The 500m max will no longer be applicable, i think its under consultation at present but it will go through for sure if it hasn't already, it will now be AMC - Acceptable Means of Compliance and GM - Guidance Material. The full documentation its a link to a pdf.

This isn't any better or worse, its pretty much always been what you see below, they have just updated the wording, and removed the 500m max.

So more responsibility and less rule?

Montfrooij Posted at 12-7 23:49
So more responsibility and less rule?

Sorry, i forgot an image..

To answer, yes i suppose it does, but a wee spec in the distance will not cut it as shown in the 2nd image.
Although there is a way to tell the orientation even as a wee spec, i don't think that would stand up in caught mind lol

"A RP must be able to determine the aircrafts`s orientation at all times" .....

so VLOS is 100 meter ??   ;-)

cheers
JJB

500m was always so arbitrary as you still had to see if it you could reach 500m,   now you have see it and know which way its orientated.  

JJB* Posted at 12-8 00:48
"A RP must be able to determine the aircrafts`s orientation at all times" .....

so VLOS is 100 meter ??   ;-)

nah, not that close, 110 should be good though....

Simple way to find out the orientation is to not take your eyes off it or to constantly check the radar.

Or, the other way is to fly forward with some left yaw, if the drone flies to the left then you're heading away from you, if it flies to the right then its heading towards you

Bashy Posted at 12-8 00:48
Sorry, i forgot an image..

To answer, yes i suppose it does, but a wee spec in the distance will not cut it as shown in the 2nd image.

Yes exactly.

I was about to start going through that document but you've saved me a lot of time and done it for me!

The arbitrary 500m rule always was stupid.  VLOS is extremely variable.  It could be anything from 800m for a massive drone in clear air to 50m for a tiny drone in mist.

In terms of orientation, i REALLY wish DJI would fit correct colour and angled navigation lights instead of random flashing LEDs.  A proper port/starboard and beacon would allow people to determine orientation far more easily and further.

Lines 69/70 accurately state what most people don't understand about VLOS - its not just about seeing the thing.  Its about 3d spacial awareness around it.

gnirtS Posted at 12-8 04:34
I was about to start going through that document but you've saved me a lot of time and done it for me!

The arbitrary 500m rule always was stupid.  VLOS is extremely variable.  It could be anything from 800m for a massive drone in clear air to 50m for a tiny drone in mist.

should do what Canada has for sub 250g, also BVLOS, or at least below say 50ft, if a manned plane is that low then they have more to worry about than a drone, yeah i know, there are choppers about but how many land in the fields where i fly, zero, i am aware there could be an emergency, but still, zero and the likelihood of it happening is probably 0.001%

Bashy................... would you consider putting together a step-by-step walk through of UK rules, as a guide to UK newbies or UK numpties like me?

I , for one, would be VERY grateful for such a guide and I am fairly certain MANY UK newbies would be too, you seem to know your way through their maze and you are not a Sir Humphrey Appleby.
They "do my head in" when I try to work my way through them which is why this years 'flights' are almost all indoors.

Bashy Posted at 12-8 05:00
should do what Canada has for sub 250g, also BVLOS, or at least below say 50ft, if a manned plane is that low then they have more to worry about than a drone, yeah i know, there are choppers about but how many land in the fields where i fly, zero, i am aware there could be an emergency, but still, zero and the likelihood of it happening is probably 0.001%

Absolutely terrible idea from a safety point of view.
Until drones have decent detect and avoid BVLOS isn't going to happen for very good reasons.

Plenty of reasons for manned and other unmanned aircraft to be operating at low level, sometimes only within a few 10s of feet of an obstacle.

Drones need useful detect and avoid.  Its long overdue.  But that will also need manned aviation compliance with systems as well (not many low level even send ADSB to help with that).

gnirtS Posted at 12-8 05:09
Absolutely terrible idea from a safety point of view.
Until drones have decent detect and avoid BVLOS isn't going to happen for very good reasons.

A bird would do more damage than our minis...

I live right near military bases, not see one of those under 500ft, there's no rail track, no leccy pylons, no roads baring one single track, no reason for a chopper to be under 500ft unless its an emergency.

Where i fly it is just fields, a handful farm buildings (barns etc), the land is 100% flat and i have more chance of winning the lottery than seeing a chopper below 500ft.

Now my village is a different matter, we have had Helimed land in the school field at least once a year on average

Problem is you cant separate out into areas of where stuff "might" happen and turn those into rules.

Plenty of reasons for helicopters to be under 500ft without an emergency as well.  Maybe rare in an area but they could be there so the potential risk exists.

And yes, although a bird may well do more damage its about mitigation the risk where you have the ability to do so.  You cant control birds but can control drones.

I cant see any safety justification at all for BVLOS until detect and avoid exists in the devices.  Same as autonomous flight operations.

I stopped reading after "The 500m max will no longer be applicable".
Thanks, that's good to know  

gnirtS Posted at 12-8 05:56
Problem is you cant separate out into areas of where stuff "might" happen and turn those into rules.

Plenty of reasons for helicopters to be under 500ft without an emergency as well.  Maybe rare in an area but they could be there so the potential risk exists.

Even if there was such a thing as detect and avoid, they would still come up with a reason why BVLOS will not be allowed, well Canada says its ok for sub 250g and lets be fair, how many accidents have involved a drone in what, the last 10 years, yes, i know there has been some but the amount compared to say human error is minimal.

As far as i am aware there have been no aircraft brought down by way of accident with a personal or commercial drone.

As far as i am aware there have been no fatalities brought on by a personal or commercial drone in over what, the past 15 years that DJI has been going?

Many of those flights were BVLOS.

I do not include military drones, that's totally different.

For many of those prior years there were no regulations so to speak, yet still no fatalities, still no manned aircraft brought down by a drone. Mitigation is one thing, taking the plss is another.

Heck, since the regs were brought in, that's when the very few accidents started happening.

A max weight say sub 250g with a limited height, would decrease the range anyway. I mean, its obviously ok for birds and a sub 250g would cause far less damage, i don't see where the issue lies.

MS Posted at 12-8 08:23
I stopped reading after "The 500m max will no longer be applicable".
Thanks, that's good to know

Ah but, whilst is now not applicable, its actually worse, it now means that you cannot fly till its a wee dot in the sky because you have no 3d spatial awareness, i.e. you do not know whats going on around the drone (i beg to differ there mind) and you do not know what direction its heading. Relying on the FPV or Live screen is not allowed. You must be able to do the above without Live view. If you cannot, then your BVLOS.

EDIT; its always been the above but it had a maximum of 500m, this meant folks were taking that literally as furthest they could go regardless of it being a wee dot

Whilst perusing the Annual Safety Review 2021, It looks like there were 40 accidents in the UAS category and 56% were DJI drones (more DJI out there than any other), one was a Matice another was a P4P RTK, both used commercially, I couldn't be asked to go through each and everyone but as far as i could tell many were much larger drones, e.g. one was 79kg.

They go on to say, we have investigated two mid-air collisions, although these involved conventional radio controlled model gliders colliding with light aircraft. One of these occurred above 1,000 feet agl but that was six years ago before the 400 ft maximum height rule was introduced. The other accident occurred in the circuit. In both accidents the light aircraft were able to land safely.

Only 1 serious injury and that was a quadcopter that was flown into an 18 month old baby, i think that one was an FPV if i remember right.

The french reported that a DJI Inspire seriously injured 3 people at a concert.

https://assets.publishing.servic ... ety_Review_2021.pdf

Bashy Posted at 12-8 08:37
Ah but, whilst is now not applicable, its actually worse, it now means that you cannot fly till its a wee dot in the sky because you have no 3d spatial awareness, i.e. you do not know whats going on around the drone (i beg to differ there mind) and you do not know what direction its heading. Relying on the FPV or Live screen is not allowed. You must be able to do the above without Live view. If you cannot, then your BVLOS.

EDIT; its always been the above but it had a maximum of 500m, this meant folks were taking that literally as furthest they could go regardless of it being a wee dot

It never did say "fly until its a dot in the sky".
The full CAP always mentioned spacial awareness.  They've just clarified that now.

Ultimately you're flying a restricted form of VFR so the intent of VLOS always was 3D awareness.

gnirtS Posted at 12-8 09:20
It never did say "fly until its a dot in the sky".
The full CAP always mentioned spacial awareness.  They've just clarified that now.

I know, that's what I have said

Bashy Posted at 12-8 08:37
Ah but, whilst is now not applicable, its actually worse, it now means that you cannot fly till its a wee dot in the sky because you have no 3d spatial awareness, i.e. you do not know whats going on around the drone (i beg to differ there mind) and you do not know what direction its heading. Relying on the FPV or Live screen is not allowed. You must be able to do the above without Live view. If you cannot, then your BVLOS.

EDIT; its always been the above but it had a maximum of 500m, this meant folks were taking that literally as furthest they could go regardless of it being a wee dot

I'm going to ignore that rule... whilst I fly in FFC mode with my Plus battery to deliver a package over the local prison, which is near the airport!
6, 21, 3, 11 the rules

Bashy Posted at 2022-12-8 01:04
nah, not that close, 110 should be good though....

Simple way to find out the orientation is to not take your eyes off it or to constantly check the radar.

Apparently the CAA have clarified that "tweaking" the drone to find out the orientation like you describe here doesn't count.

You have to constantly be able to see the direction even when the drone is "stationary".

Bashy Posted at 2022-12-8 09:02
Whilst perusing the Annual Safety Review 2021, It looks like there were 40 accidents in the UAS category and 56% were DJI drones (more DJI out there than any other), one was a Matice another was a P4P RTK, both used commercially, I couldn't be asked to go through each and everyone but as far as i could tell many were much larger drones, e.g. one was 79kg.

They go on to say, we have investigated two mid-air collisions, although these involved conventional radio controlled model gliders colliding with light aircraft. One of these occurred above 1,000 feet agl but that was six years ago before the 400 ft maximum height rule was introduced. The other accident occurred in the circuit. In both accidents the light aircraft were able to land safely.

It does have to be highlighted that all the accidents and "near-misses" all occurred when the drone pilot was already outside of the existing guidance (often by quite a ridiculous degree).

I'm not convinced that maintaining visual capability to identify orientation is actually something that is going to make things safer. I'm on board with VLOS and spatial awareness rules - but the idea that we need to be able to visually confirm the drone's orientation seems impractical, unnecessary, and may well be counterproductive as we'll see pilots either not complying or running after their drone to maintain that requirement - which means increasing danger to pilots and bystanders.

It also seems daft when the primary guidance of "what to do" when we encounter other aircraft is to descend... so we're not supposed to be maneuvering on the X or Z axis in such circumstances anyway.

AlanFromAbove Posted at 1-1 18:25
Apparently the CAA have clarified that "tweaking" the drone to find out the orientation like you describe here doesn't count.

You have to constantly be able to see the direction even when the drone is "stationary".

Of that i am aware, it was just a guide to find the orientation in the field if you've lost live view.

You are spot on regarding the primary guidance being to descend, therefore, orientation is moot for the most part, its not like you can outrun the manned aircraft by turning and moving away from it.

Having said that, if it means we will be able to carry on flying the Mini's with the freedom we have now, i can live with the clarification.

Sadly i do not think this will be the case come the 1st January 2026, i have a bad feeling about it, i hope i am wrong mind, but it was when the CAA said that they will be looking at the whole of the UAV guidance and classes of UAV that triggered this bad feeling. Only time will tell i suppose.

Bashy Posted at 1-1 19:19
Of that i am aware, it was just a guide to find the orientation in the field if you've lost live view.

You are spot on regarding the primary guidance being to descend, therefore, orientation is moot for the most part, its not like you can outrun the manned aircraft by turning and moving away from it.

"Having said that, if it means we will be able to carry on flying the Mini's with the freedom we have now, i can live with the clarification."

this is what i have been afraid of for some time now....

The Saint Posted at 1-1 19:32
"Having said that, if it means we will be able to carry on flying the Mini's with the freedom we have now, i can live with the clarification."

this is what i have been afraid of for some time now....

Anything given can just as easily be taken away

Bashy Posted at 1-1 19:38
Anything given can just as easily be taken away

understood but i think the rules continue to pile on that we start to accept anything as long as we can keep flying.  how on earth people are starting to become ok with remote id...is beyond me.  

The Saint Posted at 1-1 20:27
understood but i think the rules continue to pile on that we start to accept anything as long as we can keep flying.  how on earth people are starting to become ok with remote id...is beyond me.

The only time I would be ok with RID is if its not possible for the public to view the data

Bashy Posted at 1-1 21:53
The only time I would be ok with RID is if its not possible for the public to view the data

the only time i would be ok with rid is if its not possible for anyone to view the data unless you are flying commercial otherwise everyone else (including law enforcement) would need some sort of legal reason (i.e. reasonable suspicion or probable cause) related to safety.  we already allow you to run the serial/registration number (license plate) for no reason at all, isn't that enough?  i'm not sure how the skies are made safer by broadcasting your data a very short distance in the wide open.

Bashy Posted at 1-1 21:53
The only time I would be ok with RID is if its not possible for the public to view the data

This.
I can see the need for a legal entity to see it (but they already have that via Aeroscope etc) but i see no benefit at all to everyone within range being able to see it.

Most do not need to know, it introduces safety and privacy issues on top of that.  Its literally none of their business at all.