You read one (1) part of a three part series. Read the other two parts.
You provided the link. Not us.
And as the drone code is a recognised CAA provided CAP number 2320 to be precise and it states visibility to aircraft i think that i will take their word that they want manned aircraft to be able to see the light. Not the half baked idea that because it isnât mentioned in one paragraph then the requirement doesnât exist.
So one one hand you want to tell me that the drone code is the 100% accurate information, because itâs from the CAA.
On the other, I provide a link, a description, and a screenshot of the literal regulatory text and you hand pick one part of those three piece of information andâŚit canât be correct because it comes from the CAA?
1 Like
But because it isnât in the paragraph you linked to doesnât mean it isnât in the regulations somewhere else. How hard is that to grasp.
I literally screenshot the regulation showing who the conspicuity is for. Look at the screenshot.
Since when did a Companies House registered concern speak on my behalf or anyone elseâŚ
1 Like
Air ambulances are just one example of an aircraft that could feasibly be operating below 500ft outside of an FRZ, and would benefit from drones being fitted with the green lights.
Iâm in the same camp as @JoeC as I have an Air 3S so this doesnât really affect me, but if I were flying a Mini 5 Pro I would want an official document from the CAA to point to if challenged. As opposed to pointing the challenging party to a YouTube video which isnât linking to official sources and is probably twice as long as it needs to be.
2 Likes
Thatâs one very valid point and I also took that into account when I approached the CAA tonight - having medicopter and coppercopters squarely in mind when I said âwonât be sharing airspace with the vast majority of GAâ
I suspect for point #1 theyâll just say yes but in that long winded way that like to say yes. For point #2 they might simply say âweâre adding that bit in on top of the 2019/945 documentâ. Which is fine, but itâs not regulatory, thatâs just the CAA giving their opinion.
Calling them industry specialists is punching a little (imo)
I like to be kind about people.
mmmm
2 Likes
I donât really understand the whole discussion around who the light is for? It may well be that the Drone Code says one thing and other documents say differently, but surely the most important thing is whether the lights need be on or not rather than who theyâre supposed to be on for?
2 Likes
A valid criticism of the drone code with some collateral damage
Started here:
And got very messy immediately after.
Letâs see what UAVEnquiries come back with.
And yet you have just asked the authors of said drone code for advise about the legalities of the document they released as an abridged guidance. 
Not because I want to, but because people here want me to.
People just want a name to put to the evidence and see it proper rather than in a click bait video form a non drone flyer
5 Likes
Exactly something substanciated. Rather than the ramblings of someone who amongst the longstanding community hasnât exactly got the best rep.
5 Likes
Do we 
6 Likes