Flying over private land

[Ralph C]

I was reading the BMFA guide to "Model Flying and Farmers" from 2013 and it mentions that it is legal to overfly private land (otherwise normal flying would be illegal).

Is this still true? I am thinking with my drone that if this is the case, surely I can just find a public footpath (50m from buildings/people/pylons, 150m from settlements) and take off vertically from that and fly over fields?

Surely I will incur the wrath of a farmer watching this? I can't see how it would end well.

Grateful for any opinions on this.

Thanks.

[Denis Watkins]

And have a mate with you as spotter, and stay in line of sight.

[alex nicol]

Just a couple of quick questions

1 When flying over private land is there a minimum height to be observed

2 Should your drone come down on private land what are the legalities around collecting it

[Peter Christy]

I am NOT a lawyer, this is based on my understanding, and I'm sure someone will correct/clarify my understanding!

Private land is exactly what it says - land! You don't own the airspace over it, although it is legal to carry out some low altitude leisure activities that might reasonably be expected in that airspace. (This might, at a stretch cover model flying!)

On the other hand, if you are NOT the landowner, you can fly over that land without breaking any CAA regulations, but you could still be construed as "causing a nuisance". And, of course, if you crashed on private land you could be accused of trespass when trying to retrieve it. You would also be liable for any damage caused.

In short, its a good idea to stay on the right side of the land owner, even if its not strictly a legal requirement!

--

Pete

[Peter Miller]

If you have a camera equipped drone It might be good idea to contact the farmer.He could actually appreciate pictures of his crops. I know that some farmers do have a drone for just that purpose.

Many years ago (before drones) when I used to do aerial photography from models I did a couple of jobs like that for local farmers. We got a flying site out of one such job and the other was just done for the pelasure of doing it.

A couple of years ago I was up on our field when a farmworker arrived. He had been flying the farm drone some time before and it had been blown away. He wondered if we had seen it or heard about it.

Just in passing, in those days I flew a camera mission for Blue Peter at Flag Fen archaeological site. Got a Blue Peter badge for that!!

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by alex nicol on 14/05/2020 11:03:46:

Just a couple of quick questions

1 When flying over private land is there a minimum height to be observed

2 Should your drone come down on private land what are the legalities around collecting it

1) Hmm. The law says minimum 500 ft for 'full size' aircraft except when taking off or landing, both with the landowner's permission, or landing in an emergency.

Problem - What is 'full size'? A quad and similar is not a 'model' of anything so it is by definition 'full size'. I don't think the BMFA has thought that through, and though the CAA pretends to 'care' it really hopes we will all go away and stop hassling them

2) The laws of trespass. I dunno what they are, but you can look them up as easily as anyone else.

[Geoff S]

Posted by Peter Miller on 14/05/2020 12:10:33:

If you have a camera equipped drone It might be good idea to contact the farmer.He could actually appreciate pictures of his crops. I know that some farmers do have a drone for just that purpose.

Many years ago (before drones) when I used to do aerial photography from models I did a couple of jobs like that for local farmers. We got a flying site out of one such job and the other was just done for the pelasure of doing it.

A couple of years ago I was up on our field when a farmworker arrived. He had been flying the farm drone some time before and it had been blown away. He wondered if we had seen it or heard about it.

Just in passing, in those days I flew a camera mission for Blue Peter at Flag Fen archaeological site. Got a Blue Peter badge for that!!

One of our club members is a famer and he uses his quad to check his sheep and his crops. They''re very useful tools used in the right way. Personally, I'd be very annoyed if someone flew a camera equipped quad over or very near our garden.

Geoff

[Chris Walby]

Not sure about models or quads, but helped out with a full size glider that "landed out" in a farmers field.

Firstly the pilot of said glider went to the farmer and informed him of the situation. He asked the farmer if he may recover the glider and raised the subject of suitable compensation for access for three vehicles and a very large trailer. At this point its worth noting that the farmer can refuse access however he becomes liable for any damage to the glider.

Hours later we turned up and dragged the glider out of the crop, removed the wings and put it all in the trailer and just before leaving as if by magic the farmer arrive to see us off. The pilot exchanged suitable compensation, I don't think it was a small amount of cash, but then again it was £150k worth of glider.

My point is if you are flying low then you could be seen as a nuisance without permission and if you land out you will be on a major back foot in trying to recover said model.

Best ask first for the reasons mentioned in the above posts.

[J D 8]

As a farmer my answer is much the same as Geoff S with some one low over the garden. I had a quad copter [ to farmers a " quad " is a 4 wheeled motorbike ] flying low over the farm yard/house last year, felt like getting the 12 gauge out . Hight is your friend .

[Robin Colbourne]

Ralph C, You would be wise to at least try and contact the farmer before flying, and particularly if trying to retrieve your drone. Theft of farm equipment and even livestock is a very big problem, so a drone suddenly appearing out of the blue, flying over their property, could well be regarded as 'casing the joint'.

Generally if you are polite, offer evidence of who you are and where you live and take note of the farmer's concerns, e.g. lambing season, risk of crop damage etc. they are more likely to be ameniable.

I've landed hang gliders on farms on a number of occasions, remember cups of tea and cakes being offered, but no ill feeling or bills for damage. At least I could put it on my shoulder and avoid trampling the crops, whereas an 18 metre sailplane can be more like a huge scythe.

Treat people the way you would like them to treat you, or at least how they are likely to want to be treated.

Robin

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by J D 8 on 14/05/2020 13:04:28:

As a farmer my answer is much the same as Geoff S with some one low over the garden. I had a quad copter [ to farmers a " quad " is a 4 wheeled motorbike ] flying low over the farm yard/house last year, felt like getting the 12 gauge out . Hight is your friend .

The original question gives rise to some interesting answers. When in doubt I apply logic. So:

A farm is in principle no different from someone's garden.

The landowner does not own the airspace above his land (but there is a 500 feet minimum height above the land law for 'full-size' aircraft).

A kid's ball landing in your garden (or farm, as above) does NOT have to be given back, nor does the ball's owner have any right to enter your land to retrieve it. Neither are you under any obligation to 'take care' of it, though you should not deliberately damage it.

Be it kid's ball, model plane, deliberately burnt-out car, or full-size aircraft or glider, the above principles remain the same - they are all just unasked for 'objects' and their value is irrelevant. If landing a glider in someone's field now and again gives you or the landowners a problem go buy a powered aircraft instead and declare an emergency' if the engine fails. Choosing an unpowered aircraft (in effect a piece of 'sports equipment' you deliberately fly over other people's land) doesn't give you any special rights.

Guidance' from the BMFA referring to 'Model aircraft and farmers" is illogical as it draws a false distinction between farmers and all other landowners.

Logic. Nothing else.

Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 14/05/2020 17:30:24

Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 14/05/2020 17:30:58

[Michael Barclay]

Posted by Ralph C on 14/05/2020 10:45:58:

I was reading the BMFA guide to "Model Flying and Farmers" from 2013 and it mentions that it is legal to overfly private land (otherwise normal flying would be illegal).

Is this still true? I am thinking with my drone that if this is the case, surely I can just find a public footpath (50m from buildings/people/pylons, 150m from settlements) and take off vertically from that and fly over fields?

Surely I will incur the wrath of a farmer watching this? I can't see how it would end well.

Grateful for any opinions on this.

Thanks.

Would BMFA insurance cover be void if over-flying without landowners permision?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Frank Skilbeck]

Flying over the private land might not be an issue but how do you ensure any people, using the public footpath, not under your control don't approach you when you are planning to land?

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Would BMFA insurance cover be void if over-flying without landowners permision?

No

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Ralph C on 14/05/2020 10:45:58:

surely I can just find a public footpath (50m from buildings/people/pylons, 150m from settlements) and take off vertically from that and fly over fields?

Not that simple. A public footpath in general only gives you a right to 'pass and repass along the way' it doesn't give you the right to take off and land a drone.

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 15/05/2020 08:41:16:

Posted by Ralph C on 14/05/2020 10:45:58:

surely I can just find a public footpath (50m from buildings/people/pylons, 150m from settlements) and take off vertically from that and fly over fields?

Not that simple. A public footpath in general only gives you a right to 'pass and repass along the way' it doesn't give you the right to take off and land a drone.

Bear in mind that insurance is to cover you against claims about accidents that ARE your fault. If it wasn't your fault you can't be successfully sued so you don't need insurance for that event.

What is a 'fault'? Breaking the law is one. But if you deliberately break the law by drinking too much and then driving and causing a crash you are still covered by your current insurance. (Though of course you may have difficulty in renewing your insurance later. But 'now' is not 'later'.)

So breaking the law does not invalidate your current insurance. And 'doing' something that there is NOT a specific 'right' to do is not automatically  a civil nor a criminal offence.

Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 09:31:08

Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 09:32:53

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

It isn't particular an insurance issue.

A public footpath is usually on private land. Just as an example if you cycle on a public footpath (in England and Wales) without the land owners permission it is trespass. I suspect there has never been a test case regarding flying a drone from a public footpath though.

Its more about good manners, consideration for others and the perception it can give about our sport.

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 15/05/2020 09:38:27:

It isn't particular an insurance issue.

A public footpath is usually on private land. Just as an example if you cycle on a public footpath (in England and Wales) without the land owners permission it is trespass. I suspect there has never been a test case regarding flying a drone from a public footpath though.

Its more about good manners, consideration for others and the perception it can give about our sport.

 

I agree, it isn't. I was merely pointing out what third-party insurance is actually for.

And regarding the public's perception of us, 'drones' have done a great deal of harm and are also the direct and only cause of this CAA licensing rubbish.

I personally thought, even before their UK occurrence, that the BMFA and aeromodelling magazines should never be involved with them at all. 99% of them are  used as 'camera platforms' (tall tripods) and thus the prerogative of photographers, video makers, and their attendant magazines and nothing to do with us at all.

Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 10:00:34

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 09:59:15:

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 15/05/2020 09:38:27:

It isn't particular an insurance issue.

A public footpath is usually on private land. Just as an example if you cycle on a public footpath (in England and Wales) without the land owners permission it is trespass. I suspect there has never been a test case regarding flying a drone from a public footpath though.

Its more about good manners, consideration for others and the perception it can give about our sport.

I agree, it isn't. I was merely pointing out what third-party insurance is actually for.

And regarding the public's perception of us, 'drones' have done a great deal of harm and are also the direct and only cause of this CAA licensing rubbish.

I personally thought, even before their UK occurrence, that the BMFA and aeromodelling magazines should never be involved with them at all. 99% of them are used as 'camera platforms' (tall tripods) and thus the prerogative of photographers, video makers, and their attendant magazines and nothing to do with us as 'model flyers' at all.

Edited By Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 10:00:34

[Cuban8]

For full size flying, the 500' minimum height refers to keeping 500' from people, vehicles, vessels and structures - not a blanket no flying under 500' as I understand things.

https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/Make-a-report-or-complaint/Report-a-potential-breach-of-aviation-law/

 

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 15/05/2020 10:07:42

[Richard Clark 2]

Posted by Cuban8 on 15/05/2020 10:03:12:

For full size flying, the 500' minimum height refers to keeping 500' from people, vehicles, vessels and structures - not a blanket no flying under 500' as I understand things.

**LINK**

Edited By Cuban8 on 15/05/2020 10:07:42

I've been a pilot since 1976, military and later commercial, and am not 100% sure but I think it is. I remember my RAF instructor saying, re 'forced landings without power' to ignore the 500 ft rule as you won't learn anything about forced landing from 500 feet.

[Michael Barclay]

Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 10:29:36:

Posted by Cuban8 on 15/05/2020 10:03:12:

For full size flying, the 500' minimum height refers to keeping 500' from people, vehicles, vessels and structures - not a blanket no flying under 500' as I understand things.

**LINK**

Edited By Cuban8 on 15/05/2020 10:07:42

I've been a pilot since 1976, military and later commercial, and am not 100% sure but I think it is. I remember my RAF instructor saying, re 'forced landings without power' to ignore the 500 ft rule as you won't learn anything about forced landing from 500 feet.

Then if you are not sure Richard with all your experience where does that leave the rest of us? I always get the feeling that some on here state as gospel things they do not know for certain, such as conflicting views on insurance.for which there seem to be many interpretations but few hard facts.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'd hesitate to argue with those credentials but I think Cuban is right. I always understood that the 500' rule was distance from a person, vessel, vehicle or structure, not necessarily altitude - although maintaining 500' AGL would more or less guarantee compliance except in the case of unusually high buildings or structures.

Of course, things may have changed since my day - especially with the advent of EASA.

Edited By Martin Harris on 15/05/2020 10:59:06

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]