Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

Fuming Rant

Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
45
Reaction score
12
Age
64
Location
UK
Sorry, fuming rant alert***
Just got back from Ilam Park National Trust site in Derbyshire UK. Sort of 200 acre open parkland with a grand mansion at the centre. While having tea with my wife I overheard the site manager and a young man talking about drones (UAV, hate the word drone) anyway the manager was saying it is illegal to fly over the parkland, they didn't allow it and they would prosecute him if he did.

I must admit to having a 'robust' conversation with the manager and asked him why he allowed the 787 Dreamliner that flew over a few minutes earlier to fly over? Before he answered I also asked under what law would he prosecute the man. He then went on to tell me that the national trust owned the site and the air above. I pointed out to the manager that he was in fact talking boll*cks. I informed him that the airspace above Ilam was G class and provided the pilot was abiding to the ANO CAP 393 - in full, and paying due care to personal freedom/DPA etc there was in fact sod all he could do providing the pilot had the correct take off/landing permissions - "rather like the 787 Dreamliner pilot" I added.

I fully understand why Ilam park might not like noisy UAV buzzing around but to say it was illegal and the man would be prosecuted in the UK is totally wrong provided ANO was applied in full. Being a UAV pilot these days is only marginally better that being a paedophile as far as some people think and I am fed up big style with it.

Rant over
 
Unfortunately this attitude pervades all the National Trust properties.

They operate a blanket ban on drones on any land controlled by them.

Of course, as you say, they have no direct control over the air so they can only prevent take-off/landing on their property and as long as you take care to respect the other distance limits in respect to people and buildings then there isn't much they can do.
 
It's the NT... they're a happy family tourist attraction... what more do you expect?!?!

Reason behind it is ££££'s. They want the £'s from the punters for membership and food n drink from their tea shops. If you have one of those noisy and dangerous drones buzzing around, it'll set the blue-rinse brigade tut-tutting and they won't eat so many cakes and drink so much tea :D .

The NT would also like your £'s for filming and photo rights, try becoming a landscape photog and putting a photo of any of their "property" or "land" in a stock library and you'll find that they start whining and huffing & puffing about that and claiming they "own" the photography rights too.
 
I would have some sympathy with regards to the limits they place over historic buildings and monuments if they didn't apply the same blanket ban to all the miles and miles of coastal land they control as well...
 
Sorry, fuming rant alert***
Just got back from Ilam Park National Trust site in Derbyshire UK. Sort of 200 acre open parkland with a grand mansion at the centre. While having tea with my wife I overheard the site manager and a young man talking about drones (UAV, hate the word drone) anyway the manager was saying it is illegal to fly over the parkland, they didn't allow it and they would prosecute him if he did.

I must admit to having a 'robust' conversation with the manager and asked him why he allowed the 787 Dreamliner that flew over a few minutes earlier to fly over? Before he answered I also asked under what law would he prosecute the man. He then went on to tell me that the national trust owned the site and the air above. I pointed out to the manager that he was in fact talking boll*cks. I informed him that the airspace above Ilam was G class and provided the pilot was abiding to the ANO CAP 393 - in full, and paying due care to personal freedom/DPA etc there was in fact sod all he could do providing the pilot had the correct take off/landing permissions - "rather like the 787 Dreamliner pilot" I added.

I fully understand why Ilam park might not like noisy UAV buzzing around but to say it was illegal and the man would be prosecuted in the UK is totally wrong provided ANO was applied in full. Being a UAV pilot these days is only marginally better that being a paedophile as far as some people think and I am fed up big style with it.

Rant over
Actually, the NT do have bylaws in place. (I have mentioned this previously and there are posts about it on the forum).
If you research you will find that this dates back to when the Crown gifted the land to the people. It came with certain conditions and covenants that are legally enforceable.
Model gliders are permitted over NT land powered RC aircraft are not.
There are legal protections in place and this is (almost) unique to the National Trust.
The gentleman you spoke to was in fact not talking male genitalia but had a valid reason and enforceable power to prohibit the flights.
If you did your training with an NQE the subject of the NT usually crops up at some point.
 
Actually, the NT do have bylaws in place. (I have mentioned this previously and there are posts about it on the forum).
If you research you will find that this dates back to when the Crown gifted the land to the people. It came with certain conditions and covenants that are legally enforceable.

Have you got a link for this?

I've read the NT bye-laws and I still can't find anything that prevents flight over their land as long as you are not standing on it at the time...

I'm not suggesting you are wrong, merely that I can find nothing written down that gives them the right to control the airspace...
 
Have you got a link for this?

I've read the NT bye-laws and I still can't find anything that prevents flight over their land as long as you are not standing on it at the time...

I'm not suggesting you are wrong, merely that I can find nothing written down that gives them the right to control the airspace...
I'm not at home at the moment but from memory it is contained within their 1965 bylaws under powered model aircraft flight.
It was then amended I believe in 1976 or 1979.
When I get home I'll see if I can dig out the relevant bylaw. :)
 
I'm not at home at the moment but from memory it is contained within their 1965 bylaws under powered model aircraft flight.
It was then amended I believe in 1976 or 1979.
When I get home I'll see if I can dig out the relevant bylaw. :)

Thanks, I've reviewed the National Trust Act and the 1965 byelaws (can't find any amended byelaws after that date).

I look forward to finding where it is hidden :)
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
22,277
Messages
210,655
Members
34,318
Latest member
Gonengo Brian