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
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