UKC

Such a lovely evening, except for that drone. Can we shoot em down?

Add one of these to your standard Stanage rack

https://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Drone-Catcher/

I’m sure the drone flyer has a lovely evening too, except for those climbers.

They are just doing what they enjoy, same as you were.

You mean it wasn't midgy last night. Maybe the drone kept them away ???

Except the fact its banned...

http://www.noflydrones.co.uk/ 

View map.

Cue the classic exchange between climbers/walkers etc  "Are you bringing the drone?" "Nah, its her turn to put the kids to bed"

Aside from the fact that the drone makes a continuous really irritating sound that impacts on everyone, and is arguably and invasion of privacy. 

I'm not sure your argument stands up. Somebody playing really loud techno music might well be having a good time, but it doesn't mean it's OK if it's affecting everyone else's enjoyment. 

Until they are silent, and don't have cameras attached to them, I think you're well within your rights to politely ask them to stop. That's why they are banned in lots of places. 

The noise factor I agree with.
However, unless you ban all cameras, then I can't really see how you can use this for a reason to ban or ask people to stop using them.

As all drones are equipped with GPS, it would at least be possible to enforce this by having the relevant authority (The CAA in the UK?) require manufacturers to install firmware that disables the drone's capability within certain zones.

Of course, it's far preferable to just have pilots not be dickheads.

In general cameras are static (CCTV) or attached to a person and thus subject to laws of trespass and harassment. A drone could fly right up to your bedroom window.

The drone was at Stanage and no doubt there were countless people with cameras and with a telephoto lens you could be taking photos that appear to be as 'close up' and personal as a drone could take.  Ban drones for the sole reason of 'snooping', then you have to ban all cameras.
As for trespass, etc. then as long as the drone stays outside of the property, then there is no real legal reason why a drone can't be used to take photos of that property - including the occupants and even if they're children in a school, etc.  Obviously, there is a line between what's legally acceptable and overstepping the mark to obtrusion, but people shouldn't automatically think that being in their property makes them exempt from being photographed.

 

“Except the fact its banned...”

err no - just because someone has requested they are banned from the area doesn’t make them banned

“continuous really irritating sound that impacts on everyone, and is arguably and invasion of privacy.”

Noise - so do climbers according to non climbers, all that shouting and clanking of gear...

Privacy - you are in a public area, you can’t have any expectation of privacy in a public area

“As all drones are equipped with GPS”

no, a lot of drones don’t 

“I think you're well within your rights to politely ask them to stop”

you can ask, but that would be the same as someone walking up to you and politely asking you to stop climbing on stanage, because they find it irritating.

You have no right to any privacy out in public, so that argument is a moot point in this incidence. 

Unless they happen to own the land (or manage it on behalf of the landowner), in which case yes it does.

"moot point" maybe? Mute point would refer to people making too much noise by shouting at each other!

Drones buzzing around at Stanage are not a rare occurrence in my experience. I've definitely seen them being flown there on a few occasions. But I've also seen paragliders flying the edge on many occasions and I don't think people object to them on privacy grounds or noise.

But I also understand drone buzz is a particularly irritating noise - perhaps to reminiscent of wasps or horseflies!

Yes, moot.. autocorrect strikes again! 

The constant beep from the paraglider is somewhat annoying, to be fair.. 

Yes and no, I suspect. 

You're quite right that you have no right to prevent people from taking your photograph if you are out in public somewhere that the photographer would normally be able to see you.  But I think that applies to a situation where the photographer would normally be able to see you with their own eyes.  Much of what I've read about this uses the phrase "expectation of privacy" - you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy where you might expect to be observed by a human observer - I'm not so sure it is the case where a device like a drone might allow film footage or a photo to be taken from a vantage point or angle you would not normally expect to be seen from. 

So if you go for a walk down the high street in your undercrackers, I don't think you can really complain if someone takes a photo.  If you're wearing a skirt you most certainly can complain if someone uses a selfie-stick to Chope an up-skirt photo of much the same view.

A quick google suggests that rules regarding drone use do make a distinction between drones that carry a camera and those that don't:  http://www.droneguideuk.com/droneguideuk_ukdronelaws.html

<edit to remove redundant moot/mute pedantry>

Given that drones should always be kept within eye shot, one would expect that the pilot would be able to see the climber and his drone with his own sight. Obviously this may be contradicted by a climber being 'around a corner' (or in my case 'in a chimney'!) but it's not somewhere that the pilot couldn't also be. 

I might not be able to see you from the Popular End car park up on Flying Buttress, but if I have my telephoto lens then I can.. this doesn't make it immoral, or illegal. I don't think vantage point comes in to it, otherwise you're putting a good number of CCTV cameras in to a grey area. 

Folks, it's pretty clear what is and isn't allowed and these people appear to have been breaking the law.

https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/advice/drone-law-uk

If your drone is fitted with a camera there are additional regulations you must follow.

You must not fly within 50 metres of people, vehicles, buildings or vessels

Your drone must not be flown within 150 metres of a congested area or any large group of people such as a concert or sporting event as you may be prosecuted.

If you intend to record in an area where people are, you must inform them before you start.

Obviously people taking photos are not a problem.  It's the noise that a drone makes that's so irritating.  

PDNP explicitly bans all drones from Stanage, March-August inclusive. So yes, they were not allowed to fly it. In addition, if it carried a camera (almost certainly - why else were they flying it?) and it was within 50m of you, it's in breach of CAA regs.

Indeed... sad it took so long on this thread to point this out.

http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/visiting/frequently-asked-questions/drones

I could be mistaken, but I think there have been cases where the use of a telephoto lens to take a photo from a public area has been found in court to be a breach of someone's privacy haven't there?  In cases where the subject of the photo was not in a publicly accessible place and the long lens was necessary to allow the photo to be taken.  Of course if I'm on Flying Buttress there would be nothing to stop you from walking up the hill from the car park to take a photo from closer to, so I suppose the long lens is largely irrelevant.

Funny that you should mention CCTV though - there are legal implications to using a CCTV camera to film the public, data protection and such.  It isn't the same as using a handheld camera to take a photograph of a person in a public place.

CCTV cameras are usually installed on private property by (or on behalf of) the owner, or in public places by (on on behalf of) local authorities.  Would it be immoral or illegal for someone to install their own private CCTV camera in some public place for their own amusement? 

How about if instead of using that telephoto lens at the Pop End car park you were sitting in your van receiving remote telemetry from a camera you'd fixed to the rock on Flying Buttress to capture comical close-ups of my gurning face while I struggle with the crux?

Quite. 

That webpage could really do with a more comprehensive list of sites within the park where they are not permitted. It's all very well saying ''including Stanage" but a full list of crags would be useful!

I'm almost sure that some of that isn't actually correct:
1. The distance rules apply to a drone whether it's fitted with a camera or not.
2. The informing of people applies if you want to use a drone in a public area and want to use it within the distance rules above.

You'd better tell the Notts constabulary! Either way, if they were flying within 50 metres of the crag these people were breaking the drone code.

Agreed;  leaving a vague mention in an FAQ only naming Stanage is hardly the good clear publicity on drone usage on its land you might expect from the PDNP. Still its been discussed in a few places that formally deal with Stanage access, including the BMC local area, so I expected a few more UKC users to know the details, especially given all the hot air on the subject. Most drone users I've seen in the area seem blissfully unaware of the national rules on drone use (particularly proximity to other people) let alone the local rules.

The Police are always right...
I believe, that if the drone operator had asked permission from every single person within that 50m zone then it would be permissible.
Bit academic because it appears that there is a blanket ban on drones at Stanage.

I think it does indeed currently only apply to drones with cameras. https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Recreational-drones/Recre...

Article 95 is the bit with the 50m restriction, which applies specifically to 'small unmanned surveillance aircraft'.

The police are rarely wrong on public information on their websites. As for Stanage the ban is not 'blanket' , it is for a specified time period on PDNP land (not all of the crag). It makes me wonder why you bother posting if you can't be arsed to check linked basics.

I think this is a bit more nuanced. In public places (and private places with public access) you'll no doubt see lots of "CCTV in operation" signs. This is you being 'informed' that you're going to be filmed in a likely-identifiable way.

My understanding is that legally, pictures/footage obtained with drones is in the same basket as CCTV, and if you're recording someone in a way such that they could be indentified, then they should be aware of it taking place. Again, similar to CCTV, after the recording is made there are also subsequent and ongoing data protection responsibilities, such as only keeping footage (where people are identifiable) for an 'appropriate' amount of time, complying with subject access requests etc. I don't think it is quite as simple as whether it's within 50m distance or not.

It’s all recreation - just because you are not into it doesn’t make it wrong.

All forms of recreation will annoy someone - get over it. 

As for the 50m limit - that doesn’t apply to drones without cameras. The Air Navigation Order 2016 article 95 clearly states in only applies to “unmanned surveillance aircraft” and a drone without a camera cannot be used for surveillance

As for the Peak Park bye-laws, I would believe a word the Peak Park say without seeing the actual Bye-law in writing. It’s also a bit of a slippery slope for climbers - if Peak Park ban drones because of disturbance to wild life then it won’t be too long before someone pushes for a ban on climbing for the same reasons.

Beeping from Paragliders might be annoying for climbers but it is heavenly music to the ears of a paraglider pilot - which sums up the point nicely - some activities that others do and you don’t do will annoy you and some activities that you do will annoy others for the same or different reasons - that doesn’t make you right and the others wrong. 

And one other thing and one quoting so called laws from “xxxxx code” - it’s a code of practice and not law - find the actual law

All the problem drone use I've seen on Stanage has involved obvious filming (and all drone use where there was no problem..away from people and in the allowed months). I agree that its just another form of recreation that deserves its space but there are plenty of places where landowners/land managers haven't placed special regulation (like the PDNP have for the Popular half of Stanage; or the RSPB/NT for the Eastern Moors). So its best for drone information sites to post where it is OK, than risk arguments with walkers, climbers and paragliders, on places like Stanage Popular, who are operating within the rules (and generally observe bans, like for the Ring Ouzel nesting arrangements).

“walkers, climbers and paragliders, on places like Stanage Popular, who are operating within the rules”

The Peak Park was born because people were willing to break the rules!

The trespass rules were broken because they were thought of as too restrictive in the eyes of the non land owners.

The Paragliders had a big fight to get all the restrictions removed that they had banning them from flying at stanage for the best part of the year.

We are in the position we are in now because people didn’t agree with the rules.

Those, like on the Kinder Tresspass, breaking laws to access to the high moors of the Peak did so as only the rich at that time got to enjoy them. Such access fights are very different from the modern situation of Stanage Popular of managing multiple user groups whilst trying to preserve the wildlife and manage the land. Local access groups, very aware of our history, recommend following most of these rules and lobbying to change unwanted rules (rather than just publicly breaking them). You are entitled to your opinion and the arguments you will get defending it, in situ. Most, who know, will prefer to fly their drone elsewhere.

Do you mountain bike? That argument keeps coming up in MTB groups over whether people think its right or not to ride on public footpaths, not just bridleways. Seeing more MTBers riding along the top Stanage these days.

Here's a link to the CAA website https://dronesafe.uk/drone-code/# - the 50m rule applies to ALL drones and not specifically whether they have a camera or not.  It's to do with public safety rather than privacy.

Oh and the CAA guidelines are the LAW when it comes to anything aviation - to quote from their website "The primary piece of legislation that covers drones is the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation Order 2009 made under the Act. Breaches of these aviation laws are criminal offenses, enforced by the CAA".

No one is arguing against drones being flown within the CAA guidelines and with consideration for others.  I think what people object to (and quite rightly) is the inconsiderate nature of many of the drones flown in the outdoors, creating unnecessary noise and flying inappropriately close to people and pets etc.  If you need it spelling out then the presence of countless climbers or walkers in a given area do nothing to hinder the enjoyment of a single drone pilot.  The noisy flight of just one single drone however can spoil the peace, enjoyment and concentration of countless numbers of climbers, walkers and outdoor users.  That's pretty selfish in my book.

No one is going to ban climbers in the Peaks so please don't use that to try and justify your argument.  Walkers often like to observe climbers with interest on their walks in the same way as climbers watch in fascination at the skill of a paraglider pilot.  No one except the drone flyers like drones flying near them though and especially not the incessant and extremely irritating 'dentist drill' type noise they make.

As a climber who doesn't mountain bike I feel that they get a raw access deal in the Peak. Opening up extra routes for them would be good in my view. The top of Stanage Popular probably could be one of those, with a bit of work (as the Eastern Moors did   http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/eastern-moors/    ). In contrast, there are many places in the Peak to fly a drone where probably no one will ever bother you.

“Here's a link to the CAA website https://dronesafe.uk/drone-code/# - the 50m rule applies to ALL drones and not specifically whether they have a camera or not”

that is a guide, not the Law.

the CAA can publish what ever they want, but it only becomes law when it is passed in parliament. The law in this case is the air navigation order 2016 - article 95. This is the law and it only covers unmanned aircaft capable of survalence or data collection

”No one is going to ban climbers in the Peaks” - they might - Paragliders were banned from stanage (for most of the year) for a long time. Paragliders have been banned on Bradwell Edge for a long time (but still fly). Paragliders have been banned from Rushup Edge (but still fly). It will happen to climbers at some point. How can the Peak Park justify a ban on drones by saying the disturb wild life, and at the same time allow climbers, Paragliders and walkers? (And farming!)

You seem locked in a loop on this, defending a perceived right that almost no-one seems to want (flying non camera based drones on Stanage Popular). Given the number of walkers and climbers who would never consent, Stanage Popular would be impractical for camera based drones even if the PDNP ban wasn't in place (and irrespective of if their justifications for their ban look slightly dubious: you would need to find the detailed papers to see the full reasons and I suspect the perceived negative impact on other recreational  users would be part of that).

If you would rather place the technicalities of the law (or not law) above the basic consideration of other people then that says it all really.  Just because I am legally allowed to let of fireworks in my garden (because I enjoy it) on any day of the year before 11pm, it doesn't make it very considerate if next doors young children tend to go to bed at 7pm.  Perhaps it's inconsiderate of the neighbors children to want to go to bed so early?

No they won't!  Climbers do not (by enlarge) emit a high pitched buzzing sound wherever they go.

Just back from Canada, did an overnight hike on the BC coast, relaxing at the backcountry shore campsite that night, looking out to sea, suddenly we hear a drone buzz and see one moving up and down the coast line, luckily the guys doing it soon stopped and put it away for the night.

What's the legal situation if I pick up a stone and throw it at said offending drone?

And it hits it.

I'm assuming it's within 50m.

Surely I'm helping prevent an offence?

It 100% depends if your stone has a camera on it or not, obvs. ; )

No, how you do think the paparazzi work? There’s no legal basis against taking someone’s photo on any lens, anywhere they’re in public. Obviously it’s different if you’re pointing it through their bedroom window. They could of course turn around and try to sue you if you used such a picture in a manner that displeased them, but they’d need a damn good reason for it to be successful. Privacy in any public place is not one them.

More generally, I still remember the first time I saw someone in public, walking down the street, talking on a mobile phone. My first thought was roughly: "Wow! What a pr*ck." Obviously my attitude here has changed slightly over the years since!

I wonder if people years ago were 'constantly irritated' by planes flying over and ruining the tranquility of their wilderness in the early days of aviation.

Will we get to the stage where drones are so numerous and prevalent that they slip into the same ignored sub-conscious as people talking on mobile phones and passing aircraft have for me? (I hope not!) They are definitely getting cheaper (which will in turn mean they're more numerous, and so possibly more problematic), but also they're getting smaller and quieter which may make them less problematic.

One thing's for certain; it's not going to stay like it is now. There will be more drones, but also more control of their use.

It seems that this discussion has gone something like this (I've substituted the fireworks in here instead of camera-less drones):

Person A: You can't set off fireworks during the day, it's THE LAW!

Person B: Actually, I think you're wrong, the law only says you can't after 11pm. [Notably no mention of any actual intention to do so, nor sentiment that doing so is in any way a good idea.]

    <Crossed wires in here somewhere, leading to the imagined desire or intention of Person B to set off fireworks all evening>

Person A: Well but… you are incredibly selfish for wanting to do so!

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that anyone should fly their drone within 50m of people, that it's a good idea, nor that it should be encouraged at all just because of some wrinkle in the regulations about camera-less aircraft. I think the only point that others (myself included) were trying to make is that your rather forcefully-put point about the legality of that specific point was incorrect.

(Unrelated: 'By enlarge' sounds a bit like the subject of some 'Delight your girlfriend' spam e-mails I get. To avoid future possible embarrassment on your part, the phrase is: 'by in large'.)

Muphry's law strikes again!

I suggest you re-read the history behind this.

Bought a new drone have we???  

I don't disagree, but you say that as if it refutes my post.  It doesn't address the points I was trying to make at all.  Either you didn't read my post properly or, more likely, I didn't write it very well.  Ah well.

Sorry, yes you're right. I didn't read it properly. I was replying to:

'I could be mistaken, but I think there have been cases where the use of a telephoto lens to take a photo from a public area has been found in court to be a breach of someone's privacy haven't there?  In cases where the subject of the photo was not in a publicly accessible place and the long lens was necessary to allow the photo to be taken.'

Yes, the subject would have a right to expect privacy in that instance. But it's irrelevant to the question at hand, which is why I must have misread it, expecting a different point. Apologies.

Yes the ironny

Argh, yes. By and large, not in! (Definitely not enlarge though.)

(Thanks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law is a new one to me.)

Do any of the drones being used at crags not have cameras? I'm genuinely intrigued - what on earth is the point of that?

I find camera-bearing drones extremely annoying, when used too close to me, but at least I can see why people might want to fly them...

I was going to say the same. I can see the point in flying a remote control helicopter but I'm not sure about a drone, unless you wanted for example to film St. Andrews golf course from overhead which would be spectacular.

Almost certainly: No!

I think that probably the intention of the cameras/no-cameras distinction in the legislation is likely to allow some pre-drone-era model aircraft to continue to operate as they already did, yet introduce sensible restrictions to increase safety and prevent annoyance which apply to basically all recreational drones which people might use in unsafe or just plain annoying ways.

Off the top of my head, I think if a drone weighs more than 300g you have to be over 16 to own it. Many of the sub-300g ones are basically toys aimed at kids, many of which don't have cameras. I guess possibly the 'no cameras' bit of the regulations is also to encompass those. (Could be wrong on this whole paragraph though.)

So, in practice, it's perfectly reasonable to presume that the regs for USA apply to any drone you see bring operated at a crag, because they do all have cameras. That's what I'd thought.

Yep. (Took me a while to realise you mean unmanned survelliance aircraft, and not the country.)

HA. 'Say hello to ma lil fwiend!'

I've said it before, the only viable solution is an R/C Spitfire.

Use a catapult

If I suggest a plan to manage Stanage, and the surrounding moorland, for commercial drone shooting, replacing grouse shooting, do you think I might get UKC to actually combust?

Well how would they do that when you were half way up a route???

Maybe in the future, there will be an ascent style called 'drone-point', where you send your drone up first to check out the holds and gear. Considering we are talking about gritstone here, maybe top-ropers of the future will send one up to hold their ropes ?

Personally, I hope drones are just a passing fad for people who like gizmos and are curiously unsatisfied with views they obtain purely by their own efforts...

youtube.com/watch?v=_Pl2ngpYKHQ&