I think it should be remembered that councils do not own anything? They hold properties in trust for the people of the land they SERVE! So, they can NOT, WITHOUT CONSULTATION, say that a particular area is a no fly zone. They need our permission. I'd like to hear others views on this. Cheers.
I’m with you, last time guys from council come and ask me to stop flying by the sea side where no people involve, good zone to fly checked on drone fly app, and manager of bcp he told me bcp council own the sea side and is private and I’m not allowed to fly, and he asked me for drone license and my insurance 🤣🤣🤯🤯
@Roused video The next step for me would be to get his name, write to his boss about his intrusion, then immediately do an FOI request on the subject and at the same time go to the next council meeting! They ALL need to be held accountable. Cheers.
Informative video as usual. Well, his views were interesting in an alarming way, but I just lose hope. Not the landowner information, but the reporting / all part of the aviation industry / need the aviation culture stuff. I just do not think I, as a hobbyist flying a 200g FPV race type quad 10 feet off the ground in the back of beyond, need to operate the same way as someone operating a 747 out of Heathrow, or even a camera drone at height in a populated area - it's horses for courses. He seems to think I do, and the current regulations seem to imply the same. I hit a golf ball higher than I fly a quad, by quite a long way. Do I have a long written checklist before I fly? No of course I don't, I carry out commonsense checks, much as I do when I hit a golf ball - no-one around, equipment in good order. I imagine anyone else like me does much the same. I can understand why Simon Dale wants lots of 'nothing happened' reports - he wants to convince the CAA such reporting isn't necessary. But listening to this gentleman, he doesn't look at it that way at all, it's meat and drink to him. I am just not going to submit a report every time my race type quad clips something flying round a course - it happens all the time, it's the nature of the what we are doing, there is no safety issue about it. The latest missive about props is typical I suppose. Reputedly a prop came off some DJI drone, and was reported, I read about it in their journal. Part of the result appears to be a recommendation (is it a legal requirement yet? Not sure) only to use manufacturer supplied or certified props. Now that may or may not be justified in the way this drone was being used, I don't know, but a blanket recommendation? So, I buy an Eachine Tyro79 3" quad from China, and some opinion is that the props are not ideal, there are better ones from HQ, Gemfan etc. Can get them from various specialist places or eBay, Amazon, Banggood etc. But I shouldn't use those, they won't be certified. I doubt Eachine would be interested in doing so - they want to sell parts. I can understand the need for a 747 to use Boeing certified parts, but the Tyro79 flying in some field far from anywhere is so far away from that it isn't even on the same scale. Yet the CAA think the same broad principles should apply. It isn't the same thing at all. To say the current rules are over the top is an understatement. I just think the whole thing is barking. The only real result of this current rule culture is a lot of people will totally ignore them as ridiculous and inapplicable - which is the opposite of what the CAA want. It's a pity too, because sensible proportionate rules and guidance would be useful. But if the CAA want to change that, they need to do something to show they understand what they are regulating. I personally do not feel they have a clue.
Hey Nick! Thanks so much for taking the time to set out an excellent point. I know for a FACT many feel the same way. There seems to be more and more general aviation discussion and practice being transferred over to drone use. This will probably increase now the drone unit is part of general aviation team. With Simon Dale and FPVUK the reporting is important in terms of their operational authorisation under Article 16 but I think you make an excellent point in terms of individual hobbyists and particularly those flying small drones. I think that is something I really could have done with raising. We are speaking to the CAA again very soon and it is on my list. Your comment will form the basis of the question.
@@Geeksvana your efforts in publicising this stuff and providing information are always appreciated. I have written an FPV simulator on one of the gaming platforms (Unity) so we can fly the same courses in simulation as we do in reality. I am thinking I should include a CAA official walking on with a clipboard to check all the rules are being followed!
Really great stuff this wee Sean, especially this. Great of the CAA to do an interview and really good to see a human face that is happy to give straightforward answers. Will be tuning in with great interest for Part 2!
Hey Mike! Thank you! Yes, Jonathan was very open and agreed happily to the interview. Answers are too rare these days and as you say it is good to find those happy to chat.
One thing I like to comment on in regards to trespass is if you are asked to leave and you land the drone pack away and leave that is the end of the incident, you just walk away to an area of public access with your done. No name address or anything else has to be given. BUT if you cause any damage E.G climb over a fence and it breaks or an old wooden gate it then is criminal damage and you can be arrested by the police. Also if you refuse to leave the land the landowner or persons acting on their behalf can use the minimum force necessary to remove you from the land they do not have to get the police involved but invariably they will to make sure no criminal acts occur against either party.
Hey Muck & Mirrors! Some excellent points thank you. My angle was more from those stood on land such as a park etc who would then be able to leave easily and without issue but it is very important to understand the wider issues. I appreciate you taking the time to put them so eloquently.
@@Geeksvana Hi Sean thanks for the reply in regard to public spaces as you say it's a little different as you are already in a "public space" but if your not doing what your allowed to do you are effectively trespassing. All i want to point out is if you are caught in that position it's not really a big deal (depending on the land your are on, farmers field and not damaged crops apologies and pack up, army training area, controlled area different story ). I've caught 100's of people trespassing over the years i worked as a gamekeeper most did not even though they had wondered off official footpaths and were fine with being directed back to where they should be. On the odd occasion though police, 4x4 tractors, dogs, and a team of 12 blokes (that was also minimum force!) New Age travelers bless their cotton socks.
@@muckmirrors2512 Good advice there M&M. Also, if you are sent off, or removed from, land on which you have trespassed, but then return, it "may" amount to aggravated trespass, which is a criminal offence, not civil.
Trespassing on land is a civil offence, unless you're carrying, say, a firearm when it becomes armed trespass, a serious criminal offence. In civil trespass, the matter ends when you leave. If you continue to repeat the trespass, the landowner can take you to court and get an injunction.
I’m a new to drone flying, well I will be when it arrives 😀. Are you saying take off and landing is different to flying over someone’s land? I am beginning to think where I will fly for my starter flights and want to be ultra cautious.
This all sounds very reasonable from the CAA, I just wish we could convince certain councils. My guess is that the councils only issue a blanket ban as that is easier and cheaper to enforce than trying to distinguish responsible drone fliers from the irresponsible ones. I don't even know if my local police would care about anyone taking off from council land if they weren't being a nuisance, but I'm not sure I'd like to be the one to find out.
Hey Mr Messy! Great to see you and thanks for making a great point. The difference between an interview on the subject and application on the ground is always a void. Although we will (soonish) have more updates on the enforcement policy of take off issues.
Hi great vid makes it all so clear,one thing not mentioned though is landowners reluctance to reply to an enquiry.e mailed the land trust for my area over a month ago,rang after two weeks and still no reply regarding permission to use their land,have to say it raises the temptation to 'just do it' but so far have resisted. On the positive side a local football club has several pitches on what I thought was their land,turned out one e mail answered within two days and written confirmation pitches are on public land so no issues from them !!!!what a difference
Hey Kevin Hall! Thank for taking the time to comment. You raise a great issue. For me, it depends on the land and what it is being used for. If a park or public access space, then I feel you can fly there without much research and as long as signs do not forbid it etc. When it is private land, I personally do a little more digging like you have, although I have overflown sites where no contact could be made. I simply ensured my flight took this into account and ensured the drone, if a forced landing were to happen, would not end up on the land etc. Great point you raise, thanks.
Really valuable video. Not just for the information, but for the fact the CAA are showing their face in the community. I was about to do an option piece on the CAA, where I recognise the importance of their organisation, but criticise their ability to connect with the hobbyist drone community. After seeing this I feel they may attempt to connect more in the future? Keep it up!
Hey Paul! One of the reasons I asked Jonathan to join us for a chat was exactly for that reason. The CAA are making appearances at more and more public shows and events and seem very keen to connect with hobby and commercial operators alike. It would be great to see this connection offered on a wider basis, imagine a CAA RUclips channel!
Very good Sean. If you get another opportunity, could you ask the CAA how they intend to reach out to drone users rather than leave it to folk like you and social media forums to carry the burden of education to particularly hobby flyers. As touched on, the drone code is one avenue but I am yet to see the CAA publicise this on Social Media. We appreciate the regulations are cumbersome, indeed for a new hobby flyer, impossible ( almost) to understand in CAA speak.
Hey Dave! Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree more needs to be done. We did discuss this with Jonathan and emphasised the importance of the information coming from the source. We are seeing them at more public events but a wider social media campaign is a great idea.
I've found that councils are incredibly inept and clueless with regards permissions to launch. I've had high ranking councillors scoff at me and call drones 'noisy buzzing things that get in peoples hair'. They just don't understand, don't care and simply want to ban drones full stop. I've even offered, for free, to create a permission system with one particular council just so that things can be managed well - they refused. It's a type of behaviour that leads to illegal and uncontrolled flight and with that comes hate from the public as we're all tarred with the same brush :( I totally get that drones are a fairly new thing but given that so many official organisations are already on board with it all, councils are still living in the Dark Ages and always will be.
this confirmed what I already knew about landownership but As for councils banning drones we the people own that land and are free to use it, what is very hard to enable is a system so people can check on who owned what in any area as the land registry won't be happy with that level of enquiries and not all land owners want to be identified. This also is not what the CAA are about as its all about safety for them not the politics of it
Hey trojax01! Thank you for joining us for the live premiere. Totally agree. I think the value from this part of the interview is the CAA distancing their drone rules from landowner permission. Hopefully it will give more hobbyists the confidence to fly after simple checks.
@@Geeksvana Yes fully agree its for the land owner to protect their land, the national trust is a very interesting one with a total ban but when I visit National sites I don't see many maps of what they own or don't own and I don't see many signs up, I presume because lots of maps and signs would have a detrimental affect on the landscape haha
What about in Scotland ? We have the right to roam , meaning if we are not trespassing we can pretty much walk anywhere freely , does the same apply to drone piloting where we can walk ?
If you have an accident and someone is injured, I suspect one of the first questions your insurance company would ask would be "did you have permission to take of from your location"? I wonder what their response would be if you say that you didn't have permission to take off.
Hey Rattytatty! Yes an interesting point. I know that insurers like Moonrock do not consider the landowner permission as valid. That is a line I need to investigate further and report back on in general terms. Thanks for raising it.
I think an insurance company would focus the questions on the facts that lead to the crash (e.g. flying competence, reckless behaviour, external influences (e.g. bird attacks) and airworthiness deficiencies), rather than facts that weren’t allowed to exist but immaterial to the facts of the crash. In that regards, a question as to whether permission to takeoff is given is only relevant if such permission is required for safe execution of the flight. Outside of an airfield or airspace where a flight restriction is in force, it rarely is.
As a potential purchaser of a drone for the very first time and watching umpteen RUclips uploads and also checking the CAA website, and then reading and listening to take off and landing rules, I don’t know whether it’s worth my while. I mean I was only going to purchase one to use along with my motorcycle for filming and taking photos of me with my bike whilst out and about, and certainly NOT near people or private property either. As most of my riding is done within the Yorkshire Dales national park and the surrounding area, trying to find the land owners is going to be nigh on impossible as 98% of it is private land. What’s your take on it ? Many thanks 👍🏻
I have flown in/over my local forest for years and now there is a no drone flying sign up, the land is private but has allowed public access for decades so how would that be asper the TRESSPASSING as the physical ground is allowed to be used ??
Surely the Land owner doesn’t own the airspace above his Land!.... what happens if you take off from public space and fly over private land? Why didn’t you ask for the film footage and photos of the Heathrow and Gatwick drone threats? Etc etc. I consider myself a safety conscious flyer and take all the proper risk assessments! I believe most of us drone pilots are safety conscious in all what we do! A few years ago my old flying club lost its flying site from a farm that had a full size aircraft that the farmer used to fly regularly from that site ! And us modellers were banned from flying there from a person that lived in London and had a weekend retreat cottage in the next field!! We were members of SMAE! And we’re not allowed to fly there ever again!! And I believe once Authorities start poking their noses in our hobby that will be the end of our pleasures!
Hey David! Landowner cannot control the airspace so this only covers take off and landing on their land. There are privacy and other issues such as airspace restrictions of course but put simply only the CAA control the airspace. With regards to the drone issues at Heathrow and Gatwick, we will have some very interesting content on this very soon.
@@Geeksvana because she didn’t like the noise of the models flying around! And we mentioned ,well a full size Cessna takes off and lands twice a day and that is louder than our models! Her reply was that she had this cottage for a retreat from London and did not want us to fly there!! And she got us removed and then left with no site to fly from! Ps I guess she had her reasons ,but it shows how our hobby can be stopped !!
@@Geeksvana and flying was done by a handful of four or five pilots on a weekend! And not just over her cottage!! God we were out in the countryside away from housing as we know it today! It just shows that it only take one complaint to get it stopped! Anyway Sean keep up the good that you do! 👍
I think that the main issue should be about privacy, as it is a photographer can take pictures or video`s when they are in a public place but when they are in a public place they can use a drone to fly over the houses of private properties and take video`s of what is going on in a private garden, such as women sunbathing getting a full over tan in private, they can use a drone to view into the bedroom windows where people think is out of view of other people but a video of a personal nature can be taken. Video`s can also be taken for likely ways to get into a property so that a criminal act can be set up. All that the people that fly drones care about is that they can do what they want legally and safely, none of them are the least concerned about the privacy of people that they are videoing because they know that they can use the laws to stand in a public area and still legally take pictures and photo`s in a private area. A law regarding this should be in place.
It would be really nice if we had a bit more of a Scottish angle on this too, because trespassing laws are completely different here. I can, for example, freely walk on private land as part of Section 1 of Land Reform Act 2003 "everyone has the right to be on land for recreational purposes and to cross land for such purposes", so what if I want to fly my drone for recreational purposes? I think the Scottish Outdoor Code suggests that "powered flight" is not part of this right, which I assume means no drones?
I always go online and look at a councils bylaws on do’ & don’ts in their public parks and if there’s no mention of model aircraft or drones then that means I’m good to go as long as I don’t have a BBQ 😆
There are sooo many thing wrong with the drone landscape currently, manufacturers still releasing very expensive drones with out C classification unless they know something we don't ie retrospective labels . No clear specifications for the ratings as this will have to be agreed worldwide as per Full size aviation safety rules. No one has any idea of the qualifications anyone needs to do anything. No flying past VLOS unless you have training for BVLOS even though you can't see Full size when flying BVLOS so can avoid as required. The police left to enforce rules and laws no one fully understand and big retail companies trying to monopolise airspace that they may or may not use, this is to name just a few. It will be so interesting to hear what the CAA say but fear it won't be any sort of clarification other than current a Landowner can control who uses their land and for what just like the National Trust restricting all drone take of and landings, but they don't control the airspace........Rant over LOL
Hey trojax01! All rants welcome here. Part 2 of this interview which is being premiered tomorrow evening gets an update on C labels, extending legacy period and retroactive labels. There is some very interesting info!
@@Geeksvana Its about time as trying to get agreement on the specifications won't come soon. As stated this is all driven by safety and will have to be pretty much a world standard just like full size aviation. Currently the world could not agree a standard on how to make a cup of tea......Drone flying is much more complicated
Hey Mike! I did mention the differences in Scotland but due to some background noise at the show it had to be removed. Tried to treat the audio a few ways to keep it in. We are live on Friday night to talk about these interviews and I will make sure it is on the agenda as an important point. Thanks for raising it.
😂🤣 CAA: What's landowner permission mean? Sean: turns camera off, shortest interview ever... To be fair, I feel like they did give an answer from CAA perspective that I hope helps the hobby.
I am thinking of buying a drone, but very intimidated by the "where can I take off and land from". All UK land is owned by someone. Therefore I need to seek permission every time I take off unless I own the land myself? This is not pragmatic and will put me off buying a drone. Its not a Harrier Jumpjet or a Chinnock! UK law is a vague mess. I have to seriously consider whether spending a large amount of money on a drone is a good idea if I cannot actually use it! If you can't take off from say a public footpath, then I can't see almost any situation in which flying a drone is OK, and yet we have millions of drone videos in the UK. To remind legislators, there is no point in having laws if they are not enforced. So either enforce them or remove them. Are we seriously suggesting that every single RUclips video of a drone flight was preempted by an authorisation from a land owner? I have no issues asking for permission but I know the default position of large bodies like NT will just be 'No" so some lethargic desk worker and dismiss the enquiry and get back to their unproductive day. Can someone put my out of my misery here and explain where can I actually take off without special permission?
Hey Rob! I have spent the last three years on this channel trying to get the definitive advice and guidance in terms of take off permissions etc. It is not a simple one to answer. However, I am working on a video with very clear advice based on all of my research and interactions with the stakeholders surrounding this subject. It will be released very soon and is designed to help precisely your quandary.
Hey MickeyF_K_NMouse! I get your point. It seems extreme if every knock and small occurrence is reported. To me, it would be something outside of what you expect but we are putting more questions to the CAA from our comments and I will question the line.
i really feel for you when you go out your way to help this hobby and left as clear as mud and people just seem to be passing the buck ... i admire your own patience and not giving him a good old slap and saying just tell us how it is man for the love of god lololol
You have to be aware of the growth industry which is the nanny state. The CAA is a growth industry pioneer par excellence. Of course everyone wants safe aviation and safe drone flights. I prefer the situation where the individual takes control without precious "granny" wanting a job out of it. Normal people don't want an accident. The obvious justification is always some incident referred to, as here between an airliner and a drone. These are none incidents. None accidents and no longer happen. And even if a drone made contact with an airliner it is very very unlikely to bring down the airliner. There is no evidence to say this is not so, no drone has ever made contact (an accident) with an airliner. So let's not get too excited. Imagine if you will, altering the highway code every time there is a none accident? Remember, no one has ever been killed by a drome, no one has ever been seriously injured by a drone. No building has been set on fire by a drone. No car accident has occured because of a drone flight. There is no balance here in this rush for more legislation and fuss. This creeping legislational approach is standard practice for the CAA. No one ever gets to say to these guys, oih paniker show us your evidence ! Imagine the situation if applied to the roads, if dealt with by the CAA in the same nanny state way as used here with drones. The result would be No road transport and a blanket speed limit of 10 MPH. Over kill indeed. Less is more, much much more. Stop adding rules for imaginary problems. Stop this control freak approach. Step back or it never ever ends, a whole department will spring up with, in the main nothing to do except propose more rules, I have seen this going on for the last 50 years. As I said the CAA are a growth industry. KEEP IT SIMPLE. You could simplify all this overly complicated tosh in just four rules, Number One, the 400 foot rule don't fly above 400 feet. Number two keep away from people or property by at least 150 YARDS - not metres. Three keep away from controlled airspace. Four, if you do fly your drone beyond line of sight stay above 350 feet agl and no greater than 6 miles from the start point, and never in a built up area. Most drones return home once the base station signal is lost and you do get a power reserve warning in plenty of time. With just four rules it is possible the rules could be remembered by everybody.
Wouldn’t it be nice having paid the CAA annually they brought out an app which shows restrictions to airspace which include ALL local restrictions and regulations.
how can council say you can not take off from THIER land when the land is owned by the people............payed for buy the tax payer owned by the tax payer if all safety is considered there should be no problem
Because council property is owned by the council, not "the people". The USA has different rules and laws which frequently causes confusion. Here in the UK there's no "automatic rights" based on public funding. The crucial factor is the registered owner or occupier of the land. If you are on a "right of way" ROW over private property (including council) it might be argued that you cannot trespass on a ROW. However, that matter is debatable as a ROW usually gives the public to "pass, and repass" with no mention of anything further, such as photography, drones, picnic, etc.
![GEEK TIMË [OFFICIAL AUDIO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ry-6RvkH880/mqdefault.jpg)
I think it should be remembered that councils do not own anything?
They hold properties in trust for the people of the land they SERVE!
So, they can NOT, WITHOUT CONSULTATION, say that a particular area is a no fly zone.
They need our permission.
I'd like to hear others views on this.
Cheers.
I’m with you, last time guys from council come and ask me to stop flying by the sea side where no people involve, good zone to fly checked on drone fly app, and manager of bcp he told me bcp council own the sea side and is private and I’m not allowed to fly, and he asked me for drone license and my insurance 🤣🤣🤯🤯
@Roused video The next step for me would be to get his name, write to his boss about his intrusion, then immediately do an FOI request on the subject and at the same time go to the next council meeting!
They ALL need to be held accountable.
Cheers.
Informative video as usual.
Well, his views were interesting in an alarming way, but I just lose hope. Not the landowner information, but the reporting / all part of the aviation industry / need the aviation culture stuff.
I just do not think I, as a hobbyist flying a 200g FPV race type quad 10 feet off the ground in the back of beyond, need to operate the same way as someone operating a 747 out of Heathrow, or even a camera drone at height in a populated area - it's horses for courses. He seems to think I do, and the current regulations seem to imply the same. I hit a golf ball higher than I fly a quad, by quite a long way. Do I have a long written checklist before I fly? No of course I don't, I carry out commonsense checks, much as I do when I hit a golf ball - no-one around, equipment in good order. I imagine anyone else like me does much the same.
I can understand why Simon Dale wants lots of 'nothing happened' reports - he wants to convince the CAA such reporting isn't necessary. But listening to this gentleman, he doesn't look at it that way at all, it's meat and drink to him. I am just not going to submit a report every time my race type quad clips something flying round a course - it happens all the time, it's the nature of the what we are doing, there is no safety issue about it.
The latest missive about props is typical I suppose. Reputedly a prop came off some DJI drone, and was reported, I read about it in their journal. Part of the result appears to be a recommendation (is it a legal requirement yet? Not sure) only to use manufacturer supplied or certified props.
Now that may or may not be justified in the way this drone was being used, I don't know, but a blanket recommendation? So, I buy an Eachine Tyro79 3" quad from China, and some opinion is that the props are not ideal, there are better ones from HQ, Gemfan etc. Can get them from various specialist places or eBay, Amazon, Banggood etc. But I shouldn't use those, they won't be certified. I doubt Eachine would be interested in doing so - they want to sell parts.
I can understand the need for a 747 to use Boeing certified parts, but the Tyro79 flying in some field far from anywhere is so far away from that it isn't even on the same scale. Yet the CAA think the same broad principles should apply.
It isn't the same thing at all. To say the current rules are over the top is an understatement. I just think the whole thing is barking.
The only real result of this current rule culture is a lot of people will totally ignore them as ridiculous and inapplicable - which is the opposite of what the CAA want. It's a pity too, because sensible proportionate rules and guidance would be useful. But if the CAA want to change that, they need to do something to show they understand what they are regulating. I personally do not feel they have a clue.
Hey Nick! Thanks so much for taking the time to set out an excellent point. I know for a FACT many feel the same way. There seems to be more and more general aviation discussion and practice being transferred over to drone use. This will probably increase now the drone unit is part of general aviation team.
With Simon Dale and FPVUK the reporting is important in terms of their operational authorisation under Article 16 but I think you make an excellent point in terms of individual hobbyists and particularly those flying small drones. I think that is something I really could have done with raising. We are speaking to the CAA again very soon and it is on my list. Your comment will form the basis of the question.
@@Geeksvana your efforts in publicising this stuff and providing information are always appreciated.
I have written an FPV simulator on one of the gaming platforms (Unity) so we can fly the same courses in simulation as we do in reality. I am thinking I should include a CAA official walking on with a clipboard to check all the rules are being followed!
Really great stuff this wee Sean, especially this. Great of the CAA to do an interview and really good to see a human face that is happy to give straightforward answers. Will be tuning in with great interest for Part 2!
Hey Mike! Thank you! Yes, Jonathan was very open and agreed happily to the interview. Answers are too rare these days and as you say it is good to find those happy to chat.
One thing I like to comment on in regards to trespass is if you are asked to leave and you land the drone pack away and leave that is the end of the incident, you just walk away to an area of public access with your done. No name address or anything else has to be given.
BUT if you cause any damage E.G climb over a fence and it breaks or an old wooden gate it then is criminal damage and you can be arrested by the police.
Also if you refuse to leave the land the landowner or persons acting on their behalf can use the minimum force necessary to remove you from the land they do not have to get the police involved but invariably they will to make sure no criminal acts occur against either party.
Hey Muck & Mirrors! Some excellent points thank you. My angle was more from those stood on land such as a park etc who would then be able to leave easily and without issue but it is very important to understand the wider issues. I appreciate you taking the time to put them so eloquently.
@@Geeksvana Hi Sean thanks for the reply in regard to public spaces as you say it's a little different as you are already in a "public space" but if your not doing what your allowed to do you are effectively trespassing.
All i want to point out is if you are caught in that position it's not really a big deal (depending on the land your are on, farmers field and not damaged crops apologies and pack up, army training area, controlled area different story ).
I've caught 100's of people trespassing over the years i worked as a gamekeeper most did not even though they had wondered off official footpaths and were fine with being directed back to where they should be. On the odd occasion though police, 4x4 tractors, dogs, and a team of 12 blokes (that was also minimum force!) New Age travelers bless their cotton socks.
@@muckmirrors2512 Good advice there M&M.
Also, if you are sent off, or removed from, land on which you have trespassed, but then return, it "may" amount to aggravated trespass, which is a criminal offence, not civil.
Trespassing on land is a civil offence, unless you're carrying, say, a firearm when it becomes armed trespass, a serious criminal offence. In civil trespass, the matter ends when you leave. If you continue to repeat the trespass, the landowner can take you to court and get an injunction.
I’m a new to drone flying, well I will be when it arrives 😀. Are you saying take off and landing is different to flying over someone’s land? I am beginning to think where I will fly for my starter flights and want to be ultra cautious.
This all sounds very reasonable from the CAA, I just wish we could convince certain councils. My guess is that the councils only issue a blanket ban as that is easier and cheaper to enforce than trying to distinguish responsible drone fliers from the irresponsible ones. I don't even know if my local police would care about anyone taking off from council land if they weren't being a nuisance, but I'm not sure I'd like to be the one to find out.
Hey Mr Messy! Great to see you and thanks for making a great point. The difference between an interview on the subject and application on the ground is always a void. Although we will (soonish) have more updates on the enforcement policy of take off issues.
Hi great vid makes it all so clear,one thing not mentioned though is landowners reluctance to reply to an enquiry.e mailed the land trust for my area over a month ago,rang after two weeks and still no reply regarding permission to use their land,have to say it raises the temptation to 'just do it' but so far have resisted. On the positive side a local football club has several pitches on what I thought was their land,turned out one e mail answered within two days and written confirmation pitches are on public land so no issues from them !!!!what a difference
Hey Kevin Hall! Thank for taking the time to comment. You raise a great issue. For me, it depends on the land and what it is being used for. If a park or public access space, then I feel you can fly there without much research and as long as signs do not forbid it etc. When it is private land, I personally do a little more digging like you have, although I have overflown sites where no contact could be made. I simply ensured my flight took this into account and ensured the drone, if a forced landing were to happen, would not end up on the land etc. Great point you raise, thanks.
Really valuable video. Not just for the information, but for the fact the CAA are showing their face in the community. I was about to do an option piece on the CAA, where I recognise the importance of their organisation, but criticise their ability to connect with the hobbyist drone community. After seeing this I feel they may attempt to connect more in the future?
Keep it up!
Hey Paul! One of the reasons I asked Jonathan to join us for a chat was exactly for that reason. The CAA are making appearances at more and more public shows and events and seem very keen to connect with hobby and commercial operators alike. It would be great to see this connection offered on a wider basis, imagine a CAA RUclips channel!
Very good Sean. If you get another opportunity, could you ask the CAA how they intend to reach out to drone users rather than leave it to folk like you and social media forums to carry the burden of education to particularly hobby flyers. As touched on, the drone code is one avenue but I am yet to see the CAA publicise this on Social Media. We appreciate the regulations are cumbersome, indeed for a new hobby flyer, impossible ( almost) to understand in CAA speak.
Hey Dave! Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree more needs to be done. We did discuss this with Jonathan and emphasised the importance of the information coming from the source. We are seeing them at more public events but a wider social media campaign is a great idea.
I've found that councils are incredibly inept and clueless with regards permissions to launch. I've had high ranking councillors scoff at me and call drones 'noisy buzzing things that get in peoples hair'. They just don't understand, don't care and simply want to ban drones full stop. I've even offered, for free, to create a permission system with one particular council just so that things can be managed well - they refused. It's a type of behaviour that leads to illegal and uncontrolled flight and with that comes hate from the public as we're all tarred with the same brush :(
I totally get that drones are a fairly new thing but given that so many official organisations are already on board with it all, councils are still living in the Dark Ages and always will be.
this confirmed what I already knew about landownership but As for councils banning drones we the people own that land and are free to use it, what is very hard to enable is a system so people can check on who owned what in any area as the land registry won't be happy with that level of enquiries and not all land owners want to be identified. This also is not what the CAA are about as its all about safety for them not the politics of it
Hey trojax01! Thank you for joining us for the live premiere. Totally agree. I think the value from this part of the interview is the CAA distancing their drone rules from landowner permission. Hopefully it will give more hobbyists the confidence to fly after simple checks.
@@Geeksvana Yes fully agree its for the land owner to protect their land, the national trust is a very interesting one with a total ban but when I visit National sites I don't see many maps of what they own or don't own and I don't see many signs up, I presume because lots of maps and signs would have a detrimental affect on the landscape haha
What about in Scotland ? We have the right to roam , meaning if we are not trespassing we can pretty much walk anywhere freely , does the same apply to drone piloting where we can walk ?
If you have an accident and someone is injured, I suspect one of the first questions your insurance company would ask would be "did you have permission to take of from your location"? I wonder what their response would be if you say that you didn't have permission to take off.
Hey Rattytatty! Yes an interesting point. I know that insurers like Moonrock do not consider the landowner permission as valid. That is a line I need to investigate further and report back on in general terms. Thanks for raising it.
I think an insurance company would focus the questions on the facts that lead to the crash (e.g. flying competence, reckless behaviour, external influences (e.g. bird attacks) and airworthiness deficiencies), rather than facts that weren’t allowed to exist but immaterial to the facts of the crash.
In that regards, a question as to whether permission to takeoff is given is only relevant if such permission is required for safe execution of the flight. Outside of an airfield or airspace where a flight restriction is in force, it rarely is.
As a potential purchaser of a drone for the very first time and watching umpteen RUclips uploads and also checking the CAA website, and then reading and listening to take off and landing rules, I don’t know whether it’s worth my while. I mean I was only going to purchase one to use along with my motorcycle for filming and taking photos of me with my bike whilst out and about, and certainly NOT near people or private property either.
As most of my riding is done within the Yorkshire Dales national park and the surrounding area, trying to find the land owners is going to be nigh on impossible as 98% of it is private land.
What’s your take on it ?
Many thanks 👍🏻
Great to see the engagement here. Really interesting discussion.
Your interviews are getting more down to the point now which is good
I have flown in/over my local forest for years and now there is a no drone flying sign up, the land is private but has allowed public access for decades so how would that be asper the TRESSPASSING as the physical ground is allowed to be used ??
Surely the Land owner doesn’t own the airspace above his Land!.... what happens if you take off from public space and fly over private land?
Why didn’t you ask for the film footage and photos of the Heathrow and Gatwick drone threats? Etc etc.
I consider myself a safety conscious flyer and take all the proper risk assessments! I believe most of us drone pilots are safety conscious in all what we do! A few years ago my old flying club lost its flying site from a farm that had a full size aircraft that the farmer used to fly regularly from that site ! And us modellers were banned from flying there from a person that lived in London and had a weekend retreat cottage in the next field!!
We were members of SMAE! And we’re not allowed to fly there ever again!! And I believe once Authorities start poking their noses in our hobby that will be the end of our pleasures!
Hey David! Landowner cannot control the airspace so this only covers take off and landing on their land. There are privacy and other issues such as airspace restrictions of course but put simply only the CAA control the airspace.
With regards to the drone issues at Heathrow and Gatwick, we will have some very interesting content on this very soon.
Out of interest, what grounds were used to stop the rc flying by the neighbour?
@@Geeksvana because she didn’t like the noise of the models flying around! And we mentioned ,well a full size Cessna takes off and lands twice a day and that is louder than our models! Her reply was that she had this cottage for a retreat from London and did not want us to fly there!! And she got us removed and then left with no site to fly from! Ps I guess she had her reasons ,but it shows how our hobby can be stopped !!
That is crazy!! It is not even as if the models fly 24/7. Not good at all.
@@Geeksvana and flying was done by a handful of four or five pilots on a weekend! And not just over her cottage!! God we were out in the countryside away from housing as we know it today! It just shows that it only take one complaint to get it stopped! Anyway Sean keep up the good that you do! 👍
I think that the main issue should be about privacy, as it is a photographer can take pictures or video`s when they are in a public place but when they are in a public place they can use a drone to fly over the houses of private properties and take video`s of what is going on in a private garden, such as women sunbathing getting a full over tan in private, they can use a drone to view into the bedroom windows where people think is out of view of other people but a video of a personal nature can be taken. Video`s can also be taken for likely ways to get into a property so that a criminal act can be set up. All that the people that fly drones care about is that they can do what they want legally and safely, none of them are the least concerned about the privacy of people that they are videoing because they know that they can use the laws to stand in a public area and still legally take pictures and photo`s in a private area. A law regarding this should be in place.
It would be really nice if we had a bit more of a Scottish angle on this too, because trespassing laws are completely different here. I can, for example, freely walk on private land as part of Section 1 of Land Reform Act 2003 "everyone has the right to be on land for recreational purposes and to cross land for such purposes", so what if I want to fly my drone for recreational purposes? I think the Scottish Outdoor Code suggests that "powered flight" is not part of this right, which I assume means no drones?
Really good. 99% of my flights are in country area so no problem, but good to know about urban areas.
Hey Mark! Thanks for your comment, much appreciated.
I always go online and look at a councils bylaws on do’ & don’ts in their public parks and if there’s no mention of model aircraft or drones then that means I’m good to go as long as I don’t have a BBQ 😆
Hey Daz! Nice! Very similar to my own approach. Guess the BBQ will have to wait until home lol
Another good video Sean! thanks a lot mate stay safe keep on droning 👍😂
Thank you George! Really appreciate all your support.
There are sooo many thing wrong with the drone landscape currently, manufacturers still releasing very expensive drones with out C classification unless they know something we don't ie retrospective labels . No clear specifications for the ratings as this will have to be agreed worldwide as per Full size aviation safety rules. No one has any idea of the qualifications anyone needs to do anything. No flying past VLOS unless you have training for BVLOS even though you can't see Full size when flying BVLOS so can avoid as required. The police left to enforce rules and laws no one fully understand and big retail companies trying to monopolise airspace that they may or may not use, this is to name just a few. It will be so interesting to hear what the CAA say but fear it won't be any sort of clarification other than current a Landowner can control who uses their land and for what just like the National Trust restricting all drone take of and landings, but they don't control the airspace........Rant over LOL
Hey trojax01! All rants welcome here. Part 2 of this interview which is being premiered tomorrow evening gets an update on C labels, extending legacy period and retroactive labels. There is some very interesting info!
@@Geeksvana Its about time as trying to get agreement on the specifications won't come soon. As stated this is all driven by safety and will have to be pretty much a world standard just like full size aviation. Currently the world could not agree a standard on how to make a cup of tea......Drone flying is much more complicated
Pity the CAA didn’t understand the very different trespass and Right to Roam laws elsewhere in the U.K.
Hey Mike! I did mention the differences in Scotland but due to some background noise at the show it had to be removed. Tried to treat the audio a few ways to keep it in. We are live on Friday night to talk about these interviews and I will make sure it is on the agenda as an important point. Thanks for raising it.
A "right to roam" isn't necessarily a "right to fly a drone".
I think they will say "WE DON'T KNOW" LOL or "WHY ARE YOU ASKING US WE ONLY COVER THE AIR SPACE"
😂🤣 CAA: What's landowner permission mean? Sean: turns camera off, shortest interview ever...
To be fair, I feel like they did give an answer from CAA perspective that I hope helps the hobby.
@@Geeksvana LOL thats sound about right LOL
Should have ask about why do we (UK) use a CE Signal (weak, more chance of losing control) instead of the FCC Signal
great stuff as always
Thank you Photomondo! Really appreciate it!
I am thinking of buying a drone, but very intimidated by the "where can I take off and land from". All UK land is owned by someone. Therefore I need to seek permission every time I take off unless I own the land myself? This is not pragmatic and will put me off buying a drone. Its not a Harrier Jumpjet or a Chinnock! UK law is a vague mess. I have to seriously consider whether spending a large amount of money on a drone is a good idea if I cannot actually use it! If you can't take off from say a public footpath, then I can't see almost any situation in which flying a drone is OK, and yet we have millions of drone videos in the UK. To remind legislators, there is no point in having laws if they are not enforced. So either enforce them or remove them.
Are we seriously suggesting that every single RUclips video of a drone flight was preempted by an authorisation from a land owner?
I have no issues asking for permission but I know the default position of large bodies like NT will just be 'No" so some lethargic desk worker and dismiss the enquiry and get back to their unproductive day.
Can someone put my out of my misery here and explain where can I actually take off without special permission?
Hey Rob! I have spent the last three years on this channel trying to get the definitive advice and guidance in terms of take off permissions etc. It is not a simple one to answer. However, I am working on a video with very clear advice based on all of my research and interactions with the stakeholders surrounding this subject. It will be released very soon and is designed to help precisely your quandary.
@@Geeksvana it's confusing and yet, everyone is flying drones. Looking forward to it.
Good job Sean..nice interview
Thank you Drone Shots! Really appreciate your kind feedback!
So every time I land my race drone I should report it then? 🤦♂️
Hey MickeyF_K_NMouse! I get your point. It seems extreme if every knock and small occurrence is reported. To me, it would be something outside of what you expect but we are putting more questions to the CAA from our comments and I will question the line.
i really feel for you when you go out your way to help this hobby and left as clear as mud and people just seem to be passing the buck ... i admire your own patience and not giving him a good old slap and saying just tell us how it is man for the love of god lololol
Great interview Sean
Thank you!! Hope you are well?
@@Geeksvana doing good thanks, hope you had a great show 👍
You have to be aware of the growth industry which is the nanny state. The CAA is a growth industry pioneer par excellence. Of course everyone wants safe aviation and safe drone flights. I prefer the situation where the individual takes control without precious "granny" wanting a job out of it. Normal people don't want an accident. The obvious justification is always some incident referred to, as here between an airliner and a drone. These are none incidents. None accidents and no longer happen. And even if a drone made contact with an airliner it is very very unlikely to bring down the airliner. There is no evidence to say this is not so, no drone has ever made contact (an accident) with an airliner. So let's not get too excited. Imagine if you will, altering the highway code every time there is a none accident? Remember, no one has ever been killed by a drome, no one has ever been seriously injured by a drone. No building has been set on fire by a drone. No car accident has occured because of a drone flight. There is no balance here in this rush for more legislation and fuss. This creeping legislational approach is standard practice for the CAA. No one ever gets to say to these guys, oih paniker show us your evidence ! Imagine the situation if applied to the roads, if dealt with by the CAA in the same nanny state way as used here with drones. The result would be No road transport and a blanket speed limit of 10 MPH. Over kill indeed. Less is more, much much more. Stop adding rules for imaginary problems. Stop this control freak approach. Step back or it never ever ends, a whole department will spring up with, in the main nothing to do except propose more rules, I have seen this going on for the last 50 years. As I said the CAA are a growth industry. KEEP IT SIMPLE. You could simplify all this overly complicated tosh in just four rules, Number One, the 400 foot rule don't fly above 400 feet. Number two keep away from people or property by at least 150 YARDS - not metres. Three keep away from controlled airspace. Four, if you do fly your drone beyond line of sight stay above 350 feet agl and no greater than 6 miles from the start point, and never in a built up area. Most drones return home once the base station signal is lost and you do get a power reserve warning in plenty of time. With just four rules it is possible the rules could be remembered by everybody.
What is CAA?
Wouldn’t it be nice having paid the CAA annually they brought out an app which shows restrictions to airspace which include ALL local restrictions and regulations.
how can council say you can not take off from THIER land when the land is owned by the people............payed for buy the tax payer owned by the tax payer if all safety is considered there should be no problem
Because council property is owned by the council, not "the people".
The USA has different rules and laws which frequently causes confusion.
Here in the UK there's no "automatic rights" based on public funding. The crucial factor is the registered owner or occupier of the land.
If you are on a "right of way" ROW over private property (including council) it might be argued that you cannot trespass on a ROW. However, that matter is debatable as a ROW usually gives the public to "pass, and repass" with no mention of anything further, such as photography, drones, picnic, etc.
This will be interesting 🧐
So helicopters can go over anything but no one else can? Doesnt make sense
He doesn't seem like the kind of chap who would approve of drone auditors.
Haha CAA guy doesnt realise you can stand on public land
Clear us mud.
No straight forward commitment to rules explanation.
Maybe it's caa maybe it's council etc...
Lol I’m gonna cry when I crash my rc planes not contact you lol well unless your going to buy me a new one lol
Frist
Confirmed as the first comment! Nice work!
Looking forward to see what they say