I think I must be getting cynical… but my first thought reading this was to wonder how long it will be before somebody decides we’d best have a 50m exclusion from every motorway and A road to keep us pesky hobbyists from interfering with road maintenance.
.. and then B road since that’s where they’ll cause the speed merchants to move to. 
1 Like
Yesterday there was a story on the local TV news that Railway Police in the East Midlands are starting to monitor security using remote controlled drones which are stored in trackside charging boxes but entirely controlled remotely from a control centre in London. Do the police have some sort of exemption from the CAA rule requiring the drone operator to be in line of sight from the drone?
1 Like
Hi @emperorbruce, it looks as though you’re quite new here 
Why not nip over to the Introductions page, and say hello properly and tell us a bit about yourself. 
Yes, they do. Or they’d risk being reported to the, er, um…
1 Like
have they not heard of zoom lenses.
I saw one advertised on YouTube that could zoom in so well they’d probably be able to check the tracks in Birmingham from London! it was definitely legit, honest 
A number of police drone ops around the country are BVLOS. That’s what the plethora of Temporary Danger Areas popping up across the nation are all about.
Here is the link to the news item on ITV: https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2025-10-27/british-transport-police-use-drones-to-tackle-rise-in-trespassing-on-tracks. I think it’s good use of drones but I wondered how it was that they could be operated remotely in view of the VLOS requirement we all have to operate with. A Google Gemini search gave me the answer:
"It is understandable why this would appear to be a discrepancy compared to the standard “Open Category” rules you are familiar with. The key to understanding this situation lies in the distinction between standard recreational/commercial flying and the regulatory frameworks available to public bodies and specialized operators.
1. The “Open Category” vs. “Specific/Certified” Categories
The CAA document you referenced (CAP2320) governs the “Open Category,” which is designed for low-risk, simple flying where Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) is a fundamental safety requirement.
However, professional operations—including those by police and large infrastructure operators—frequently move into the “Specific” or “Certified” categories. These categories are not bound by the same restrictions as the Open Category. To operate outside of VLOS (known as BVLOS, or Beyond Visual Line of Sight), an operator must:
-
Obtain specific authorisation from the CAA (or hold an Operational Authorisation).
-
Conduct a rigorous SORA (Specific Operations Risk Assessment) or use a Pre-Defined Risk Assessment (PDRA) to demonstrate that they have identified risks and implemented mitigations (such as technical fail-safes, specialized training, and operational procedures) to ensure the flight is as safe as a VLOS operation.
2. Are the British Transport Police (BTP) “Breaking the Law”?
It is highly unlikely they are breaking the law. As a national police force, the BTP operates under a different set of regulatory permissions than a private individual.
-
Public Interest and Statutory Duty: Police forces and government-related entities often have established frameworks with the CAA that allow for “blue light” or emergency operations.
-
Operational Authorisation: Any police force or large entity like Network Rail that operates drones is required to have a dedicated Unmanned Aircraft Operator status with the CAA. They have usually undergone a lengthy certification process that allows them to perform flights that would be illegal for a standard hobbyist pilot.
3. Why aren’t all private operators allowed to do this?
You asked why the BTP/Network Rail gets this exemption while other private operators do not. The distinction is not necessarily about being a “private security service” (though the BTP is a full police force, not a private security firm), but rather about risk management and certification.
-
The Threshold: Any private or commercial drone operator can apply to the CAA for permission to fly BVLOS. However, the application process is extremely demanding. It requires the operator to provide a detailed safety management system, pilot competency records, and evidence of technical reliability.
-
Cost and Complexity: For most small businesses or private operators, the cost of the training, insurance, and the administrative burden of securing a BVLOS waiver is prohibitively expensive. This creates a functional barrier, but it is not a legal prohibition against private enterprise.
Summary of the Situation
The drones you are seeing are almost certainly operating under an Operational Authorisation granted by the CAA for BVLOS flight. This authorization is granted based on the operator’s ability to prove they can manage the risk without human eyes on the drone at all times.
While the “Drone Code” you linked is the “starting point” for most pilots, it is the base layer of a much larger regulatory pyramid. The BTP and Network Rail are operating at the top of that pyramid, where they have invested the resources to prove to the CAA that they can perform these operations safely without infringing on the safety of the national airspace."
CAP3182 is your friend
The same reasoning applies to police response vehicles doing 155mph chasing dudes on the motorway
Technically the BTP are a private force and not a Home Office one. Their bosses are Network Rail and they are funded by the rail operators.
Correct, but their warrant cards are issued by the Home Office.
Not entirely correct … Warrant cards are only issued directly by the Home Office to Immigration Enforcement, Border Force etc.
Territorial force police officer warrant cards are issued by the respective Chief Constable / Commissioner.
1 Like