Forestry Commission byelaws ban Drones

[Dermot O'Logical]

I had an interesting chat with a Forestry Commission Ranger yesterday. Like most, I had checked the regs and made sure that I wasn't flying illegally (noflydrones shows the prohibited and restricted flying areas) but apparently the Forestry Commission byelaws ban the flying of drones on or over any Forestry Commission land.

Here is an example of said notice:



These are at 90 degrees to your direction of travel as you enter and leave the car park. This is the notice itself:



Photobucket does its usual job of degrading the image, but if you look very carefully at the very small (roughly A4 size) notice affixed to posts at the entrances to Forestry Commission car parks, you will find that under Section 5, sub section XXIII states that you may not:

"operate any glider, aircraft, hot air balloon, boat, raft or craft of any kind, or any model aircraft, boat or car".

It would appear, then , that by virtue of a very small sign which itself is difficult to read, the flying of drones (among other activities) is forbidden on any Forestry Commission land - the photos were taken at a car park in the New Forest, but the byelaws are common to all Forestry Commission sites.

Was anybody else aware? Judging by the number of YouTube drone videos alone, it would suggest that the Forestry Commission - in this instance - are not giving sufficient notice that the activity is forbidden.

[rottie102]

You worry too much

[singlecoil]

It's not up to the FC to give adequate notice, it's up to be people who go onto FC land to acquaint themselves with the rules.

As it is, I expect it's unlikely to be enforced unless the operator is making a nuisance.

[Dermot O'Logical]

The point I'm making is that "the Rules" appear to be many and varied, and printed on very small inconspicuous notices. At the bottom of which there's something about a fine of up to £500 for non-compliance.

Drones are a relatively new phenomenon, and many owners won't even be aware of, or bother to acquaint themselves with the CAA guidelines, let alone the Forestry Commission's own byelaws. The Forest is "common land" open to everybody, yet these byelaws are less than prominently displayed and the users of the land are supposed to comply with them.

The minutes of the New Forest Verderers meeting in July make mention of drone usage, raised by one of the senior officers of the Council who received the unwelcome attentions of a drone when he was out on his horse. The drone pilot was apparently nowhere to be seen, so it's possible that they were several hundred metres away and using FPV. Incidents such as this will only result in more restrictions on the use of drones. The Verderers were scheduled to discuss the matter further at their September meeting, the minutes of which are not yet available. What are the chances of the byelaw being repealed or relaxed, do you think?

At the moment, there is only one location at which drones can be flown within the New Forest National Park, and this is the site at Beaulieu Heath used by the local model aircraft club. It isn't a great photographic location.

[leggly]

Try approaching the Forestry Commision with the intention to gain permission. The chances are that they will be at least willing to talk to somebody who is trying to stay within the law.

[HRL]

Surely they don't apply to drones as they hadn't even been invented when those rules were written.

[Dermot O'Logical]

leggly said:

Try approaching the Forestry Commision with the intention to gain permission. The chances are that they will be at least willing to talk to somebody who is trying to stay within the law.

I'm tempted. I'll wait until the Verderers Court minutes for September are published, and find out what was said, in order to gain an understanding of the attitude towards drones. I suspect that I already know the answer!

[Dermot O'Logical]

HRL said:

Surely they don't apply to drones as they hadn't even been invented when those rules were written.

The byelaw states "aircraft" and "model aircraft", which are intended as catch-all descriptions. Semantics won't alter anything and for the purpose of the law these descriptions will include drones.

[singlecoil]

Dermot O'Logical said:

The point I'm making is that "the Rules" appear to be many and varied, and printed on very small inconspicuous notices. At the bottom of which there's something about a fine of up to £500 for non-compliance.

Well, if there are a lot of rules and they were all to be written large, then the signs would be very large.

I expect a PDF could be downloaded which would allow people to enlarge the text to whatever they need.

There's always a lot of rules because if they just made one rule requiring people hot to be aholes then the aholes would claim that it didn't apply to them because it didn't spell out their particular offence.

[Magic919]

singlecoil said:

There's always a lot of rules because if they just made one rule requiring people hot to be aholes then the aholes would claim that it didn't apply to them because it didn't spell out their particular offence.

How hot?

[Simpo Two]

I agree that drones would be covered by 'model aircraft' - because that's what a drone is - and the T&Cs are on display. So technically you're nicked, if they wished to be arses.

The only way they could be SURE that you'd seen the T&Cs would be to have a little man in a toll-booth handing out T&Cs that you'd have to sign before you could go in, and that would be even more annoying!

[uber]

They need to catch you first! Enjoy it when you can until the make all drones have identifiers !

[ukaskew]

Dermot O'Logical said:

Drones are a relatively new phenomenon, and many owners won't even be aware of, or bother to acquaint themselves with the CAA guidelines, let alone the Forestry Commission's own byelaws.

This is entirely the fault of drone operators and I don't think there is any legitimate excuse for it, small notice or not. Spaces open to the public certainly shouldn't have to spend hundreds of thousands replacing all of their signage.

They may be cheap and/or relatively accessible compared to something like model aircraft which have been used for decades by dedicated enthusiasts, but that doesn't mean ignorance is an excuse, the risks to the public are no different. I've seen guys hanging full-frame Canon DSLRs off of drones, wouldn't want one of those dropping on my head from a few hundred feet.

[leggly]

ukaskew said:

This is entirely the fault of drone operators and I don't think there is any legitimate excuse for it, small notice or not. Spaces open to the public certainly shouldn't have to spend hundreds of thousands replacing all of their signage.

They may be cheap and/or relatively accessible compared to something like model aircraft which have been used for decades by dedicated enthusiasts, but that doesn't mean ignorance is an excuse, the risks to the public are no different. I've seen guys hanging full-frame Canon DSLRs off of drones, wouldn't want one of those dropping on my head from a few hundred feet.

If somebody is hanging a DSLR off a drone as you put it. The chances are they are already qualified and know the procedures and legalities of flying somewhere such as forestry land. I do agree with you though that there is no excuse for not being aware of where you and can't fly safely. To be honest some of the images on the drone thread make me shudder given where they're taken.