Redefining Visual Line of Sight VLOS for Drones: How Tech is Changing the Rules

[@xjet]

Recreational multirotor drone use has proven over more than a decade, to be *_the safest_* form of aviation... *_EVER_* despite what was, for many years, relatively light regulation. The fact is that our craft are intrinsically far safer than *any* manned aircraft and pose almost zero risk to manned aircraft therefore it's time we acknowledged that they are extremely over-regulated. With a ZERO death-toll associated with the recreational use of multirotor drones, manned aviation can only aspire to come close to our record of safety yet we're constantly being told that *WE* are a danger to property, man and beast. Regulators need to wake up to reality.

[@johnbritton2746]

When will you realise it's all about getting you out of the air space, it has nothing to do with safety

[@jimmollison7608]

You have a valid point. Unfortunately there are idiots that are irresponsible and screwed us.

[@alexmcmeekin2658]

Agreed! Like that idiot prosecuted recently for flying at over 12,000 feet! unfortunately whilst everyone else can behave absolutely responsibly one person doing that creates a massive headline that the general public can't really get the nuances of.

[@petermainwaringsx]

There has been a quantum jump in the technology we now have in drones compared to what we had just a few years ago, and those advances call for an update of the rules. Brief and to the point Robert.

[@WindsweptRobert]

I've been advocating for a change in VLOS rules for a couple of years now. It'll come - one day! ;)

[@CRIMSONTYPHOON_YT]

​@@WindsweptRobert just a thought, so wouldnt the air 3 and mini 4 pro be a good example as you are able to see the drones surroundings with the obstacle sensor cameras, so while you see with the main gimbal camera you can also see behind/sides at the bottom left of the screen

[@simonelliott5956]

Whilst I totally agree with you, take for instance the Highway Code. The information on braking distances has not changed since the days of Ford Anglias and cars with no ABS. So it’s going to be more about whether they want it to change rather than if it should given the advances in technology.

[@WindsweptRobert]

Braking technology may have improved, but human reaction time hasn't. So I don't think this is a similar case :)

[@McCadebountyhunter]

Yeah I’d agree! The Highway Code was first published way back in 1931 so it’s almost 100 years old! Tyres are better now, brakes are better and road surfaces are better! Modern car stop in about half the distance! But they’re still the stopping distances that learner drivers are expected to know! I just hope the CAA aren’t as behind and backward thinking as the DVSA! But to be honest. Does anyone actually stick to VLOS? Asking for a friend!😊

[@simonelliott5956]

@@WindsweptRobert human reaction time is the same, but I guarantee that a modern car will still stop in a shorter distance even allowing for reaction time which they quote as 12 meters at 50mph. Coming back to the drone thing, I’ve pretty much taken a year out from flying, as I had to take time off to look after my father who has now passed away, but also busy with work. I’ve come back and despite having done an A2 CofC, I feel it’s all changed, don’t even know where to start to bring myself up to date!

[@craig199]

There are portable USB plane trackers now. DJI has built in Aircraft notification so yeah you are right

[@WindsweptRobert]

Aye, you make a good point. With the addition of a warning to the operator of any other aircraft in the area, this MUST call for an update to the regulations

[@autisticdrone.]

If VLOS was about safety, why are the police and possibly delivery companies exempt from these regulations and can go BVLOS ? , Maybe The CAA just want our money for the operator ID, which keeps going up in price each year, we are just cash cows. 👍

[@ptaylor5014]

I never give them my money, simple!

[@SkyHighAerialDronePhotography]

Totally agree the Rules and regulations should be changed.

[@Garry-oi7cg]

Hi WS Robert I think flying beyond VLOS should be allowed within reason for sub 250 gram drones at least. Not exceeding 120 mtrs is the important bit. As you say you can monitor airspace in the vicinity of your drone even if you have just lost site of it. I personally do maintain VLOS when flying. However to be allowed to go beyond that with the fantastic technology that drones have now would be fantastic. I would never want to put other aircraft at risk but I think some relaxation could be considered. Enjoyed your content. 👍

[@TheCNCDen]

TBH the weight at the lower end of the scale could do with an upgrade too, an extra 50g taking it to 299g for the entry level could make longer batteries and slightly more powerful motors possible, both very noticable in what has been a milder, windier summer!

[@composedlight6850]

even 275 grams would make a big diiferance

[@WindsweptRobert]

Great point!

[@conorstewart2214]

More weight would always be better but no matter how high they set the limit people will keep wanting it increased. You should look into getting your A2 CofC, it lets you fly drones up to 500 g as if they were sub 250 g with the only exception being that you can’t intentionally fly over people but it removes all minimum horizontal distances.

[@TheCNCDen]

@@conorstewart2214 I have the A2 CoC it;s is not the answer.

[@gerardmcglinchey5779]

Your looking in great health Robert

[@conorstewart2214]

Hello Robert, would you mind doing a video on this military training operation that is making either a big warning or no fly zone right over the middle of Scotland for over two weeks please? I just noticed it on drone assist a few days ago and it is labelled as a large helicopter operation between 0 and 5000 ft with helicopters coming below 600 ft without lights. If you go on drone assist (and presumably other maps) you can’t miss it.

[@philpayne5801]

Once the tech has advanced to the point where we can see all around the drone from the drones perspective then surely we would not have the VLOS restriction. After looking at a lot of drone videos I would say that most, (not all) pilots have not adhered to the VLOS rule, some would argue that in order to make an aerial video, it could be planned and flown in stages from different vantage points, but then this would not create a seamless video. I would agree with an earlier comment concerning braking distances and the advancement in technology with cars, let’s face it when the automobile was invented, you had to have a guy with a red flag walk in front of the vehicle. But I digress, just a thought, would it be pilot error if a bird strike caused the drone to fall and cause injury to someone walking in the area ? How would VLOS stop that from happening? Keep the videos coming Robert old son

[@conorstewart2214]

Drone laws should already prevent your situation from happening with any real severity. If the drone is above 250 g then it should be at least 50 m from people (further if you are higher) and 150 m from buildings at all times. If it is less than 250 g then it can fly close to people and could still cause damage but hopefully not as much. If you have an A2 CofC then you can fly drones up to 500 g close to people but not directly above them. Birds do attack drones and whether it is pilot error or not would depend on the circumstances. If you know there are birds going for your drone and you continue to fly over people then it would be pilot error but if it is just sudden and you have no time to react then it is just an accident.

[@olsonspeed]

A very rational argument to change the rules, unfortunately the widespread weaponizing of drones by the military will overshadow any recreational use.

[@aloeisthestuff9622]

Silly Robert, The Gov taketh away. The Gov Never giveth back anything.

[@graphguy]

I suppose there are certain situation might have made sense in the past, but it has always been draconian in wide open spaces.

[@conorstewart2214]

Even without head tracking you could make very good arguments about why flying BVLOS should be allowed but they don’t matter to the CAA. For example, if I am flying down a valley from a high vantage point, I may not be able to see the drone anymore, but I can see everything around the drone through the drones camera and with my own eyes or with a spotter I know roughly where the drone is and can be 100 % sure there are no aircraft anywhere near the drone because even though I can’t see the drone itself I can see the area the drone is in and could easily see any other aircraft both with my own eyes and with the drone camera. Drones have long been passed the point where we need to physically see them to safely fly them, just being able to see that their are no aircraft in the area is enough now but the CAA haven’t changed the regulations to keep up with technology. At least with them granting permissions for some BVLOS flights for companies for inspections or similar that may eventually trickle down to us.

[@questionableabsanity]

I think it will be a matter of qualification and certification. Being able to demonstrate that you have the piloting skills to fly FPV, and the knowledge to be able to assess/monitor your flight area, and in some cases limit your flight (below 20m for example) and/or inform other users of your activity (RF signal and/or inform local airspace controllers via a flight plan). I don't know! I'm just an abseiler!!!

[@WindsweptRobert]

Changes - whatever they may be - need to happen to reflect the fast-changing tech :)

[@6panel300]

The regulations need change with technolgy, as most of the regs are quite new because of the introduction of drones. So as the technology evolves so must the rules. It does puzzle me though that the FAA and CAA have almost exactly the same rules.

[@dogswhistlesharam9029]

Also With remote I.D. Surely other aircraft will also know where your drone is and would fly to avoid it? And if all aircraft are not fitted with remote I.D. What’s the point of some countries requiring and enforcing it? 🤔🤔😳🤔

[@johnburns5783]

I’m not sure about RID, only ADSB alerts other aircraft that your aircraft is in the vIcinity ?

[@conorstewart2214]

Other aircraft use other systems for tracking and identification and sometimes don’t have any at all. Some very inconsiderate anti drone air users are very much against wearing any form of electronic identification and they would be the paragliders and paramotor enthusiasts who claim that any system that would pretty much be remote ID would be too bulky and difficult to attach to their bodies or rigs yet complain about how hard it is for them to see drones or for drones to see them.

[@marekdomanskimovies5392]

ONE maximum of TWO serious accidents with drones and regulations will be even more tight. That's what I think.

[@CousinSchultz]

The way the drone laws and regulations work in the USA - Whichever lobbyist, firm, or organization offers the largest set of kickback to legislators over the longest period of time determines future drone laws and regulations. ie: Skydio and the Chinese drone ban language found within both versions of the (currently proposed) 2025 NDAA.

[@GerardGrace-b4z]

I’m chill. Only giving a view of my thoughts on VLOS

[@CRIMSONTYPHOON_YT]

sure thing bud, watever you say

[@nigeburt6040]

Hi ya great video i just got neo and not entirley sure how visual line of sight affects that ive got avata 2 n mini pro 4 so can use those remotes ive got the googles 3 n motion controller 3 but as its 135g drone do i really need a spotter i see other vids online n they are flying pretty much anywhere lol arnd people n allsorts great little drone ive not taken it outside yebut cant wait to do so. Its a great little all rounder it seems are u thinking of getting one

[@conorstewart2214]

If you can’t see the drone with your own eyes then you need a spotter regardless of the weight. You should know this since it is part of the information you are supposed to know before you take the test for your flyer and operator ID which you legally need to have for all three drones since they have cameras, the only drones that you don’t need a flyer ID for are drones under 250 g without cameras, which they class as “toy” drones. You can fly drones less than 250 g around people and buildings but you still can’t fly them in no fly zones and you cannot distract cars or put any people, vehicles or aircraft in danger. If you fly the neo with the goggles then you need a spotter and the spotter needs to be stood beside you and able to talk to you and they need to be able to see the drone at all times, if you don’t use the goggles then you need to be able to see the drone at all times. Of course all of what I have said is just what you need to do legally, what you actually do is up to you.

[@davannaleah]

Most of the time, if you can't actually 'see' the drone but you know where it is. If you can 'see' that there is just open sky all around that area, I think you're pretty safe.

[@conorstewart2214]

Exactly. If the concern is other aircraft then you don’t need to see the drone itself you just need to know roughly where it is and to be able to see that there is nothing around it and you can manage that from a pretty long distance away. The only concern then would be fast moving aircraft but if they respected the minimum altitude they were allowed to fly at and we respected our maximum altitude then we wouldn’t have any problems. I do sometimes wonder if the RAF do go below 120 m even though I am not in a no fly or warning zone.

[@vince-n]

How do you explain the solution to microlight, paraglider, police and ambulance heli pilots? This is why BVLOS requires a tighter control.

[@conorstewart2214]

Micro lights and paragliders can just deal with it, they in general are very anti drone and refuse to cooperate and refuse to even use the equivalent of a remote ID system. Until they decide to be more responsible and reasonable then their opinions shouldn’t matter, it is literally their bodies flying on small aircraft and they are complaining about drones yet they refuse to take any steps to make it safer for everyone. Micro lights and paragliders are for the most part flying recreationally too, why should they get to and we shouldn’t just so that they can feel safer? As for police and ambulance pilots there are a few solutions, a few would be to make anyone flying BVLOS carry a radio and log all flights on drone assist or similar and make them use remote ID. It has already been said by Geeksvana that the RAF sometimes unofficially check drone assist to check for drone flights and are trying to get official procedures put in place rather than the current procedure of having to phone them up and tell them where you are flying. Something similar should be doable for the police and ambulance services and could be handled by the dispatchers/ATC. A radio isn’t a bad idea either, have the pilots call out on the radio before they descend or have an online alert system.

[@vince-n]

@@conorstewart2214 manned aircraft have priority

[@flyingpinkpig]

I can see where you're coming from Robert but the problem is if you give people an inch some will take a mile. A part of me feels the CAA should consider the advancement in drone technology and offer some slack re VLOS. But the other part feels that some will abuse that offer take advantage and fly that mile, literally!

[@misterskippy2u]

IMO, the people who would abuse relaxed regulations are ALREADY flying outside of the established regs. They just don't care. They'll cause a problem which introduces more regulations for those of us who actually follow the rules, while they continue on doing whatever they feel like doing.

[@GerardGrace-b4z]

I’m obviously misunderstanding this, I never heard the BVLOS mentioned. I don’t think Robert is talking about BVLOS. Maybe he should explain exactly how this heads up thing works. Also, you won’t see the drone coordinations as required by VLOS.

[@PhantomandtheDrone]

we are all thinking in terms of technology and other human made airspace users...but that isn't the full picture here. what about birds? when flying vlos you have a better chance of seeing a possible bird strike and trying to avoid it....we only have to lose one prop and its game over. How many of you would be willing to accept the risk? or be willing to pay the extra liability insurance?

[@Partimepeasant]

FAA and common sense ?

[@liamprincetech]

A couple of thoughts on this video (ahem) You make some very interesting and insightful observations into the development of technology, including head tracking, all of which works...until it doesn't... At the moment the technology is great but also fairly well known for not functioning 100% of the time. This requirement for high percentage reliability would probably be a high priority for the CAA or FAA to consider any kind of changes to their rules. AI technology is not nearly close enough to that level of "9's" (the number of 9's after 99.x%) of reliability (yet) to be a complete substitute for the human eyes and brain, but maybe a few years down the road we might get there. At the moment, the only way the CAA apparently believes we can minimise the risks in the way that VLOS attempts to (as close to 100% as possible) is to rely on human eyesight still. If that fails, you arguably shouldn't be in charge of a drone anyway, so I can see their point. If drone manufacturers can demonstrate, over time, that a system or systems developed to be more reliable that human eyesight and judgement in relation to managing risk and control in airspace work, then that changes things. I do agree, though, that we are definitely at a stage of technological advancement with drones that it looks inevitable that once the (currently) newer technologies have had time to prove their continuous / long-term reliability and "bed in" to everyday use, the rules around VLOS will be changed or relaxed. I just don't think we're quite there yet in terms of track record. The biggest challenge is going to be that being able to see the airspace around the drone when it is BVLOS in relation to the operator. In order for that to be allowed, I would imagine the CAA must be absolutely convinced that the transmission of that data between the drone and yourself, as well as the ability for the drone to continually and flawlessly collect, process and relay that data is highly likely to be unimpeded (again to a high degree of 9's) ... which with current technology (especially with data transmission methods) is still not guaranteed. Unfortunately our radio transmission spectrum is already crowded with signals competing for bandwidth as it is, especially within the areas used for drone operation currently (and this is only going to become more and more of an issue until someone develops a different way of transmitting data) so interference from that, but more so physical objects such as buildings/landscape etc, will always pose a significant challenge to providing that level of continuous reliability. Whilst the number of times signal loss occurs may be reduced with current tech, they're by no means completely eliminated. Being able to see the airspace around a drone BVLOS relies on that data being instantaneously available on a second by second basis and reliable. Taking those factors into account, then, I'd wager the CAA will start by making it possible to fly BVLOS for a wider number of people with a slightly lower tiered extra level of training - e.g. a gradual relaxation of the current methods of gaining permission to fly BVLOS being filtered down to those who have the more modern drones with higher reliability providing they can pass a certain benchmark of competency perhaps slightly less exacting and enshrouded in red tape than currently exists. I imagine it will be years yet before the every day operator with a flyer ID and an Operator ID will be permitted to fly BVLOS on an open classification... but it will probably happen. Lastly (nit-picking, maybe) the text from the thumbnail for this video "VLOS is no longer required" ... is not the truth in any form at all from the current legal system. "Is VLOS necessary any more?" would be closer.

[@conorstewart2214]

Your argument makes sense to a point but falls apart since drone manufacturers started using the same frequencies and antennae for both video and control signals, so when you lose video you lose the control signal too. Your point about track record doesn’t make much sense either unless you know something I don’t, drones in general don’t have a bad track record of causing accidents or losing control and causing accidents, there are very few cases of accidents with any actual consequences.

[@craigneukcelt]

It seems unfair that drone pilots need to use vlos for light/ultralight drones whereas pilots of aircraft carrying hundreds of people use fly-by-wire technology for take-off and landing. It's not like they can possibly use vlos when flying through clouds or thick fog.

[@thezanzibarbarian5729]

Unfortunately technology and the law to not run hand in hand. Cars, for instance, are way safer than they were even just 30 years ago. They have ABS and now stop so quickly, it's quite surprising. And a lot now have automatic braking systems for those times when something runs out in front of the car, that even the drivers cannot react in time to stop. But the car will. But then a lot of these councils are now imposing flat 20 mph speed limits across towns and villages and in the UK. 🤔😲🤷‍♂

[@ianjackson8643]

A lot of conventional civil aviation aircraft don’t have a 360 degree field of view so why the requirement for drone to have if it was a a purely safety requirement then hardly any civilian planes will pass the requirement for flight regulations if you can try to visit a local airfield and film the field of view from a range of aircraft then try the same with a passenger aircraft the have a very limited field of view nowhere near the same as required for a drone theoretically the same regulation should apply to passenger planes as the risk of serious accidents occurring is much greater good luck flying to Spain on your holidays if your aircraft has to be in visual line of sight at all times

[@conorstewart2214]

Also all other aircraft other than emergency helicopters and paragliders shouldn’t be coming lower than 120 m anyway and if it is a crash landing plane then they have bigger problems to worry about than my drone if I could even get it out of the way in time within LOS. As for paragliders they are anti drone in general and refuse to wear a version of a remote ID system (they come up with nonsense excuses like that it would be too bulky), they complain about drones making them unsafe but refuse to do anything to make it more safe. They almost exclusively do it recreationally so I don’t understand why they should get priority over drone users who often do commercially. So the only aircraft we should have to look out for are helicopters which are noisy and paragliders. You don’t need to see the drone to be able to see that there are no other aircraft around it.

[@ChristiaanLowe]

Can't see it ever being safe, think about WW2 pilots in a dog fight, even they could get a surprise approaching aircraft, from above, below, behind. Even if you could look around, there is always going to be everywhere you're not looking that an aircraft can approach from. VLOS means you can see all around your drone, therfore never have a surprise aircraft approach causing an accident. It's about drone pilots with tiny drones keeping out the way of large aircraft to make it safe for them to carry on flying. If our drones were the size of a helicopter then approaching aircraft could avoid you, but they are flying dots to aircraft.

[@conorstewart2214]

There shouldn’t be other aircraft flying at the altitudes that we are allowed to fly drones at other than emergency services. Birds are also flying dots to aircraft.

[@buddyadkins2432]

First point, even with head tracking, the field of vision is much narrower than normal vision as there is NO peripheral vision in a headset, which is also 2D and not 3D so depth perception is not accurate. It might be better, however, there is still a lot that simply can NOT be seen at any "head" position. Period. Just having the headtracking gear, doesn't mean that the vision is automatically improved. Second point, without goggles, the head tracking is almost useless anyway. Trying to use head tracking without goggles is really not very practical. Third point, very few drone pilots have head tracking on their drones. Those who fly what is known as FPV have the camera's in a fixed position. Fourth, in the USA, the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act does have language for more relaxed VLOS restrictions if the pilot has a Part 107 license and a functional remote ID. Not for recreational pilots. This new law is in effect for the next 5 years. That said, it is not and should not be technology that drives the laws, but rather the wants and desires of the people. There are 331 million people in the USA and maybe 2 or 3 million drone pilots. It the question was placed on a national ballot for all to vote on, how do you think that it go? The majority of people do not really care for drones.

[@johnburns5783]

Ach, the CAA are only allowing BVLOS if ye pay them a lot o money. I wonder how much these companies that are trialling delivery services etc, are paying them ? Money counts these days 😉😉

[@Society.x.]

VLOS will remain & other laws & rules are due to be implemented due to the behaviour of a few. VLOS is there for major safety reasons & will never be removed no matter how much you whinge. The CAA are holding the cards not a you tube channel

[@GerardGrace-b4z]

Totally disagree, VLOS is 100% for safety, your idea is not safe

[@WindsweptRobert]

It's your right to disagree. Even when you're wrong :)

[@Pure-Crystal-Fire]

@@WindsweptRobert When will people when they don't agree ...learn the art to disagree agreeably . Thats a far more suitable way to disagree,when its really impossible to agree to dissagree anyway ! My little bit of wisdom for the day ! God bless you Robert 🙂

[@liamprincetech]

@@WindsweptRobert It's your right to have an opinion, even when it stinks, I guess is the reply to that one. Play nicely.

[@CousinSchultz]

@@WindsweptRobert Yup, like my Grandfather used to say...everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion.

[@conorstewart2214]

What is so unsafe about it then? What is so unsafe about BVLOS?

[@Shteev91]

The technology doesn't allow you to ha e a 360 view around the aircraft at all times, unlike your own eyes. Youd be whipping your head all over the place making the actual flight recording pointless if you were to constsntly be checking the surrou ding airspace. Maybe a mandatory check every 30 seconds or somethi g would need to be put in place. Not practical though either.

[@GerardGrace-b4z]

You’re the one that’s wrong. You appear to be a contradictory person when it comes to CAA rules and regulations. Your flying in the Doon Valley, Irvine, Muirkirk etc in your videos, apparently cover some distance at times. One would question your VLOS. Knowing these areas are used for military low flying would suggest safety is in question without VLOS

[@CRIMSONTYPHOON_YT]

chill

[@liamprincetech]

@@CRIMSONTYPHOON_YT Shh

[@CRIMSONTYPHOON_YT]

@@liamprincetech Shh

[@thomastobin9602]

Robert wàtch all your videos.just to Say drone and controller on shelf in background light in background could cause fire due to heat from light just thinking of your safety

[@WindsweptRobert]

It's an LED light - generates no heat. But thanks for watching out for me :)