Does the CAA hold the industry back and what is the answer

Wow this is interesting. Company is going ahead with experimental hospital flights without CAA permission. I do not know much about this but found this LinkedIn article and believe this
is huge news. But I could be wrong. Check for yourself. Link below Chris Crockford on LinkedIn: When we started the Morecambe Bay Drones project we approached the land… | 16 comments

1 Like

That’s not quite accurate. What it actually says is ‘The CAA would not grant us a Temporary Danger Area’.

In other words, the aviation safety regulator did not agree to close the airspace to all other aviation at their request.

The post/comments do go on to raise some interesting ideas about the landowner being able to grant you permission to fly above it, essentially asserting that a landowner owns the airspace above their property. That’s a bit of a concern though, because if that is true, that also means a landowner can prevent aircraft flying over their land…


I did wonder if I had got it right. I thought permission was permission I did not realise it was to clear the airspace. I thought they were the same thing. So do they have permission for bvlos because that’s what is involved here or am I getting that wrong as well. :+1:

Yes if the landowner can give permission then it implies they can also deny. So it is definitely interesting. :+1:

It seems that they decided that the Crown Estates Act 1961 1(2). Duchy of Lancaster - created by Henry III 1351. allows them to do whatever they want, with the consent of the landowner.

In Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews [1978] 1 QB 479, the High Court of England and Wales held that, at common law, the right of a landowner to the airspace above their land was “to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it”.

Airspace is Sovereign and the Sovereign has granted us licence to fly.

I think Chris Bradbury made a good point in the comments there. Flying drones probably isn’t ‘ordinary use’.

Yes, I can see that you might have the right to complain if someone came along and built a bridge a few feet over your house, blocking out all your natural light. You wouldn’t then be able to have the ordinary use and enjoyment of your land. But I would suspect flying drones would be considered extraordinary.

It’s probably one for the courts to decide.

It could have seriously negative connotations if every landowner can ban drones and other aircraft flying over their property. I suppose the really interesting part would be - to what height?


Ok cool thanks. As usual I just thought it was interesting and I brought it bring it to the table. :+1:

1 Like

Yeah, definitely interesting and I had not seen it.

Thank you for pointing it out.

1 Like