Remember the hullaballoo when we flew a drone in GB permitting use of a "hazardous vehicle" in an SSSI ?

Seems like its OK to do it in Wookey Hole which is also an SSSI as its a promotional video. One rule for one but not another ?



The Civil Aviation Authority, which regulates flying in the UK, allowed a drone to be flown through a Somerset landmark but requested that it be given supernatural protection.

The drone was being used to shoot footage of Wookey Hole caves for a promotional video.

Before the drone flight the Civil Aviation Authority was consulted and asked for permission.

In a letter passing on vital safety information the authority said ?We would also advise you take suitable precautions against the influence of the witch.?

One would assume other bodies should have been asked permission as well as the CAA. So maybe it's OK to fly a drone in an SSSI cave now ??

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2017-10-31/the-civil-aviation-authority-requests-wookey-hole-drone-be-given-protection-from-witch/

"Hazardous vehicle" in what regard? Why would an SSSI cave be a drone-free zone compared to a non-SSSI cave? What case histories exist to support such a viewpoint? Is this a drone-in-a-teacup brewing, I wonder.

There was a film crew up at GG this year, and they used a drone in the Main Chamber; I'm told by those who have seen it that the footage they obtained is 'spectacular'.

Incidentally (putting on pedant's hat): given that digital photography no longer results in hundreds of feet of film, do we need a replacement for 'footage' as applied to movies?

Maybe you recall the GB thing Cap'n.

I got close to being banned from the cave. In respect of GB the quote I had was that a drone was " a potentially dangerous vehicle ". There was then an argument about semantics regarding the word "vehicle " which I lost because indeed a drone is a "vehicle" of sorts. Anyway I believe the SSSI statement " potentially dangerous vehicle ( it is in the SSSI rules etc ) was actually referring to things like quad bikes which you would not want to see anywhere. Not seeking any sort of argument just clarification of what seems to be a difficult area for some.

The Old Ruminator said:

Maybe you recall the GB thing Cap'n.

Click to expand...

No, but it sounds suspiciously like spurious bollocks.

Some people have short memories. As Nick says a furore erupted when we filmed in GB even though the pilot was a skilled drone pilot and caver (he had a PPl)..

mrodoc said:

Some people have short memories. As Nick says a furore erupted when we filmed in GB even though the pilot was a skilled drone pilot and caver (he had a PPl)..

Click to expand...

Surely the system of local quango-esque access bodies, with almost zero accountability to the wider caving community, would never make arbitrary, potentially unpopular decisions that there was effectively no system of appeal against? Just look how well it works in SE Wales... oh wait

The only difference is they got permission from the body controlling access beforehand...(& the bit about the CAA is just maximising newsworthiness to save on advertising costs)

Mike

Surely to be totally legitimate permission was sought from Natural England for permission to fly a drone in Wookey Hole. If indeed this permission was forthcoming then we have a benchmark in the Wookey Hole case clearly demonstrating that flying a drone ( unarmed ) within a closed space covered by an SSSI is allowed. There are other large caves on Mendip within an SSSI you know. ( though I cant bring one to mind at the moment .  :ang

Can't find anything directly relating to Mendip, but: http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/visiting/drones

"Drones or model aircraft should not be flown on or over Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) without consent from Natural England."

Mike

Thanks Mike. Sounds like a case by case thing . Drones are used over SSSI's for flood and plant monitoring. Caves are a little different being a confined space where damage to fragile formations is possible. I guess you would have to show a clearly stated pre flight plan with some sort of scientific result to justify it. I rather think NE would not agree to flights for just the fun of it.

I assume that drones who's positioning is by GPS would have troubles in caves or is there some other way of restricting them?

Laurie said:

I assume that drones who's positioning is by GPS would have troubles in caves or is there some other way of restricting them?

Click to expand...

Yes there are.

Have a look at DJI drones. Some have position sensors that enable them to fly safely (avoiding obstacles)  in confined spaces.

The Drone at GG was operated by https://spideraerialfilming.com/ for the film crew.
The company had obtained full permissions / permits so not too much should be read into this as a precedent (beyond that it worked well and the results were spectacular...not released yet).
It was taken down on the chair (concerns about spray etc) rather than flown down the main shaft, and had a 'pilot' and cameraman.

Umm, that as precisely the point - whether permission can be obtained from Natural England...

mikem said:

....should not be flown on or over ....

Click to expand...

"Should not" is significantly different from "must not".

Either way

A) how is it permitted/procedure/application?
B) how is it enforced/policed/observed?
C) Is it just a load of nonsense?

Guess my guess.



If you guessed C you might be close.

Hello OR
As I see it these are the SSSI rules.
I checked to see whether GB cave is part of an SSSI. If you look on the MAGIC GIS website it shows that its part of The Cheddar Complex SSSI.

If you click on the info button there is then a link to the details of the SSSI : http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1003940

If you follow that link you can "view list" which takes you through to the "Operations likely to Damage the SSSI". This is a list of activities which require prior consultation with Natural England.
Number 26 on that list is "Use of vehicles likely to damage or disturb features of interest".

The features of interest are explained in the "citation" which is found on that same link above. Its clearly a varied  SSSI with lots of things of interest both biological and geological. This includes both bats and speleothems which are the most likely things to be disturbed by any vehicle (drone) in a cave?

Wookey Hole is a different SSSI but seems to have exactly the same wording for 26;Use of vehicles likely to damage or disturb features of interest"

So if you needed to ask Natural England then so did (the owners of) Wookey Hole. Whether this happened or not I have no idea. I also have no idea whether Natural England would be worried about drones in GB or WH - they might say it is too small an issue to be concerned about or they might want more details on what was proposed to help decide how likely it was that any drone could damage the SSSI features. On the face of it bats would be more vulnerable to disturbance than speleothems?

Hope that helps
D

Gaping Gill  OLD1 00 15 37 :

26 Use of vehicles or craft likely to damage or disturb features of interest.
27 Recreational or other activities likely to damage or disturb cave formations, sediments, or features of botanical interest.

(so, from a purely NE point of viewsomewhere like GG main chamber might not be a great issue, but there are the issues about flying in public spaces, proximity, privacy, commerce)

Given developing attitudes to drones it would seem appropriate to ask the landowner (CROW here we go again...)

The landowner is answrable to NE...so they would need to consider where they stand with NE if approached.