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."