Hi guys as im new to the hobby Im not sure what the rules are now for use of goggles
The code says keep drone in.los at all times without the use of equipment so how do we stand with the uses of goggles ?
1 Like
Simply you need a spotter to keep VLOS, someone else to watch for any possible issues or dangers.
1 Like
The rule is Visual Line of Site. VLOS. which means with the naked eye, unaided. If you wear goggles then you will require a ‘spotter’ to be with you to keep VLOS with the drone.
Fab thanks for the replys 
The drone code is pretty clear about this and nowhere in it does it mention The use of Spotters. Here is an extract;
However, the law [at ANO article 94(3)] requires that the remote pilot must maintain direct unaided visual contact with the aircraft which is sufficient to monitor its flight path so that collisions may be avoided. This is obviously not possible if that person is wearing video goggles or otherwise constantly monitoring a display. Therefore, FPV flight is only permitted if the activity has been approved by the CAA. A General Exemption has been issued which allows an element of ‘First Person View’ (FPV) flight to be conducted. If you wish to conduct an FPV flight which cannot be accommodated within the terms of this General Exemption, then you will need to apply to the CAA for an Exemption to do so.
Note: Images captured by a camera and displayed on a flat screen afford the pilot little by way of depth perception and no peripheral vision. This can make it difficult for the pilot to accurately judge speed and distance and to maintain sufficient awareness of the area surrounding the aircraft to effectively ‘see and avoid’ obstacles and other aircraft - as a result, the use of FPV equipment is not an acceptable mitigation for Beyond Visual Line of Sight flight unless the relevant operator has received a specific approval to do so from the CAA.
I’m sure someone will chime in with the relevant paragraph, but fpv is allowed with a competent spotter.
3 Likes
There is a general exemption with "competent " observer, so probably excludes your 8 year old son or the likes.
see here :
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=9016
3 Likes
Wot we said!!
General exemption to allow First Person View flying of radio-controlled aircraft, providing that a competent observer is present.
Depends on the 8 year old. Here’s one flying a paramotor solo! MELK AITA PARAMOTOR - Primeiro voo - Fist Fly - 8 anos piloto - 8 years old paramotor pilot - YouTube
How does this have anything to do with the topic
That’s an interesting quote…the word COMPETENT stands out. How do we prove competency? In my industry, and probably many others, we have to prove our competency with exams and assessments, as well as recording any incidents we deal with then submitting the records to go towards our competency profile. At the end of each year if we haven’t dealt with a particular ‘event’ then we are tested on our knowledge of the rules that we apply for such incidents.
So let’s imagine that we have a spotter, and let’s say our drone has a bird strike or light aircraft and down they come, causing damage or serious injury. Of course we are traced back via the registration (at the moment until technology fits a transponder) and we get hauled up before the court. Of course we say that we have a spotter who didn’t see the bird/plane nearby because they hadn’t been to vision express in the last 3 years and we didn’t realise they were short sighted. Then the issue of competency comes up…oh dear!!
I suspect the wording is mainly aimed at filming companies who would have to have everything covered
Use of FPV goggles whilst flying 
The exemption was negotiated by FPVUK and BMFA so dont think it has anything to do with filming companies.
This clears it up a little.
-
For the purposes of this Exemption, a ‘competent observer’ means someone whom the person in charge of the SUA has designated as the competent observer.
-
Before designating someone as the competent observer, the person in charge of the SUA must be satisfied that he or she:
- a) has been briefed in accordance with paragraph 7;
- b) is competent to perform the tasks which he or she may be called upon to perform in accordance with paragraph 7; and
- c) is competent, by direct unaided visual observation of the SUA, to assist and advise the person in charge with the safe conduct of the flight.
- The person in charge must ensure that:
- a) the competent observer is fully briefed on the planned flight and what is expected of him/her taking into account the prevailing conditions;
- b) the competent observer understands that he/she must stay directly adjacent to the person in charge and maintain direct unaided visual contact with the SUA at all times, to visually and aurally monitor the airspace for other aircraft and the takeoff and landing area for any persons;
- c) the competent observer has been instructed on the actions to take in the event of another aircraft being spotted and a risk of collision is assessed; and
- d) the competent observer understands that he/she must advise if the SUA is proceeding beyond the point at which he/she is able to monitor its flight path sufficiently to identify a risk of collision.
That clears it up. Basically a competent person is one designated to be competent and because they have been briefed they are regarded as competent…
Brilliant, there’s no proof required then, no written evidence, nothing that can stand up in a court to say ‘this person is competent except because I say they are’
1 Like
Pretty much.
It’s down to the pilot’s judgment that the spotter is suitable and has been properly briefed.
Common sense I suppose. Anyone with good eyesight and able to communicate with you.
You are correct, its me overthinking things, cos the industry I work in wont just accept a manager saying that someone is competent, they have to back it up with evidence by way of examination and testing on knowledge of the rules and regulations for the task. For example fatality management, bodies on or near the line, nuclear accident, accident involving cyanide tanks, as well as the normal everyday duties. It always surprises me that we are allowed to pick our noses without competency. The results are recorded and placed on the individuals file so that nobody is doing, or asked to do, a task in which they are not competent. Common sense seems to have gone out the window to be replaced by covering upper managements arses
1 Like
It’s the same in most industries and mainly down to liability.
Proof of competence can just be a training record that someone has watched you perform the task correctly or qualification based. It’s supposed to be reviewed periodically.
Just arse covering like you said.
1 Like
It’s more like making sure the insurance company will cough up when the shit hits the fan. If a company can’t prove they showed ‘due diligence’ no payout 
I’d doubt insurance companies will pay out on your xfire! 
1 Like