Tintern Abbey - drone flying "not permitted"?

[Nasti Chestikov]

https://cadw.gov.wales/visit/places-to-visit/tintern-abbey#prices

"Cadw do not allow drone flying from or over its guardianship sites, except by contractors commissioned for a specific purpose, who satisfy stringent CAA criteria, have the correct insurances and are operating under controlled conditions"

The CAA "own" the airspace over the UK and impose various "no fly" zones (use the Drone Assist app before launching to make sure). Tintern Abbey isn't on the "no fly" zone (as of today, 22/09/2022).

Is the Welsh Government peddling incorrect legal advice (aka telling porkies)?

[Andy Burns]

English Heritage say the same.

I think in practice they can stop you flying while standing on their land, but
subject to weight of drone and suitable registration, and any applicable
distances, they can't stop you standing somewhere that's a public right of way
and then flying *over* their land.

[Colin Bignell]

On 22/09/2022 17:27, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> https://cadw.gov.wales/visit/places-to-visit/tintern-abbey#prices
>
> "Cadw do not allow drone flying from or over its guardianship sites, except by contractors commissioned for a specific purpose, who satisfy stringent CAA criteria, have the correct insurances and are operating under controlled conditions"
>
> The CAA "own" the airspace over the UK and impose various "no fly" zones (use the Drone Assist app before launching to make sure). Tintern Abbey isn't on the "no fly" zone (as of today, 22/09/2022).

They control flying in it, but do not own it. In England and Wales,
ownership of the lower stratum resides with the land owner. The lower
stratum is not clearly defined, but is that part of the airspace where
an intrusion is likely to affect the reasonable enjoyment of the
property. That is generally taken to be at least 500 feet agl.

>
> Is the Welsh Government peddling incorrect legal advice (aka telling porkies)?
>

--
Colin Bignell

[Andy Burns]

Colin Bignell wrote:

> On 22/09/2022 17:27, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
>
>> The CAA "own" the airspace over the UK
>

> They control flying in it, but do not own it. In England and Wales, ownership of
> the lower stratum resides with the land owner. The lower stratum is not clearly
> defined, but is that part of the airspace where an intrusion is likely to affect
> the reasonable enjoyment of the property. That is generally taken to be at least
> 500 feet agl.

That can't be correct, drones have a 400 ft ceiling.

[David McNeish]

The landowner owns the airspace immediately above the land, so yes they can
in theory prohibit it (how they'd do so in practice is of course a different question).

Same principle for why you need your neighbour's permission to e.g. swing your
crane over their land.

CAA rules only kick in once you get up to whatever height they control.

[Andy Burns]

David McNeish wrote:

> The landowner owns the airspace immediately above the land, so yes they can
> in theory prohibit it (how they'd do so in practice is of course a different question).

sure, you can't take-off from a public footpath, then cruise around at
knee-height above someone else's land without permission, I don't think there's
a defined minimum height though.

There are plenty of "drone auditors" out there who make a bit of a nuisance by
flying over industrial parks, police stations, building sites etc specifically
so they'll be get told by the security guard "we don't allow flying here" so
that they can bounce back at them with "we don't need your permission", the
police often get called, and the security guards slink away after being told
it's a civil matter.

> Same principle for why you need your neighbour's permission to e.g. swing your
> crane over their land.
>
> CAA rules only kick in once you get up to whatever height they control.

possibly 30m, though the lightest of drones probably have different rules,

[Mark Goodge]

That's why a property owner is entitled to prohibit drones over it, but
can't prohibit planes flying over it. A drone can't get high enough to be
above the limit that the property owner has a right to reasonably control.

Mark

[Colin Bignell]

On 22/09/2022 20:38, Andy Burns wrote:
> David McNeish wrote:
>
>> The landowner owns the airspace immediately above the land, so yes
>> they can
>> in theory prohibit it (how they'd do so in practice is of course a
>> different question).
>
> sure, you can't take-off from a public footpath, then cruise around at
> knee-height above someone else's land without permission, I don't think
> there's a defined minimum height though.

As I said elsewhere it is a bit vague, but generally the land owner owns
the airspace above the land up to at least 500ft, possibly up to 1,000
ft in England and Wales.

>
> There are plenty of "drone auditors" out there who make a bit of a
> nuisance by flying over industrial parks, police stations, building
> sites etc specifically so they'll be get told by the security guard "we
> don't allow flying here" so that they can bounce back at them with "we
> don't need your permission", the police often get called, and the
> security guards slink away after being told it's a civil matter.

Which it is, as it is trespass. Unless, of course, it is the subject of
a local by-law, which I suspect could be the case of Tintern Abbey. They
don't show up on the CAA's drone no fly zones and the CAA advises
checking local signs.

>> Same principle for why you need your neighbour's permission to e.g.
>> swing your
>> crane over their land.
>>
>> CAA rules only kick in once you get up to whatever height they control.
>
> possibly 30m, though the lightest of drones probably have different rules,

--
Colin Bignell

[Roland Perry]

In message <jp3q30...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:07:11 on Thu, 22
Sep 2022, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:

What enforces that ceiling, seems a bit complicated for it to be
autonomous rather than the "pilots" eyeball.
--
Roland Perry

[Colin Bignell]

The ownership of airspace was established long before drones existed.

--
Colin Bignell

[Andy Burns]

Roland Perry wrote:

> Andy Burns remarked:

>
>> drones have a 400 ft ceiling.
>
> What enforces that ceiling, seems a bit complicated for it to be autonomous
> rather than the "pilots" eyeball.

From what little I've seen, the pilot sets the limit from the controller,
presumably the onboard system sticks within it, but that is likely to be 400 ft
above the take-off point, when the ceiling in reality is 400 ft above whatever
terrain the drone happens to be over.

[Andy Burns]

But different rules apply to lightweight drones, they don't need to keep 50m
away from people, but they do need to avoid crowds, here are lightly snipped
'rules' from the CAA page

======

You can fly small drones and model aircraft that are lighter than 250g in [...]

Residential areas include:
cities and towns
villages
housing estates
schools
Recreational areas include:
tourist attractions
sports facilities
beaches and parks
theme parks
Commercial areas include:
shopping centres
warehouses
business parks
Industrial areas include:
factories
docks
rail and transport hubs

So given they can be flown in those areas, and cannot exceed 400 ft, then the
500 ft you mention cannot apply, it seems a bit of a cop-out by the CAA to not
set a minimum height, or at least a guideline?

[Roland Perry]

In message <jp5757...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:56:21 on Fri, 23

Sep 2022, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns remarked:
>>
>>> drones have a 400 ft ceiling.
>> What enforces that ceiling, seems a bit complicated for it to be
>>autonomous rather than the "pilots" eyeball.
>
>From what little I've seen, the pilot sets the limit from the
>controller, presumably the onboard system sticks within it,

The have altimeters/radar on board?

>but that is likely to be 400 ft above the take-off point, when the
>ceiling in reality is 400 ft above whatever terrain the drone happens
>to be over.
>

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <jp58c0...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:17:01 on Fri, 23

Sep 2022, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:

What prevents them?

>exceed 400 ft, then the 500 ft you mention cannot apply, it seems a bit
>of a cop-out by the CAA to not set a minimum height, or at least a
>guideline?
>

--
Roland Perry

[Colin Bignell]

On 23/09/2022 09:17, Andy Burns wrote:
> Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>
>>>> The lower stratum is not clearly defined, but is that part of the
>>>> airspace where an intrusion is likely to affect the reasonable
>>>> enjoyment
>>>> of the property. That is generally taken to be at least 500 feet agl.
>>>
>>> That can't be correct, drones have a 400 ft ceiling.
>>
>> The ownership of airspace was established long before drones existed.
>
> But different rules apply to lightweight drones, they don't need to keep
> 50m away from people, but they do need to avoid crowds, here are lightly
> snipped 'rules' from the CAA page

I have such a drone, specifically chosen as one described by the
manufacturer as a toy, so that it does not require registration. That is
why I also looked to see what other laws might apply.

>
> ======
>
> You can fly small drones and model aircraft that are lighter than 250g
> in [...]
>
> Residential areas include:
>     cities and towns
>     villages
>     housing estates
>     schools
> Recreational areas include:
>     tourist attractions
>     sports facilities
>     beaches and parks
>     theme parks
> Commercial areas include:
>     shopping centres
>     warehouses
>     business parks
> Industrial areas include:
>     factories
>     docks
>     rail and transport hubs
>
> So given they can be flown in those areas, and cannot exceed 400 ft,
> then the 500 ft you mention cannot apply, it seems a bit of a cop-out by
> the CAA to not set a minimum height, or at least a guideline?

The CAA controls flying and enforces criminal law. The fact that they
say you may fly a drone in those areas only means that you are not
committing a criminal offence by doing so. However, the ownership of
airspace above land is not a matter for the CAA.

If you fly over land and are within the lower stratum, then, unless you
have the permission of the land owner, you are trespassing. That is
quite independent of the CAA rules. In practice, it is probably not
going to be a problem in most cases, but it means land owners can
prohibit the flying of drones over their land, in just the same way that
they can put up notices saying private property, no trespassing and
probably with as much effect.

--
Colin Bignell

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:36:53 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <jp5757...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:56:21 on Fri, 23
>Sep 2022, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:
>>Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns remarked:
>>>
>>>> drones have a 400 ft ceiling.
>>> What enforces that ceiling, seems a bit complicated for it to be
>>>autonomous rather than the "pilots" eyeball.
>>
>>From what little I've seen, the pilot sets the limit from the
>>controller, presumably the onboard system sticks within it,
>
>The have altimeters/radar on board?

A barometric altimeter, yes. That's a relatively trivial device that's
common on all but the very cheapest drones. More sophisticated drones use a
an all-round object detection system which not only detects the ground below
them but helps to avoid flying into things like trees and pylons. I'm not
sure, offhand, how that actually works, and whether it can reasonably be
described as "radar", but it performs much the same function.

Mark

[Nick Odell]

...and this, I think, is the problem. There was a real issue: the
shutting down of Gatwick Airport by "reported drones" but the response
has been to add another layer of bureaucracy and administration (and
fee-paying) into ordinary people's lives without any real expectation
of enforcement of the rules unless it is in response to another
airport getting shut down or something similar happening.

Nick

[Roland Perry]

In message <lk0rih168c3bn91be...@4ax.com>, at 11:03:56 on
Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

I had a drone for a while, it only cost about £50 and I don't think it
had any of that. The whole thing was a nightmare to connect up and fly,
so I decided to chuck it.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <v42riht0n3sgoucf3...@4ax.com>, at 11:30:09 on
Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> remarked:

>There was a real issue: the shutting down of Gatwick Airport by
>"reported drones" but the response has been to add another layer of
>bureaucracy and administration (and fee-paying) into ordinary people's
>lives without any real expectation of enforcement of the rules unless
>it is in response to another airport getting shut down or something
>similar happening.

Was there ever any plausible explanation of that Gatwick incident was
really all about?
--
Roland Perry

[Nick Odell]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:53:04 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

...hence my use of inverted commas.

Nick

[Roland Perry]

In message <k85rih10ptcc1ulh7...@4ax.com>, at 12:15:01 on

Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:53:04 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <v42riht0n3sgoucf3...@4ax.com>, at 11:30:09 on
>>Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> remarked:
>>
>>>There was a real issue: the shutting down of Gatwick Airport by
>>>"reported drones" but the response has been to add another layer of
>>>bureaucracy and administration (and fee-paying) into ordinary people's
>>>lives without any real expectation of enforcement of the rules unless
>>>it is in response to another airport getting shut down or something
>>>similar happening.
>>
>>Was there ever any plausible explanation of that Gatwick incident was
>>really all about?
>
>...hence my use of inverted commas.

One element of a plausible explanation would be whether the people
reporting them were seeing something else, or whether they falsely
reported seeing drones as some element in a much wider co-ordinated
distraction exercise.

I always thought it odd that despite the control tower apparently being
buzzed by them, they never could (or is it "would") produce any CCTV.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

Drones classed as toys, or C0 class (that is, under 250g in weight), don't
need any onboard instrumentation. Anything bigger must have an altimeter and
GPS, at minimum, and must be capable of adhering to a maximum height setting
and observing any geo-fenced "no fly" area.

A lot of the more popular C0 drones, though, include GPS and altimeters even
though they're not a requirement. The biggest consumer benefit of a C0 drone
is that it doesn't need to be registered and the operator doesn't need a
licence. That's why they're popular. But people who buy drones, even small
ones, still like them to have as many features as possible. So there's quite
strong competition in the sub-250g space (specifically, in drones weighing
exactly 249g, that is, as heavy as they can possibly be without needing a
licence) to replicate the features of their bigger cousins. And one of the
most important of those is a homing ability (so that a drone which loses
contact with the operator can find its own way back without human control),
which requires GPS and an altimeter.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <c1crihht83ihsn20h...@4ax.com>, at 14:28:29 on

And not having got stuck in a tree, which is what mine did on the first
outing.
--
Roland Perry

[Andy Burns]

Roland Perry wrote:

> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:

>>
>> From what little I've seen, the pilot sets the limit from the controller,
>> presumably the onboard system sticks within it,
>
> The have altimeters/radar on board?

Well my phone has a barometric pressure sensor, so I can't see why a drone
doesn't too, also GPS but the vertical resolution is worse than horiontal.

[Andy Burns]

Mark Goodge wrote:

> More sophisticated drones use a
> an all-round object detection system which not only detects the ground below
> them but helps to avoid flying into things like trees and pylons. I'm not
> sure, offhand, how that actually works,

cameras I think, and seems to vary (in front, to sides, below, behind etc) from
drone to drone.

[Andy Burns]

Roland Perry wrote:

> I had a drone for a while, it only cost about £50 and I don't think it had any
> of that. The whole thing was a nightmare to connect up and fly, so I decided to
> chuck it.

Never had one, a little tempted, but then I remind myself of other "tech-toys"
that don't see much use and suddenly I start thinking that maybe the £850+ can
stay in the bank, and eventually will buy me an improved model?

[Roland Perry]

In message <jp6av2...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:07:27 on Fri, 23

Sep 2022, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:

The £800 it might cost me for the latest blingy phone (compared to the
quite adequate one I already have) can stay in the bank. But when drones
became available retail for under £100, I did think it might be worth
trying one out.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <jp6akv...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:02:05 on Fri, 23

Sep 2022, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:

Depends on the price (and hence build-standard) of the drone, perhaps.
--
Roland Perry

[Colin Bignell]

That incident was responsible for interim measures being brought in
quickly, but the regulation of the flying of drones, mainly prompted by
concerns over public safety, was already under consideration and would
have come in anyway.



--
Colin Bignell

[Nick Odell]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 20:59:06 +0100, Colin Bignell

I didn't know that before. Thank you!

Nick

[Dr Dave]

Is there any chance of a reference to legislation outlining the lower stratum airspace ownership please? I’m not disputing it but I want to show somebody something definitive.

Thanks.

[Colin Bignell]

It is more a negative reference, in that Section 76 of The Civil
Aviation Act 1982 says that there shall be no case for action for
trespass or nuisance by reason of the flight of an aircraft at a height
above the ground that is reasonable.

Reasonable has been interpreted as not less than 500 feet over open
country, or 1,000 feet over built up areas. These are derived from the
Rules of the Air, which are Regulations drawn up under the Air
Navigation order. Those set 1,000 feet as the minimum height an aircraft
may fly over a congested area and require that aircraft shall not be
flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
While, in theory, that would allow an aircraft to fly at ground level if
none of those were near, it is, in practice, impossible to be sure that
they are not, so flying at least 500 ft agl is taken to comply.


--
Colin Bignell

[Dr Dave]

Thank you.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 14:28:29 +0100, I <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:

>Drones classed as toys, or C0 class (that is, under 250g in weight), don't
>need any onboard instrumentation. Anything bigger must have an altimeter and
>GPS, at minimum, and must be capable of adhering to a maximum height setting
>and observing any geo-fenced "no fly" area.

For the sake of correctness, I should point out that the above is slightly
incorrect. Even C0 drones must have an altimeter, and it must be hardcoded
to a maximum height of 120m above the take off point. Drones of C1 and above
can allow the user to configure the maximum height. But C0 drones don't need
GPS, whereas C1 and above do.

Mark