Network Rail Capitulates; BMFA Bigs it Up!

Within 24 hours of receiving my Freedom of Information request about their 'get-tough' assertions about laws governing drones, Network Rail has apologised for issuing "incorrect" information.

This was the false information (click to enlarge)...                    

 ...and this was the retraction:

I feel rather sorry for the response team member who issued the false legal information and then had to apologise, because it is almost certain that he was acting under the instructions of others, probably more senior to him.

Nevertheless, the false information given to me by e-mail was a formal response on behalf of Network Rail and so who exactly issued it is not very relevant. 

The real question to ask NR, as so many organisations like it, is why it was issued as a formal response at all?

A few minutes later, by coincidence, I received a rather surprising response from the BMFA Drone section's officer, Chris Bradbury to my raising of the accuracy of "legal" information about drones published by numerous UK organisations. The recipient was the CAA, but I had copied in, for the usual reasons of information and courtesy, the Chair of the All-Parliamentary Party Group on Aviation, the Transport Minister and the BMFA:

 

The overall tone and content of the BMFA e-mail was to be entirely contrary to my own evidence to the CAA and Parliament. I'm not at all sure why this came about, especially as part of my evidence is personal, direct e-mails from various organisations, including the NT and Network Rail's admission of issuing false legal information, issued just a few minutes earlier - matters that the BMFA and Mr. Bradbury of course didn't even know existed, because they hadn't asked to see it.

I didn't raise any of the issues, such as having regard to laws other than purely aviation laws, that Mr. Bradbury ventures into of other aspects of flight, because the specific underlying concern I have raised is with the specious claim that NT (and others) can "authorise" - and thus, by obvious logical implication - prohibit overflight and the further specious claim that this stance is supported by the CAA and the legislative framework they operate under.

I also didn't raise the matter of Mr.Bradbury's personal experiences as to any information given to him by the NT (which he seems to have focused upon in his email, following his search for "drone", as he indicates); my contact with the CAA was clearly only about the evidence I had - which happens to be, but only in part, online material published for the general public.

Mr. Bradbury added his own authority in these matters: he is a "commercial drone pilot". I wasn't much impressed; I countered I am in my third decade as commander (if he wants the correct Chicago Convention 1944 terminology, for bigging-up effect) of manned aircraft and had a 95% pass in the CAA aviation law exam which forms part of the basis of flight crew training. I don't believe Mr. Bradbury has ever taken, let alone passed such an exam.

For some reason, Mr. Bradbury seems to have missed the point that my correspondence was about my experiences, not his. I have every right to advance my point of view. Bradbury read very much as though he and/or the BMFA thought contact with the CAA is not for the little people to concern themselves with. Which would be interesting, if true.

Bradbury, if he was in any way unclear as to what my specific claims actually were and the evidence I had already indicated to the CAA I held (see penultimate paragraph of the representation text) and was willing to share at a later, appropriate time, then he certainly made no effort to ask me. I tried to keep the correspondence as brief as possible; Bradbury just waded-in and turned the whole thing into an embarrassing mess.

Even more oddly, Bradbury says that "no BMFA response as such" was required - after he had issued a response using the BMFA email address - which any reasonable person would receive as an official, BMFA response, not a personal set of views. He is, after all, listed as a "staff" member on the BMFA web site.

It would seem Bradbury replied without consulting anyone at all about its content and may have hit 'reply all' without doing an awful lot of thinking first. Did he intend to hit 'reply all'?  I don't know. But hit it he did, and he's now had several days to apologise, if it was a mistake on his part.

Given Bradbury's position, his could never therefore have been an official response and because of this, not to mention his approach, he and the BMFA have been cut-off entirely from my correspondence. They couldn't reasonably expect anything else.

The difficulty for Chris Bradbury and the BMFA he was (yet suggests he was not) representing, is that the words he quotes from the NT 'policy' published online is a partial and incomplete - or simply insufficiently careful - reading of it.

Because the BMFA has either overlooked or didn't want to much notice the word "over" in the NT's published material, below (see 'Drone flying by members of the general public') is the full version, with the part that both I and the UK Defence Journal have highlighted claims, even after an admission by the NT that it is wrong, that drone flight can be prohibited over NT property via byelaws. For that to hold as correct which, remember, they have already admitted it isn't, then the NT would have to own and control the airspace. They do not. 

Bradbury thinks the NT is correct. I don't - and neither does the UK Defence Journal (extract from reportage of 22/09/2024).

 

Notice also (extract, below) that the NT claims that their prohibition on drone flying applies over their land - the sole condition mentioned in the first highlighted parts; it does not mention 'from' land at all at this stage  - through the mechanism of byelaws is "in accordance with" CAA regulations. But, of course, a blanket ban on overflight of NT lands is not at all in accordance with those regulations and is, rather, entirely at odds with them. Byelaws can, of course, restrict launch and recovery of drones from land; I've never argued against or claimed that is not the case, not least as that element is not covered by aviation law.

The NT is not the only organisation to try and add specious authority to their false claims through mentioning the CAA which, in my view, is something they really shouldn't be doing. The only correct way to mention the CAA in this regard is to purely and only direct the reader to the relevant CAA drone pages, not reinvent the wheel as a square on organisations' own sites. 

The reason organisations do reinvent the wheel is because they are trying to oppress the public by mirespresenting the law. Any examination of 'audit' videos, regardless of what you think of those, will show this to be so, often with NT staff appearing wholly ignorant in their sometimes rude defence of the NT's 'policies'.

The only time Mr. Bradbury mentions the "over" part is briefly at the end of his email, but he still doesn't accept that the way the NT use the word is, in most parts of that text, entirely false insofar as the law governing drone overflight is concerned, because he is clear that all of it, at all times, is fully correct; of that, there can be no doubt from his rather patronising email.

 

I protested to Mr. Bradbury in very clear terms, to which he responded with an admission that he hadn't seen my evidence and, he claims, hadn't suggested or stated what I was claiming was false. Well, his email certainly reads as though it set about - and rather rashly - demolishing my claims without even asking for my evidence, let alone seeing it and by claiming information online which is clearly wrong is, in his view, entirely right. Bradbury didn't, however, jocundly send his response to all recipients of his earlier challenge to my claims. I wonder why?

Apart from the private business relationship with the NT enjoyed by Mr. Bradbury - which may or may not have influenced his view of their legal statements as customers of his - there are questions to ask the BMFA's drone section as to whether they, as a representative organisation, have tried to push back against the increasing tendency of organisations to make false claims about the law and the attendant false authority they try to derive by claiming the CAA supports their stance. The answer is, almost certainly, 'no', not least because Mr. Bradbury is clearly of the firm view, despite the evidence to the contrary, that the online information from all the organisations I mentioned is correct.

After his knee-jerk reaction, Bradbury has refused to issue an apology and the BMFA, which was sent a copy of the points covered here to be issued by me in response to events, has also refused to answer. All very cowardly, given how quickly Bradbury rushed to issue his views to so many rather important and, no doubt, not-very-impressed recipients.

As to the NT's assertion that they "do not usually authorise personal drone flying on" its land, the reality emerging from recent personal e-mails with the NT is that they might never authorise such flights, even when they have a wider public interest. That's because I asked for consent, more out of curiosity than any regard for the NT, to capture some very remote archaeological features in mountainous terrain. It wasn't commercial because it was entirely voluntary activity and I explained the images were primarily for my own use but also, as an useful spin-off, published online (for free) for educational purposes via a Royal Commission website. The NT simply refused, point-blank, ramming home the 'trespass and nuisance' possibility (in an area where hardly anybody ever goes, especially in winter). They even explained the refusal was because it wasn't worth their while, confirming the view of many (and plenty of evidence from 'audit' videos) that this is all about money. I think the NT's attitude really stinks.

The only other thing to note, which I think should be highlighted by the NT and others as the starting position, before they simply don't mention it at all and launch into discussion of nuisance and trespass, is that s76(1), Civil Aviation Act 1982 is clear that flight over land shall never, in and of itself (and thus ignoring any other laws that may apply), constitute nuisance or trespass, provided all other aviation laws are being complied with and that you fly in a reasonable manner, all things considered.

All in all, quite a busy week on the drone law path!

 

Network Rail: The Latest Purveyor of Nonsense

A few weeks ago, I was out on my motorbike around Holyhead, doing a bit of capturing ships by drone. 

On the way home, I decided to capture a beautiful red brick water tower that once supplied steam trains on the main railway line. Despite being a fairly rare surviving example, remarkably, this structure hadn't ever been entered onto the official databases of historical structures. As a volunteer with the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales, I was easily able to do something about this and it now has an entry.

 

Having caught some nice external images, I wondered if Network Rail might allow me to take a few basic photos from inside. The building isn't listed and so it always stands at risk of damage or even demolition; some smaller water tanks were removed about ten years ago, so the risk is real.

Inevitably, NR wouldn't grant permission, even for this public-interest documenting, because access can only be provided via the track. I'm sure it's quite easy to arrange safe access, but we won't get into all that stuff.

The response team at NR then proceeded to add a little ditty to their email, which sounded more than a little like a warning about flying drones over an "operational railway"; here's the relevant extract (click to enlarge):

This is clearly a load of rubbish and it led to me immediately firing-off a Freedom of Information Act request for NR to identify the legislative provision on which they were relying in making this astonishing assertion. Their response is awaited.

Curiously, on looking at NR's website that covers drones, a very different and correct version of reality is presented, even if it's still rather officiously-worded in an attempt to dissuade drone flight. But at least it isn't lying about the law:

Here, NR explicitly accepts, as will be abundantly clear to most diligent drone pilots, that they "do not own or manage the airspace above the railway". 

The reality is, of course, like so many other organisations across the UK, that NR really wish they did own and manage that airspace above their property, but in almost all cases, have no chance whatsoever of ever doing that. Instead, they mislead the public through specious interpretations of the law and even blatant misrepresentations of it in the hope that people will be intimidated into compliance.

For me, this was the last straw. I decided to make a representation to the CAA, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation in Parliament, the Secretary of State for Transport and the UK Drone Flyers' Association:

"Promulgation of false legal information - aviation (UAV).

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to make a representation of concern over the increasingly-common and often deliberate misrepresentation by many organisations and public authorities of the legal position in relation to UAVs.

So far this year alone, I have received such false legal information from the National Trust, The Crown Estate, the RSPB, Natural Resources Wales and Network Rail. In most cases, these organisations claim that their legal information/stance is provided and supported by the CAA. Some are arms-length governmental organisations with a particular public duty of accountability and accuracy.

Whilst organisations may to some, limited extent legitimately seek to dissuade any given local, individual drone flight through engagement, they must not, in an accountable democracy, be permitted to mislead the public, wholesale, through cynical deployment of false information about the law in relation to UAV.

All this is creating a worrying subculture of belief and action hostile to legitimate flights undertaken by responsible UAV operators. It also serves to undermine the CAA insofar as the public are encouraged to pay regard to organisations other than the recognised regulatory authority. The UK must be careful not to encourage 'organisational vigilantism' in relation to aviation law.

I am of the view that the CAA ought to remind and warn all public authorities that the correct presentation of the law in relation to aviation, including UAVs, is that given by the recognised regulatory body. Authorities and organisations other than the CAA should and must not attempt to interpret complex aviation law for themselves, typically leading to serious errors, nor mislead and dissuade the public by presenting the law as that which it is not.

For clarity, I am an A2CoC drone pilot and private pilot of fixed-wing SEP of 23 years' standing and so no part of this communication should be understood as anything other than supporting the statutory position as properly made by Parliament and the CAA.

I would be happy to provide such evidence as is reasonably required in relation to my claims, noting that the National Trust, in particular but by no means exclusively, is a persistent and rabid offender in this regard, despite having been forced to admit it does not control airspace under a 2024 FoIA 2000 request.

All personal data is provided under the terms of UK GDPR/DPA 2018 and not consented for onward transmission except where lawfully justifiable."

 

 

BMFA - Member, or Not?

I'm not in any sense an active member of the BMFA and its sidekick, the British Drone Flyers element. For a start, I don't see an awful lot of lobbying going on to secure better privileges for BDF members in an increasingly drone-hostile regulatory environment, led by the CAA.

But I am, nevertheless, a paid-up member of BMFA/BDF because, like so many, I find the £25 million public liability insurance provided in exchange for the £49 annual membership a reasonable offering.

So, as a member, the BDF newsletter came through to my inbox a couple of days ago. It had little content beyond some pretty drone images and competition results in the same vein. 

At the end of the newsletter - which I would reasonably think is only sent to current members - a link was provided for anyone who wanted to submit up to three images for inclusion in a future newsletter and entry into the next competition.

So, I did just that. Not that I take such things seriously.

Mountain dam and access road in north Wales. One of my submissions to the BMFA/BDF competition that didn't quite work out as it was meant to. (C) This blog's author.

 

A few minutes later, my inbox pinged that I had a new email from the BMFA. It thanked me for my submission and reminded me that I had permitted, via the submission process, the  BMFA to use my images in, essentially, PR material, as indeed I had.

I was then told that my images couldn't be entered into the competition because I am not a member! Which is all very odd, because I have an email receipt and membership confirmation from March 28th this year - less than two months ago.

I suppose this merely indicates that the process of data updating within BMFA isn't very efficient. Even so, this assertion that BMFA could use my images as a non-member for their own purposes, yet not allow my entry into their competition, wasn't exactly my recollection of the agreement made at the point of submission. That agreement was on the basis of an offer and thus the attendant expectations surrounding entry into a competition as a member - which I am.

Quite why the BMFA system doesn't simply check entrants' membership number before proceeding to the entry stage for the competition is anyone's guess. Accepting the images and only later rejecting entry is a very arse-about-face way to go about things and doesn't foster good relations.

 

 

 

Clickbait Mail

Love them or loathe them, 'audit' videos are undoubtedly a very interesting window on human behaviour and the ability - or usually lack thereof - of our police.

It's very difficult to know why people react so badly to lawfully-flown drones and why they so fervently - often violently - believe they own and control the airspace above their land-based property.

In some cases, the general public appearing are clearly just thugs with something to hide who react to any perceived slight with violence. 

A very revealing fact about the police is that a business spotting a drone brings immediate and often multi-unit responses. You don't get that for a burglary. The question is: why?

 

In others, it's an inability to accept they have no authority to do much of anything themselves if they feel something shouldn't be happening. 

Yet others - by far the majority and often seen on the videos to include police officers - just can't admit they are utterly ignorant of the topic they've just launched themselves into, nevertheless trying to assert they are experts, "used to be a lawyer" or "work in the industry" (all real examples).

I wasn't surprised, it has to be said, to find the Daily Mail have been driving their well-honed, increasingly journalist-free, AI-driven wedge into public opinion recently, when the ran this strap and invited people whose businesses had been "targeted" by auditors to get in touch - presumably so they could run more banshee-istic stories and get those all-essential clicks to drive up their profits.

 

Ironic that a right-wing, self-righteous newspaper that infamously supported Oswald Mosley, seeks to condemn auditors so that it can get millions of hateful clicks off the back of it all. 

Natural Resources Wales' Drone Policy Mess

Image: Senedd Cymru.

A few weeks ago, I had my first 'audit' type encounter about flying a drone in the vicinity (I'll leave it to NRW to demonstrate it was within the boundaries of) a national nature reserve. Unlike an auditor, I wasn't looking for a reaction.

The first of many, clutching-at-straws, blurting of words of complaint was that NRW "has a policy" about flying drones.

Well, that will come as a surprise to everyone, because a thorough examination of NRW's website showed not a single mention of either 'drone' or 'UAV' - nor a policy relating to same. Which is odd, because it has very, very many words about lots of things that you can and can't do at NRW-controlled sites, both by specific location and in general.

As soon as I arrived home, I filed a FoIA request for a copy of this hidden policy. The statutory (i.e. legally-mandated) maximum period of 20 days for a response was, of course, not respected by NRW, who did not provide some of the requested information until I sent them a reminder. Full information wasn't provided until a further reminder.

An associated GDPR request also went beyond the time limit and came with cynical attempts by NRW to claim I'm "not entitled to full copies of original documents, only the personal data within them". That's quite a distortion of the law, because that would permit organisations to redact everything except my name and address, which would tell me nothing about how my data is being processed. "Copyright" was also used to try and prevent publication - but this has no lawful basis, because there are exemptions to copyright enforcement (e.g. news reporting) - and fails to understand that my personal data belongs to me.

Here is the part of their policy. NRW claim it was adopted in December 2020, though the policy document is itself dated (in 'properties'), alongside its author's name, as 28th of May, 2021. Whilst I wait for NRW to explain that anomaly (update: it claims it was the PDF creation date), this part deals with what NRW assert is the law about drones:

 

This is immediately apparent as being a wholly incorrect interpretation of the law and there's no need for me to pull it apart, word by word; it's that bad. A search of some of the sentences pulls up identical text from other sites, including a solicitor's web site. I also wondered for a while whether someone had used AI to tell them what the law is. But AI does a better job of it, by far.

In the end, I suspect it was a case of someone at NRW searching online, using terms that arose from their already-held but wrong belief that the law prohibits drone flights over nature reserves. Unless they have applied for a CAA-mandated airspace restriction and been granted such, it doesn't. 

There is no evidence NRW have ever applied for a wildlife-related airspace restriction, so far as I can see, anywhere in Wales. How hard are they trying to protect nature if they haven't even applied?  Other sites in England, though not especially common, have obtained such restrictions, albeit for small, limited-extent areas, reflecting just how congested and complex UK airspace is; we all have to get along, somehow.

The timing of the policy, if we can believe a word NRW utters - which has often proved not to be the case -  might also suggest crosstalk between the National Trust's then growing chest-inflation about banning drones over its land and the NRW's often similar land management role (the NT owns large areas of wild mountains and coasts, as well as stately homes and the like). 

Certainly, the mention of "permission" for commercial operations, amongst other things, suggests it was written around the time of the Covid pandemic, when that requirement was abandoned.

What a surprise! Probably wholly unrelated to the £19 million tax debacle at NRW and her own assertion that the organisation is not corrupt, but merely "incompetent" (report above of 26 March, 2025, latter assertion made 24/09/2018)

 

The National Trust had to admit it was wrong about overflight in a 2024 FoIA response. But it is still (early April, 2024) publishing misleading information about drones on its web site and similar statements appear on NT Scotland's site (dated 2018). NRW seems similarly intent on sticking to its erroneous policy, so far as one of its Directors' refusal to respond to points raised about it goes.

All this ought to have been obvious to NRW at the site I was at, because it actually has an ATZ and a neighbouring CMATZ that cover significant parts of the airspace above the reserve and extending, at least in legal terms, if not necessarily in common practice, to the ground. 

I haven't heard, as someone who flies 'proper' aircraft regularly from one of those airports, of endless complaints against any of the three airfields and their traffic, two of which are RAF training bases. Of course, none of those airspace designation much matters in the context of NRW, because in the bits they don't cover, one can fly any 'proper' aircraft down to 500' above the surface (in the case of unpopulated land, such as this example), or up to 400' in the case of a drone.

Other laws, should you conduct a flight in an irresponsible manner that does or is likely to cause disturbance to wildlife could still become an issue, but that's entirely separate from airspace regulation and the law governing it.

A parallel that I draw is that you are permitted to walk a dog on a lead or otherwise under good control at all locations of this and most other reserves. You're not breaking the law by disturbing wildlife by the fact of having a dog with you. You might be doing so if you let it off the lead to run around, chasing some rare species of bird. But even then, a warden is going to have to be in possession of some pretty robust evidence to get a criminal prosecution out of it.

Similarly for flying a drone, which is a lawful activity (provided you were operating it from land without any prohibition), and that, in and of the fact of its flight, does not, of necessity, mean you are disturbing wildlife. In my case, I was flying for a total of 4 minutes, mostly at a height of 393 feet above the ground. 50 seconds of that flight, as the digital flight record shows, was taken up by the NRW staff member refusing to move aside to allow landing where I had chosen to safely do so, because he wanted to show he had some authority. I had to raise my voice at him before he moved to allow the safe conclusion of the flight.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act provides a defence where disturbance to wildlife is:

 "the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided"  

Parliament discussed and explained this, way back on March 15, 2002 (source: Hansard):

 

None of this is to encourage people to be disrespectful of wildlife - far from it. But we can't and should not tolerate random and, it has to be said, largely ignorant staff making rules up, simply because they don't like someone highlighting their erroneous claims, as though we are children who should not answer back. After all, I do have a 95% pass in my air law examination, whilst the NRW staff doesn't. Facts matter. In response to increasing aggression by the NRW member of staff, I did tell him to consider a position in the US, where intolerance towards criticism of government bodies might be welcome at the moment. This, of course, went straight over his head, poor fellow.

Clear (and expensive) signs - but not a word about drones, anywhere on the site. The warden stopped people getting to the site by car for several days following the encounter, which is hardly in keeping with NRW's "proportionate" enforcement policy. The presence of a public footpath meant access was still readily possible - something the poor warden seemed to have overlooked (and could do nothing about!)

 

Despite NRW's expectation that all their signs must have regard paid to them, they didn't actually have any signs at the site I was at; I checked before flying - which is one reason the NRW staff became cocky and aggressive, hanging around without purpose but as though he wanted to punch me in the face. I guess NRW has only had some five years since their policy was adopted to put some 50p signs up.

NRW is, of course, just one organisation in an ocean of people who think that owning or controlling land means that they also control airspace. Try as Youtube auditors might, hardly any of them seem to learn and, indeed, most appear perfectly content to just keep on digging their heels in and, often, making complete fools of themselves on camera.

At least the auditors will have plenty of material to work with, for a long time coming. I might even become one, myself!

An edifice to incompetence: NRW's completely eroded and partly-collapsed lookout at Newborough in 2014. Note the level of the sand to the rear (over which a boardwalk is now draped) and how far (about 2m) it dropped during just one storm.

 

As for NRW, I do always like to highlight that, at this reserve, which is a sand dune system, they paid £240,000 of our tax money (£347,400 at 2024 prices) to build a timber walkway and lookout which, as anyone except NRW knew, would quickly be destroyed, both by storm damage and inundation by sand. Which is precisely what happened within just a few months. They've been spending more money patching it up in retreat, ever since and by now, only a few planks of boardwalk remain. By now, their whole plan to increase income is falling apart as their tourist car park, which was enlarged a few years ago with no consideration given to the increased traffic congestion within tiny Newborough village, brings traffic chaos and many red, angry faces on a daily basis. 

In the end, NRW did absolutely nothing about this incident and their tangential claims that some awful criminal act had taken place. They did, however, successfully further ill-feeling in the local area towards this failed environment agency and its bonkers staff, whilst also ensuring months of FoIA and GDPR requests would ensue - much of it as a result of not holding policies - unlike their drone 'policy' -  they are legally obliged to have.

NRW: 'Not Really Working'.  

 

 

National Trust: Still Misleading

As we enter into another spring, some drone pilots will be taking an interest in National Trust properties and capturing fabulous images.

Flying towards and then over Plas Newydd, owned by NT.

Now, I can almost guarantee that when you read "National Trust properties", you're thinking of stately homes or maybe a park.

But the National Trust owns much more than this. They own vast tracts of land all over the UK - which probably explains the arrogant view of themselves that their 'drone rules' reveal.

Back in September 2024, the NT admitted, in response to a FoI request, that it could not restrict overflight of its properties at all. This, of course, would be abundantly clear to most drone pilots already. This is how The Defence Journal reported it:

 

The report correctly highlights that, despite this admission - which the NT must have tried very hard not to make - the NT web site continued to make the false assertion that overflight was not permitted. As of 05/04/2025, that claim is still being made, cynically and wholly improperly referring to the "CAA" and "byelaws":

The reference to "byelaws" would appear, in the applicable part, to be section 11. 

 

This does include a reference to "air" craft. However, reading through to 11(b), it's clear that there is no ban; it's a qualified expectation, provided you have been authorised:

"No person shall ride or drive any conveyance to the danger or annoyance of or
without due consideration for other persons resorting to Trust Property."

In other words, you can ride, drive, boat or fly, so long as it's done carefully. There is no prohibition per se on any of these activities. It's just that the NT has to authorise your presence on their land, which they are entitled to do.

But all this, of course, is in the expectation that the NT control the airspace above their property, which they don't. Because flying over NT land is perfectly lawful (and thus means, under the byelaw, you'd be "authorised" inasmuch as the NT does not control airspace and thus flight within that space falls outside their control), there is the simple counter-argument that flying has unavoidable and necessary consequences as a lawful activity and that this can't, I would argue, reasonably be held to cause "danger or annoyance" in and of itself. If the byelaw were effective in this way, the NT would have to be claiming no flights, of any sort, by any aircraft, at any height could take place over their property, which would be ridiculous. They are trying, in a tinpot fashion, to claim drones are in some way different, whereas in law, in this respect, they aren't.

An enquiry to the NT brought increasing degrees of stupidity. They tried to say that their rules were "outside the CAA's". Whilst that's literally true, it also gives - and I would say is intended to give - the impression that the NT's rules are superior to CAA-mediated aviation law. That's quite a troubling stance to take.

I asked the NT, because of this, where they thought 'CAA' airspace ends and the NT's begins. They didn't answer that one, choosing instead to write waffle about the distinction between criminal and civil law. Trespass seems to be the only thing the NT is now clinging to, as they mention a drone "could trespass, depending on how it is flown". That, also, is true, though it would be a pretty irresponsible drone flier who would fall foul of that one, because s76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 explicitly exempts aircraft from claims of trespass when flown in accordance with the Air Navigation Order - in other words, in an ordinary, responsible way.

What the law says is not what the NT want to accept. Source: legislation.gov.uk, accessed 15/04/2025

 

And this last sentence is where so many are going wrong; they assume that drones are somehow 'not really aircraft' and that they 'don't really fall under aviation law governing 'proper' aircraft'. This seems to be fuelled by an unreasonable and baseless belief that all drone pilots are up to no good. Beyond that is sheer ignorance about ownership and control of airspace and an irrational, stubborn unwillingness to improve their understanding - because that would mean having to accept they are simply wrong.

The National Trust has a very big attitude problem, driven by an inflated view of itself as somehow enjoying a superior position in respect of airspace that, it has to be said, reflects its general worldview as some kind of defender of a glorious Britain - mostly created by slave owners and an issue the NT has, until recently, tried to resist addressing for a very long time. 

The NT enjoys no such position. Accepting it has to shut up and stop claiming it controls airspace is something it has had to do under the legal provisions of FoI, but refuses to do in any other way.

As you can see on the plethora YouTube 'audit' videos, NT staff are clearly still being told to very aggressively claim they can stop aircraft (i.e. drones) being flown over their properties. They will sometimes call the police. It all ends with either the police going away, doing nothing, or else arresting the drone pilot - invariably unlawfully - and then having to pay out a couple of thousand pounds for wrongful arrest - money that most 'auditors' then donate to good causes.

My own request for an explanation this week from the NT as to why they continue to deliberately mislead the public on drone flying on their website drew nothing other than a referral to their "imaging department". But that wasn't the enquiry I made. 

But it did reveal, once again, that money-making lies at the heart of the NT's unwavering efforts to stop what is, in fact, wholly lawful. None of these 'rules' make mention of any other aircraft, despite drones falling squarely under the same overarching controls: The Air Navigation Order. Try telling that to the NT (one video sees a NT staff member, who claims he was previously "a lawyer", claim the "CAA doesn't cover drones" (36:52) and that they only control "the airspace at 30,000 feet" (37:09)). He says an awful lot of other stuff that "a lawyer" elsewhere might find, well, surprising.

A response to a false request for permission I made to the NT drew this response from them:

"As we state on our website https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/who-we-are/about-us/flying-drones-at-our-places as landowner our rules fall outside the CAA’s so you can’t overfly without our permission."

This is a further extension of reality, suggesting very strongly that the NT's "rules" are superior to CAA-regulated airspace law and/or that the NT does not recognise airspace law. This response will be passed to the CAA as a matter of very real concern. The NT has been asked to clarify, in the meantime.

As for so many people who react badly to drones - which extends from the likes of NT all the way to the police - somewhere, an attitude has taken hold that drones are some kind of spy or terrorist device that only wrongdoers fly.

The NT has a troubling attitude that some might say borders of fascism - creating an environment where what they say - and not what the law says - holds sway. 

My advice?  Fly your drone as the law permits, especially over (but not from) NT property.