Drones and Theme Parks

[DistortAMG]

Interesting video. In a way I am glad these YouTubers do these, just to uphold members of the publics' rights. Yes he's doing it in a slightly agrivating way, but still, I feel the bullish tactics parks use to stop drone flyers is wrong. You wouldn't treat any other member of the public like this, so why with these, it's also not the drone flyers fault that the parks are too ignorant or oblivious to understand the law. The parks may not like it, but again, not the problem of the member of public.

The police get called here by the park, Drayton Manor are adamant there is a no fly zone over their park. No such thing exists. No offences are committed. The police infact, take the drone flyers side here and even roast the management of the park slightly for essentially being ignorant.

There was a similar thing at Thorpe Park last year, it may be on his channel. Yes the drone went up, no the park did not allow it, and no nothing was done.

I do not agree with drones flying over areas of operational theme parks, that could put guests in danger. But equally, I do not agree with company's, specifically theme parks in this case, trying to use bullish tactics because they are too ignorant or do not understand the rights that members of the public have.

Seemingly the parks also do not understand the difference between the themepark themselves saying you can't fly drones over, and there being a lawful no fly zone in place. Then seemingly confusing their own policy, which the public do not have to adhere to by the way, as being set in law. Even at the end of the video and after education from the police, the security guard seems to still not understand the fact that the flyer can fly over the park.


From: https://youtu.be/QGAN7CLQbkU?si=ivBmXlZACdqp1AL2

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

You wouldn't treat any other member of the public like this, so why with these

I think because, as you've pointed out, in this particular instance the drone pilot isn't behaving in good faith. He's very aware of the limit that he's allowed to push to legally, and he has operated within the letter of the law.

He could have had a dialogue with the park before hand, through proper channels, rather than rocking up at a security hut and intentionally aggrevating/winding up a security guard. He didn't even need to talk to the security guard at all, clearly having checked the boundary access for where he could take off and land. The park's own rules only applying for take off and landing on their property.

I think it's actions like this which twist perception against drone pilots.

He's not breaking the law, he is operating within the legal regulations and guidance, but he's still behaving like an entitled prick.

 

[DistortAMG]

I think because, as you've pointed out, in this particular instance the drone pilot isn't behaving in good faith. He's very aware of the limit that he's allowed to push to legally, and he has operated within the letter of the law.

He could have had a dialogue with the park before hand, through proper channels, rather than rocking up at a security hut and intentionally aggrevating/winding up a security guard. He didn't even need to talk to the security guard at all, clearly having checked the boundary access for where he could take off and land.

I think it's actions like this which twist perception against drone pilots.

He's not breaking the law, he is operating within the legal regulations and guidance, but he's still behaving like an entitled prick.

Operating within a letter of the law, is still within the law. Close to the line or not, he's still within the law.

Why should he go through the proper channels? What channels, the park? What's the point? There is no need, he isn't breaking the law or doing anything wrong or anything that needs the permission of the park. He is operating within the bounds of the law, it's the park who should rein it in and treat people who want to do lawful activities, properly. Not the other way around. Should I go through the proper channels if I want to do other lawful activities around the boundaries of the park? Such as walk my dog, or cross their publicly accessible drive?

The fact he even let the security know, is curtsey. The fact you don't need to inform anyone, but he chose to inform the park on the day, going above and beyond what is required legally, is showing some good faith.

The thing is, the reason why these people aggravate the parks, industrial sites and everywhere in between, is because they are so ignorant to what is a legal activity, that it has almost become a meme in itself at this point.

If the parks and sites didn't act like they had some type of entitled and non existent rights regarding the airspace above their land, or they actually educated themselves and their staff in drones and drone laws, there would be no need to aggravate, as the YouTube channel owners would not get a response from the parks worthwhle of a video. I think it works both ways, but more so on the parks.

Ultimately, the burden lies with the parks more than the flyer, as the flyer is carrying out a lawful activity, so the fact the parks are mis informed, kick off and whatnot, is down to simple mis understanding. It's not the drone flyers job to educate or even inform the parks.

 

[IDB]

I watched one of these audit videos once and now the social media algorithms think that’s all I’m interested in!

The thing is if the “auditors” turned up and the sites were all very welcoming - it wouldn’t make a good video, it wouldn’t get the same viewer hits and it wouldn’t make them lots of ad revenue.

So they all follow the same suit. Wind the sites up and get the police involved = $$$$

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Operating within a letter of the law, is still within the law. Close to the line or not, he's still within the law.

Why should he go through the proper channels? What channels, the park? What's the point? There is no need, he isn't breaking the law or doing anything wrong or anything that needs the permission of the park. He is operating within the bounds of the law, it's the park who should rein it in and treat people who want to do lawful activities, properly. Not the other way around.

The thing is, the reason why these people agrivate the parks, industrial sites and everywhere in between, is because they are so ignorant to what is a legal activity, that it has almost become a meme in itself at this point.

If the parks and sites didn't act like they had some type of entitled and non existent rights regarding the airspace above their land, or they actually educated themselves and their staff in drones and drone laws, there would be no need to agrivate as the YouTube channel owners would not get a response. I think it works both ways.

But ultimately, the burden lies with the parks more than the flyer, as the flyer is carrying out a lawful activity.

Driving in a convertible car, around a police station, whilst sipping on a 660ml bottle of Stella Artois is also completely legal (provided that your blood alcohol level remains under 80mg/100ml), but it's probably not considered generally acceptable behaviour.

There are many actions you could take whilst operating within the literal legal bounds of the law, but aren't generally advisable or considered particularly polite, especially if you're going to film it to generate attention later.

His video in particular highlights that just because you could do something, it doesn't mean you should. Yes he's made the security guard and the park look ill informed, but he hasn't actually achieved anything from it. He could have legally and safely flown a drone over Drayton Manor Park and Zoo, if that was actually his intention, without deliberately engineering a scenario which was clearly designed to get clickbaitesque video content for his channel.

 

[DistortAMG]

I watched one of these audit videos once and now the social media algorithms think that’s all I’m interested in!

The thing is if the “auditors” turned up and the sites were all very welcoming - it wouldn’t make a good video, it wouldn’t get the same viewer hits and it wouldn’t make the lots of ad revenue.

So they all follow the same suit. Wind the sites up and get the police involved = $$$$

But again. They are not breaking any laws. If companies, themeparks, industrial sites actually educated their staff on what is legal and illegal activity, there would be no one to wind up. The only reason they get wound up is because of mis understanding of the law, almost always on the companies side.

It's always the companies who call the police, but if they actually educated their staff on what is lawful activity, it would save police time, staff wouldn't get wound up as they know what is and isn't lawful and these channels would not exist.

 

[DistortAMG]

Driving in a convertible car, around a police station, whilst sipping on a 660ml bottle of Stella Artois is also completely legal (provided that your blood alcohol level remains under 80mg/100ml), but it's probably not considered generally acceptable behaviour.

There are many actions you could take whilst operating within the literal legal bounds of the law, but aren't generally advisable or considered particularly polite, especially if you're going to film it to generate attention later.

His video in particular highlights that just because you could do something, it doesn't mean you should. Yes he's made the security guard and the park look ill informed, but he hasn't actually achieved anything from it. He could have legally and safely flown a drone over Drayton Manor Park and Zoo, if that was actually his intention, without deliberately engineering a scenario which was clearly designed to get clickbaitesque video content for his channel.

Drayton Manor Park and Zoo will have seen the huge craze in these "audit" channels of recent times, they are huge, no doubt are aware of them. They have starred in a few.

They could also educate their staff on the law, so their staff are not Ill informed and Ill equipped to deal with these situations, situations that would not even exist if they were trained properly. The parks however, choose not to. They would seemingly rather have their undertrained staff be involved in such conflicts which are root caused as being down to not enough education on drone laws for the staff. This isn't the first time this has happened at the park.

If they were trained, when the YouTuber rocks up trying to cause issues but is told he can fly, because the trained member of staff understands the law, the conflict ends there before it starts. Parks choose not to take this route however. Seemingly not training their staff with factual information and the law, because they think it benefits them, but it doesn't, it just puts their staff into potential dangerous situations.

 

[rob666]

Driving in a convertible car, around a police station, whilst sipping on a 660ml bottle of Stella Artois is also completely legal ...

Hmmm, not quite so sure on that.
Taking one hand off the wheel to consume any food or drink when driving can be considered driving without due care, depending on circumstances...I was once warned on a minibus drivers course.
I'm sure a copper would give it a go in court for a second quick sip.

 

[Themeparksandy1981]

Without going off topic but that Dj audit only flys over building to get a reaction from Security or workers.
Is it just Air bases you can’t fly a Drone?

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Hmmm, not quite so sure on that.
Taking one hand off the wheel to consume any food or drink when driving can be considered driving without due care, depending on circumstances...I was once warned on a minibus drivers course.
I'm sure a copper would give it a go in court for a second quick sip.

Look ma, no wings!



On a serious note, the contentiousness is precisely the point. There is no law that says that you cannot drink whilst driving, water or beer. There is a law which says that you can't be distracted by driving and, as we both know, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Drinking beer whilst driving, in front of police officers, isn't strictly illegal within itself, it's within the literal bounds of legality, but it definitely snarks at the spirit of the legislation.

Flying a 249g drone, just on the other side of a border, in front of a security guard who has told you that you're not allowed to take off on private property, whilst filming him, is (in itself) completely and utterly legal. The police could consider the intent of your actions, however, and accuse you of causing distress or emotional harm to the security guard. They could consider the use of a camera, and filming the exchange, harassment. Once again the burden of proof is with the prosecution.

I think we can generally agree though that it's pretty antagonistic behaviour and probably shouldn't be commended.

 

[DistortAMG]

Look ma, no wings!



On a serious note, the contentiousness is precisely the point. There is no law that says that you cannot drink whilst driving, water or beer. There is a law which says that you can't be distracted by driving and, as we both know, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Drinking beer whilst driving, in front of police officers, isn't strictly illegal within itself, it's within the literal bounds of legality, but it definitely snarks at the spirit of the legislation.

Flying a 249g drone, just on the other side of a border, in front of a security guard who has told you that you're not allowed to take off on private property, whilst filming him, is (in itself) completely and utterly legal. The police could consider the intent of your actions, however, and accuse you of causing distress or emotional harm to the security guard. They could consider the use of a camera, and filming the exchange, harassment. Once again the burden of proof is with the prosecution.

I think we can generally agree though that it's pretty antagonistic behaviour and probably shouldn't be commended.

You know, I cannot argue with any points you put forward here. I agree with it all. I stand by what I said, but you bring some great counter arguments, that are just as valid and correct.

 

[Spark]

Cant believe Eddie Hall works at Drayton Manor

 

[TBoy535]

In relation to the above video it just shows how little authority police have these days compared to other countries when I was in Australia for example. Years ago he would be told to go home or dragged back home, stop causing a nuisance for his own gain and a commotion for guests/staff at the park gates.

Why would you want to cause so much trouble? I keep seeing bloggers antagonising people in filming them like this with drones, challenging staff etc.

Just take your Drone home and enjoy your life. Not sure why they enjoy confrontation, use up valuable resources for people in need, put people in uncomfortable positions just to hold a phone In their face to prove a point? Staff are just doing their job of what they’re told to do so why do bloggers like this have to be so stubborn and keep filming them, just to put up on YouTube for all the negative comments so that staff member feels even worse about them self’s? It’s a weird kind of culture I keep seeing on YouTube at the moment.

Not sure what their motives are either? They’re not supporting the company by doing this and just feels like it’s all for the own gain.
At the end of the day, if a drone falls on a ride machinery or a person it can cause damage and also everyone’s in the right to have privacy not to be filmed whilst working.

I think they need to implement stricter rules on use or drones. Just to shut these people up and to stop them filming these ridiculous videos of antagonist behaviour for hits on YouTube.

 

[Themeparksandy1981]

It’s the reaction video that gets his viewing figures. Like from a 1 hour and 11 mins video Drayton Manor itself was featured from above for roughly 5 mins.

 

[Benzin]

Antagonistic/Negative videos makes the YouTube algorithm happy.

And that's all these people are slaves to. Content that makes them money, no matter what morals or beliefs they actually hold.

 

[Slugjc]

I think this is a similar conversation to what's been put on the Vloggers chat.

I can see both sides. Draytons will be a safety issue and a duty of care over it's paying customers. That's seems fair.

Whilst the drone user, has his right to do his hobby if there a no laws to prevent him.

However, like I have said over on the Vloggers post. This all comes down to a lack of respect, on the drone users part. Alot of People who fly drones and create vlogs with handhelds, struggle with the idea that people don't always want to be on there footage. Or have a heavy object, with a camera attached flying over their property. I have seen countless films like the above where people argue the toss with company employees because some has said no. Like others have said, chasing the YouTube view is far more important than being a normal, decent Human being.

Having said that. Security guards are never the easiest deal with.

 

[Josh555]

Is flying a drone over Drayton Manor without permission not a trespass? Not a criminal offence and therefore not a police matter but still a civil one and the park are within their rights to tell the pilot to desist?

Could be that the airspace above the park is not within their ownership though I guess hence no trespass.

 

[Slugjc]

One of those tricky areas.

Could it be more a copyright issue with theme parks? In a way flying drone over a football stadium during a game is?

 

[DistortAMG]

Is flying a drone over Drayton Manor without permission not a trespass? Not a criminal offence and therefore not a police matter but still a civil one and the park are within their rights to tell the pilot to desist?

Could be that the airspace above the park is not within their ownership though I guess hence no trespass.

No trespass as like you mention, they do not own the airspace.

The park have no rights to tell him to stop flying.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Is flying a drone over Drayton Manor without permission not a trespass? Not a criminal offence and therefore not a police matter but still a civil one and the park are within their rights to tell the pilot to desist?

Could be that the airspace above the park is not within their ownership though I guess hence no trespass.

Very quickly. You own the land, you do not own the airspace above your land.

Some places have designated "no fly zones", typically designated by the CAA.

A private land owner can prevent you from using a drone to take off and land on their property. They cannot prevent you from flying over their property, providing that you are following legal guidance published by the CAA.

You must fly your drone safely and responsibly. The CAA is again responsible for legislating and publishing guidance about this. It is wide ranging. You cannot fly a drone over operating theme park rides.

In the particular case that @DistortAMG brought to our attention, the pilot is complying with the letter of the law. He is taking off and landing on public property. He is flying a drone below a certain weight limit. He is flying the drone over a theme park, but has ensured that it's not operating. He is intending to operate safely and legally, he was just being a bit of an antagonist about it.

Could it be more a copyright issue with theme parks? In a way flying drone over a football stadium during a game is?

Copyright wouldn't come into play here. There is separate legislation around illegally filming a performance, which a football game would be considered to be.

The ONLY grounds which Drayton Manor would have in this particular instance, is around the right for their staff to have a private life whilst going about their work duties (and this not be filmed). This is a civil offence though, rather than a criminal offence, so the police wouldn't be involved. It would also only apply if the people captured in the drone video are identifiable. IE their face was in frame for long enough for a person, or facial recognition technology, to identify them.