Focalplane's message above I dont see any reference to any particular height, 50m or any other. 

 

 

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2348

 

The relevant law is here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3015/article/167/made

 

The 50m (or 150m in some cases) limit doesn't say 50m above - it applies in all directions - but to buildings and people, not open land.

 

HTH

 

Mal

[Torn-on-the-platform]

From the latest update on the Bluebell Whats New? page:

 

• Please note that, for the safety of our trains and visitors, drones or similar airborne photographic platforms must not be operated from Bluebell Railway property or within 50m of Bluebell Railway property, except where specific authority is given. Further information available here - this is based in part on CAA regulations.

   

[Pacific231G]

It would be interstingto know how one defines 50m onto someone elses land, and how one would stop them, without trespassing..

Hi Mickey

I'm not sure whether the railway's boundary fence counts as a "structure" as defined by the Air Navigation Order. If it does it would be illegal to fly any UAV "equipped for surveillance" within 50m of it and therefore of the railway's property but that's 50m in any direction including up. As it's very difficult to be sure that there isn't someone on the ground that you haven't seen, the similar and long established 500ft rule for conventional aircraft is generally  taken as a blanket restriction on any flying below 500ft AGL (above ground level)

 

For small UAVs equipped for surveillance maximum height AGL is also limited to 400ft.  That restriction has long applied to model aircraft over 7Kgs and makes sense as conventional aircraft may be operating above 500ft  (and lower near aerodromes including private landing strips)

 

It is also, according to the CAA, illegal without their permission to fly a UAV equipped for surveillance above a group of people at any height and above or within 150m of any "congested" area defined as ‘any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes’ so flying above the neighbours' gardens is probably out of order in any case.

 

The other thing to be aware of is that if you use an unmanned aircraft to take pictures or video that you sell, that counts as airwork; for that you definitely do need the CAA's permission.

 

Note that it is the CAA's permission you need not just the organisers of an event or the owner of a property and they will prosecute if they decide a breach is serious enough. Someone was fined £800 in April (for flying a UAV near a road bridge and close to a nuclear facility !!) but they also had to pay the CAA's costs of £3500 . A photographer who used a UAV to film a fire at a school which he then sold accepted a caution.

 

Basically, if you're operating anything in the air you're subject to the Air Navigation Order and have a duty to familiarise yourself with the relevant rules. For small UAVs there is a simple guide.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/CAP%201202UAVsafetyrules.pdf

Effectively, very small UAVs used for leisure have been lumped in with model aircraft and there's a longer document "CAP658 Model Aircraft a Guide to Safe Flying" here

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP658%204%20Edition%20Amend%201%20June%202013.pdf

For even very small UAVs "equipped for surveillance" they also seem to have applied the existing rules for model aircraft over 7Kg even if the UAV is smaller. I think it's all covered by the two CAA documents and they are written in fairly clear English.

[mezzoman253]

Probably already see this but http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30369701

 

Rob

[Pacific231G]

Probably already see this but http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30369701

 

Rob

There have also been less widely reported incidents involving light aircraft including a PA-28 forced to take avoiding action just 200metres from the boundary of Leeds-Bradford Airport.

Under article 73 of the Air Navigation Order, recklessly endangering an aircraft carries a possible five-year jail term (for intent to endanger it can be a life sentence) 

I don't think there have yet been prosecutions leading to jail sentences for drones but sentences of up to sixteen months have been passed on idiots pointing laser pens at aircraft.

[teaky]

Is it just me or does anyone else get the urge to buy a working fighter aeroplane to combat drones?

Someone's been listening. 

 

https://www.aldi.co.uk/en/specialbuys/sunday-14-december/product-detail/ps/p/remote-control-mini-helicopter-with-accessories/

 

[PhilH]

These things potential for harm was demonstrated to me last Sunday. I was on the support crew for a trip and we stopped at Haslemere for water. A colleague and myself were tasked with this and got down to track level, connected up etc., and started the watering. Then a drone appeared and was hovering at about fifteen to twenty feet height at about this distance from us (which I thought was illegal anyway)

 

Very distracting and intrusive, especially when we were carrying out the watering directly above the third rail. It can be seen that anything other than 100% concentration could have had serious consequences for us and having this thing darting about and so near us was, as I say, very distracting, and all so some selfish tool could have the satisfaction of getting shots that no one else did.

 

The potential of these things for causing accidents is, in my opinion, pretty high, especially in the hands of morons.

[Pacific231G]

These things potential for harm was demonstrated to me last Sunday. I was on the support crew for a trip and we stopped at Haslemere for water. A colleague and myself were tasked with this and got down to track level, connected up etc., and started the watering. Then a drone appeared and was hovering at about fifteen to twenty feet height at about this distance from us (which I thought was illegal anyway)

 

Very distracting and intrusive, especially when we were carrying out the watering directly above the third rail. It can be seen that anything other than 100% concentration could have had serious consequences for us and having this thing darting about and so near us was, as I say, very distracting, and all so some selfish tool could have the satisfaction of getting shots that no one else did.

 

The potential of these things for causing accidents is, in my opinion, pretty high, especially in the hands of morons.

It was illegal and if the idiot publishes any of the photos he took which should be identifiable and you 've informed the police (which I think you should) then this total  pratt may well find a CAA prosecution in his future.

 

A few years ago I was on a train during the Watercress Line's spring gala and a couple of idiots flying paramotors (which aren't or weren't regulated) were buzzing the train over about a mile and coming within thirty feet or less. The air is not the place for idiots,