If, according to the CAA…
…as it is possible it may fail, why are ANY aircraft allowed to fly, as they are stuffed full of things which could fail ?
Sadly ximi, not everyone has someone to act as an observer. I could ask my wife, but she wouldn’t know what she was looking at. There’s nothing in the regs about whether observers, should know what they are observing. In my mind, there would be nothing more annoying than someone standing next to me telling me where my drone was, what way, they think it’s pointing, what direction they think it’s headed etc. I’ve said before, the CAA should start trusting the technology we have at our fingertips. After all most civilian aircraft flown by real pilots, are crammed full of technology. How far in front of an A330 do you think the pilot can see another aircraft, when both aircraft are travelling at 500 kts? ( yes I know they also have radar and anti collision radar and we don’t, but we’re not piloting drones at 500 kts ) My point is the CAA trust the technology used in civilian aircraft, but not ( it seems) built into drones. ( mind you, I have noticed, when passenger aircraft are involved in accidents, it always seem to be attributed to pilot error)
I went for a flight today while the weather allowed. I lost VLOS despite not being very far away, another member of the public had asked me about the drone and wanted to see the screen as they are thinking about getting one. I know it’s capabilities so I wasn’t concerned that I had lost sight, I knew roughly where she was and the screen confirmed that. I know the area very well and there was no vehicular or pedestrian traffic to be concerned about. 20mph winds, flying over a very swollen River Tay and she was as solid as a rock (as I know from experience she would be), I flew around a little and manouvered to get some photos, all the time the guy was watching, fascinated. I broke VLOS rules I guess? But was I in control? Yes! At all times I was aware of the drones surroundings, battery life, GPS lock, RC signal, I used common sense and judgement. Just like we all should. I’ll continue to fly the way I fly, and I’ll continue to make and adjust/adapt risk assessments as I go along. If things look sketchy then it’s time to abort flight, either manually or by hitting RTH. I don’t need an observer, my small brain has enough computing power to sort things out for me. If I end up in court? Well that will be because I fucked up, and I’ll take responsibilty for it. But with the way I operate the chances are very slim indeed.
Bit unfair with modern technology that we cannot rely on GPS and our screens a little bit more, wonder how Airport Towers and Airtraffic control will manage once they lose sight of their birds? (tongue in cheek)
It looks like we all have very different capabilities. I think I have excellent long range vision ( but need glasses for the screen!), but I can’t honestly say I can identify the mini 2’s orientation beyond 100m. It’s a different matter with the mavic pro.
1 Like
I can definitely orientate the Mini 3 a good bit further away than I could the Mini 2 - pretty sure it’s because of the way it hangs in the air (as I said, arse-down).
I do also wonder how much of it comes down to the one-working-eye thing. I don’t have depth perception, so have spent my whole life judging distances based on the shapes and sizes of things. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn’t. Who knows?
But yeah, like you say, we all have different capabilities. Probably one of the reasons why they decided to stop specifically mentioning 500m in the description of VLOS. 
I was talking to another drone flyer the other day about VLOS and drone orientation, and he said seeing which way his drone is facing doesn’t matter to him as he flies his drone in headless mode. Thinking about it he is right, in headless mode it doesn’t matter which way the drone is facing as long as you can see it.
1 Like
Watched the Geeksvana live stream tonight. Wish I lived in New Zealand, where the rules for sub 250gms are, You shall not fly over people. You shall not endanger people or property. The chap from New Zealand talked nothing but commonsense. Talked a lot about the need for less rules ( that people actually understand ) instead of the route the CAA seem to be going down ( trying to micro manage drone flyers)
Very interesting when they brought up the subject of accidents/near misses etc and the RPAS survey. A lot of assumptions were made by RPAS when they compiled the results of the survey ( none of which could be proved)
1 Like
Well said and 100% agree. And this is the crux of the problem.
Drone regulation in the UK is not moving with the times. Looking at the car industry for example, self driving cars have been a thing for a decade now, and in use on road networks around the globe. These cars have an enormous amount of telemetry and self-awareness that allow it to “take control” on behalf of the passenger - whilst ensuring 100% safety in and outside of the vehicle.
Furthermore, since 2019, visually impaired and blind people are permitted to use self driving cars in the US. If the technology was ever in doubt, how could this be allowed? Obviously, these people have zero VLOS, and rely solely on the devices technology to keep it and everyone and thing around it to remain safe.
This technology is “trusted” by regulators in many places (e.g. US), but not yet in the UK (by DfT), we have to wait until 2025 for our regulators to catch up. I can only hope that the same “level of trust” is given to UAVs too. Where finally, we will able to not just “make use” of the technology, but to trust and rely on it without the need these for these over-complex and outdated behaviours (such as VLOS) that are (apparently) necessary to ensure safety.
At the point where we’re citing imperfect (and fatal) self-driving vehicle technology and America’s lethal motoring legislation as reasons why we should relax the rules on flying drones in the UK we’ve well and truly jumped the shark on this topic.
I can no longer tell which of the comments about VLOS are genuine and which are sarcasm, and for that reason…
I would say that not allowing vision impaired people to use drones might be discrimination if technology exists. Not all are blind and should be able to enjoy the same as anyone else.
Afterall the CAA allow blind people to fly planes.
The same allowances must surely exist.
1 Like
Ergo should we let vision impaired people drive Teslas ?
1 Like
After reading my original statement I should have been more descriptive. My argument is that such rules have at no time prevented injury, damage to property, or loss of life. In fact in the history of recreational drones there have never been any credible reports of such incidences. In Richards case the worst that happened was he ended up with a long walk of shame. Sure there’s plenty of “Should have”, “Could have”, “Would have”, but nothing happened, and the chances of something happening was infinitesimal. We accept greater risks in our everyday lives. There’s pedestrian fatalities everyday, but no laws to say that a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at speed has to maintain a 50m distance from uninvolved people. We happily accept the risk that leaving the house on any given day maybe our last. Even full size aircraft are permitted to fly closer to uninvolved people than our little plastic toys, as witnessed at LBA as the runway stretches over the A658, the main trunk route between Bradford and Harrogate.
I maintain that if the rules were in place for valid safety and security reasons there would not be so many of them. I’ve been flying models for nearly 20 years in one form or another. In that time I have broken many of the rules we currently have in place. However I have never presented a danger to anyone or anything else. Prior to going airborne I have two simple criteria:
- Can I complete the flight safely?
- In the likely-hood of something going wrong do I have a contingency plan?
If I can’t answer yes to both then the flight doesn’t take place.
Would I fly a 2kg SUAV BVLOS over a built up area??? NO!
Would I fly the same SUAV BVLOS over remote fields??? Probably, as I would have first planned the route so as not to fly over anything I could pose a risk to, and the altitude I would be flying at would be significantly lower than the restrictions imposed on GA for that area. I’m permitted to fly VLOS at an altitude of up to 1000ft, my BVLOS flights rarely exceed 100ft. Which of the two would you say poses the greater risk to those on the ground and those in the air?
That one I’d say.
Edit : or both have potential risks really, now I’ve thought about it,
plus I didn’t read all the above so I’ll stay 
on this, sorry for butting in.
Citing?
“to officially name or mention someone or something in a law court, or to officially request someone to appear in a court of law” [Cambridge Dictionary]
Erm, no. I am just comparing the ‘adoption of technology and legislation’. That is all 
I.e. some context.
When it comes to adoption of technology, updating UK legislation is notoriously slow. If that is “jumping the shark” then fine. I must have truly lost the plot.
See, I genuinely don’t know when it’s sarcasm or not… that’s the third of four definitions in the Cambridge dictionary, and the first is clearly the one I was intending:
I’m definitely out now, away to do a range test with my mini 3 in the driving snow along the M80. Nobody has been injured by that yet so it’s guaranteed 100% safe.
2 Likes
That’s more like it. Let us know how you get on 
Don’t forget to log a flight report on Dronescene
Does this picture “cite” proof of aircraft being endangered by a drone at 30,000ft? Clearly a photoshop for the uneducated and gellable… 
Taken off CAA RPAS Safety Reporting Project (CAP2356) Page 24
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAA%20RPAS%20Safety%20Reporting%20Project%20(CAP2356).pdf
Mike @Airlessmean was none too happy about that yesterday either.
2 Likes