The term ‘drone’ is used to describe unmanned flying aircraft often carrying data collection instruments such as cameras.
MTOM stands form Maximum Take Off Mass. This is an important measurement because many of the current regulations governing the use of drones distinguish between categories of drone according to weight.
Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides for strict owner or operator liability for surface damage caused by an unmanned aircraft. So in the event of a drone accident causing loss to property or injury to people on the ground, the owner /operator of the drone will be liable to pay compensation to the victim(s) for the loss or injury suffered.
The victim could also pursue compensation for his loss due to your negligence in the same way as would the victim of a car accident.
In the event of an air to air incident the established principles of aviation law is not to apportion blame on a strict liability basis but to deal with such incidents on the basis of assault.
Radio signals are used for communication between a drone’s ground control station and the drone platform and also to transmit data between instruments on the drone such as cameras and the data receiver on the ground. Unencrypted data links are particularly vulnerable to jamming, interception and manipulation. A drone could be hacked, its data link or live feed intercepted, or the aircraft could be spoofed during flight.
Pilots must take into account the possible reduction in operating range in an urban environment due to the heavy use of communications equipment and other sources of electromagnetic spectrum and the radio frequency interference. You also need to consider mitigation for the consequences of weak or lost GPS signal due to the masking by buildings or the fells along with the general radio frequency saturation level.
It is your responsibility to ensure that you do not lose radio contact with your drone. If you do so and there is an accident, you will be liable for any loss or damage that occurs.
Causing deliberate damage to a third party’s drone or interfering with its communications system may constitute criminal damage.
This will depend on the MTOM of the drone. Regulation (EC) No.
Persons operating model aircraft hobby drones weighing less than 20kg are not required to have third party liability insurance. However, the British Model Flying Association provides insurance for its members and it is recommended that you have insurance to cover any accident that may occur when you are flying the drone. It is unlikely that your household insurance policy would provide cover for drone use and you will therefore need to seek separate insurance cover.
There is no specific legislation in European member states on the Data Protection implications of drone use. However the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression are both considered fundamental. The Information Commissioner, the UK Data Protection regulator, has stated that drone use may infringe a citizen’s right to privacy and private life if the drone is used intrusively.
The Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018 protects peoples information privacy but also recognises the importance of freedom of expression aiming to strike a fair balance.
The DPA focuses on an individual’s right to privacy and is concerned with the processing of information from which a living individual can be identified (personal data). The DPA principles apply to the processing of all personal data which includes photographs and film.
It is easy to fly and for a drone to hover over someone’s property. Case law has established that the rights of a property owner are restricted in relation to the airspace above his land to such a height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land. This would be a matter of judgement in each case and whether or not there had been an invasion of privacy or an established nuisance would depend upon the frequency of flights, the height of those flights etc.
Based on existing case law, it may be argued that flying a drone above another’s property at heights so as not to interfere with that party’s ordinary use of the land is unlikely to constitute a trespass. In addition to this, photographing of that person’s property on occasion is unlikely to constitute nuisance. Matters do become more complex and less certain however where a drone is flying over another’s property on multiple occasions or even hovering in one place and taking multiple pictures.
The courts have not drawn a line as to what exactly will constitute trespass or nuisance by drones in these instances and therefore best practice is to ensure that the landowner’s permission is obtained.
Drone operators must have permission from the owner of the land where a drone takes off and lands.
Please look after the Lake District, our wildlife and all who visit, live and work here: