All regulations and such like this will have boundaries and weird categories which seem somewhat arbitrary as to what the changes are once you cross them unfortunately. Drones are a pretty new technology and as far as aviation regulators are concerned - relatively untested - so they’re taking a very precautious approach to how they’re regulated. Hopefully that will change over time when it becomes obvious licenced drone pilots aren’t crashing them out of the sky and killing people with them constantly. I’d feel safer with a competent drone pilot flying a 2kg drone over my head than I do crossing the road with half the arseholes who drive around here tbh.
2 Likes
I know there has to be rules and guidelines, and in general I’m willing to abide by them. The problem as I see it is that too many rules are thunk up by people people in suits who don’t have a clue. Health and safety is fine, but when it takes over and stops people thinking for themselves? Thats when accident rates start going up. People rely too heavily on rules and regulations to keep themselves and others safe. Take a look at what you are doing, will it impact on you or other people if it goes wrong, could someone get hurt, how can I make it safer and minimise the risks.
1 Like
The trouble with health and safety it removes natural selection , all those that it has saved have now bred and we have a new bunch that have no common sense and have to have there arses wiped
2 Likes
Open A1/A3 are intended for pilots who don’t really have any aviation relevant training on what you’ve mentioned. When you move into A2 and specific category (including A16 if you’ve read the handbooks and OA as you should) it’s very much about training you to think for yourself about risk and how you manage it. IMO it’s not that the CAA are precluding people thinking for themselves, it’s more that they want you to be operating in a category where you’ve been trained on how to think for yourself and to be accountable for the decisions you take based on that.
This is where it goes wrong.
Ok, I’ve just deleted my post in response to the above and simplified it (and cleaned up my language). You’ve over complicated it, which is the problem. There, nice and simple.
??
No deleted posts above.
My Mini 3 is 248g with nothing added to it. That compares to 241g for my Mini 2.
I liked the colourful language and I make you right
how bout all those that had and flew drones before all this added rules be allowed to fly where they was allowed to fly before
all these training schools all jump on the bandwagon
in my work they send people that have been climbing ladders for the past 30 years on a fookin ladder coarse
half the problem with most things in the modern time is teachers brainwashing people that they need to have a poxy qualification for anything they do so they justify their job
and everyone cashes in on it
I typed it, read it over, then deleted what I typed without clicking the reply button. I didn’t actually create a post then delete it.
1 Like
Do you think that they will carry a set of calibrated scales?
2 Likes
I think the policy makers may have a problem with this consultation request. VLOS is the law, VLOS has arbitrarily been set at a maximum of 500m(being the prescribed limit of most peeps eyesight), strobes will increase this eyesight limit meaning that not only the weight limit will need to be changed but also the VLOS limit. UK have alligned itself with EASA, so, would EASA also need to agree any changes?? If so just look at the delayed C rating debacle we are in, how long do you think any weight and VLOS changes will take to get implemented??
No need to involve EASA. We adopted the same regulations when they came out but have since left the EU and have diverged slightly already. We’re not party to EASA since and can diverge as much as we please.
If our government were interested in applying for our operator IDs and Flyer IDs being recognised in the EU (so we could fly there without getting a second flyer ID or having to take a European A2 CofC) then it’d be different but clearly our government isn’t interested in doing that.
2 Likes
I’m pretty sure VLOS is dependant on the individuals ability to see the UAV and its orientation unaided (except for prescription glasses) and there is no set maximum distance stipulated in CAA regs. 
CAP722 page 36 (section 2.1.1 Visual line of sight operations (VLOS)) suggests otherwise:
The CAA will normally accept that the VLOS requirement is met when the UA is flown out to a distance of 500 metres horizontally from the remote pilot, but only if the aircraft can still be seen at this distance.
Now that’s not legally binding per-se but it is indicative of the position the CAA will take in court or in an AAIB investigation if something did go wrong.
Very good. 
I…, so far, have always flown within VLOS and can see my mini 2 at approx 600m as long as its in the sky. Considerably less if in the treeline, as its camouflaged by the background. I guess proof is in the pudding so would be happy to demonstate that to a court if challenged! Not sure about using spotters though, theoretically can go much further, if in constant communication with a spotter; but its not clear in the regs exactly how this can legally be achieved… or is it?
The law states:
“The remote pilot may be assisted by a UA observer helping them to keep the unmanned aircraft away from other aircraft and obstacles.
The UA observer must be situated alongside the remote pilot and observers must not use aided vision (e.g. binoculars).
UA observers may also be used when the remote pilot conducts UAS operations in first-person view (FPV), which is a method used to control the UA with the aid of a visual system connected to the camera of the UA. In all cases, the remote pilot is still responsible for the safety of the flight.”
Ref. Drones - flying in the open category | Civil Aviation Authority
1 Like
everyone stop obsessing over the rules and get out there, fly and have fun… just use your noggin (aka common sense)
4 Likes
Thx for that. Was going to look at CAP722 but got destracted watching the golf! YTers that use telecoms to keep in touch with spotters klms away beware. 
Not obsessed… although the Wife would disagree. 
You can both enjoy yourself and stay legal(ish). 
The logic the CAA use for this I think is that the spotter and pilot should be able to communicate easily and readily and not depending on a technology which itself could malfunction or otherwise fail to operate properly. Mobile phone calls drop, radios get interference.