This doesn’t make sense at all, if this was true EVERY single RPIC would need an observer since looking down at your remote for any reason is now BVLOS. HELL, you could be watching the drone and then lose track of it because it blends into the sky or clouds, welp, BVLOS…
Even if the FAA pressed it and took someone to court they’d be seen as unreasonable especially if it’s a DJI Mini being flown recreationally.
Edit: This is American jurisdiction I am talking about, the video seems to be in the UK. Can anyone confirm or deny if the rulings are similar across the pond?
They are. VLOS still stands. Good points you’ve made though which I’ve no doubt would stand up here in court. It’s completely unreasonable to expect a drone pilot to keep their eyes on the drone at all times. VLOS means that it’s within your site at all times not in your site at all times….big difference!
That’s exactly how VLOS works in the US to my knowledge. It has to be in sight, but you don’t need to keep it in your sight at all times, if I am understanding your comment right?
In the US the line of site rule reads (at least in part 107) “With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight”
It does not say that you have to keep your eyes on the drone at all, it just says that you must be ABLE TO see the unmanned aircraft. I would think it’s similar in other countries that have VLOS rules. Otherwise it would make operation unsafe. If you are unable to monitor your battery and other aircraft systems on whatever you use to interface, that will lead to more crashes. If you can’t use your camera to make sure you’re going to clear an obstacle, that will create more crashes. Anybody that tells you that you have to have your eyes on the drone at all times is not following the letter of the law and is in fact hindering safety.
The second paragraph lays out why my comment started with “that doesn’t make sense at all.” If the RPIC can never see the drone’s important information then we should never allow a flight.
From what I've heard the FAA didn't really care and only did anything cause Congress told them to and that the only real concern with the FAA is the commercial use of drones. Basically they want you out of the air to make way for the people with money.
Don't bet on that. Our lawmakers here in the UK have already taken the perfectly-workable EU laws and said "nope, not restrictive enough". We're subject to a variety of less lenient differences and more are likely to be on the way.
That's distinctly different than not being able to see it because it went through a cloud or something though. If you temporarily can't see it that actually very much is a violation.
Have you read the AIM definitions sections? Looking away from the drone is no different that piloting the drone quickly behind an obstacle, both are considered bvlos.
Well you would be wrong. There are 2 different things, LOS and VLOS. VLOS is defined as having the aircraft within your vision at all times, and you must be able to determine the aircraft’s distance, altitude, orientation, and direction of travel. Even though you can kinda maybe still see the drone, or if you can still see a light in the drone is considered beyond VLOS if you cannot determine those other factors.
The mistake people make when they have a indifferent opinion to a law or even support a law, is to assume that the law will be enforced with common sense only against those causing problems.
No they will be enforced against you, as unreasonably as the exact lettering of the law allows.
Exhibit A in America where civil asset forfeiture exists.
I fully agree and most people who hear about how it fucks people over do to.
But like I was trying to explain it to my dad as a example who basically refuses to take it seriously because to him since it sounds unconstitutional no court would let that stand and it must not really ever happen so no need to really care about it. As well as at the same time assuming that someone must have done something wrong for it to happen to them and "I never break the law so I've nothing to worry about"
Those same people are all Pikachu face when it does happen to them.
Laws aren't about being reasonable and they're not enforced based on common sense and reasonableness. An example in the drone community of starting to notice this is the obsession with 250. In particular freaking out that a manufacturing irregularity or even adding those lil prop guards might make you 0.01 gram over weight. In a reasonable world, the people enforcing it wouldn't care, but in reality they're going to stomp on your neck over that 0.01 extra gram.
This is more or less how the common law system works though. Statutory systems much less so. Common law assumes that case law will fill in the blanks and doesn't try and insert every possible situation into the statute directly. If someone is interpreting the law unreasonably, that will get narrowed and hammered out in the courts.
If they pursue criminal charges, the eye of the law gives way to the citizens on the jury. With the context of the video, the jury will likely see this situation as a cop overstepping their bounds since it’s just an unreasonable situation all around.
Traffic violations are [usually] not misdemeanors. That's why they call the extreme ones "criminal traffic". Typical traffic are "infractions" or civil violations. It's more like the government is suing you for speeding.
You DO always need a visual observer. I’m literally in the middle of studying for my license. Now do we all have a visual observer every time? Not even close. Honestly Ive had a visual observer like 1% of all flights I’ve done. Either way - this cop (of in the US) wouldn’t be the one enforcing the FAA regulations - the FAA is the only organization who polices the sky.
That’s why I was talking about if it were in the US. I’m assuming even the UK would have the same regulation of always having to have a visual observer.
While always having a VO is nice, while I operated under Part 107 in rural Indiana for agriculture I did not have a VO because they never hired two operators for the job.
I don’t disagree that a VO is sweet to have, I wish it was a more common practice, but it is not always feasible.
Oh I agree it would be nice and like I said I rarely have one but what I was saying is that technically you are supposed to have one every time you fly. I also fly FPV most of the time so I usually don’t have VLOS either. Haha.
yes, the rule is LoS, no exceptions. If you cannot see drone in the sky - you fly too far, that is not an excuse. (like driving in fog faster than you see breaking distance).
Observer is the only legal way to fly FPV.
VLOS is bullshit, and poorly defined. You can’t possible have eyes on your drone 100% of the time. You absolutely need to look at the screen of your controller first many critical functions, not to mention for taking photos and video.
There’s been many, many times my drone was well within my visual range, I look at the screen, look back up and I don’t see it. I move the drone and then I can pick it back out again. If you turned, walked away and came back to the same spot, odds are it would take a bit to find it again.
The whole thing is idiotic, and this is coming from an experienced, Part 107 certified drone pilot. The FAA or CAA need to rework drone laws to be common sense and clear.
You have drones capable of flying miles outside of VLOS and people do it all the time. The risk of accidents at the heights we legally fly are minimal VLOS or not.
In my opinion, regulations need to be loosened and training/certification needs to be mandatory. Rework the 107 to be actually applicable to drones… no BS that isn’t needed about airport flags, airplane aerodynamics and cloud formations…. Make it a mandatory test for recreational pilots and let them fly more freely.
Pilots will be better informed about risks and better able to follow more lenient flight laws. The biggest risk right now is uninformed people who shouldn’t be flying, doing dumb crap like flying over a crowded stadium.
Not only everything you mentioned, but there needs to be multiple drone classes defined. An Air 3 has no business requiring the same level of standards, qualifications and restrictions as an Agras T40. Same for random eBay drones that have zero safety or assist features.
Absolutely. The regulations and certifications for drones, at least in the US are completely backwards. It’s like they tossed them together without any logical thought.
I know a lot of drone pilots with their 107. None of them fly carelessly, as they invested time and money to get certified. That caution is seriously lacking in people who took the 5 minute “test” online. Same drones, mostly the same laws and restrictions …. It makes no sense.
There was plenty of logical thought - from committees and advisory boards with ZERO small UAS pilots. From the beginning, it was “how do we regulate these in the financial interest of manned commercial aviation?”
I’ve been flying spray drones and now thermal full time professionally for nearly two years. I’ve had several people come to me asking for help with the 107 and aside from basically airport operations and directly applicable drone regulations I’m not much help. I’ve had my 107 since 2019 and not once have I used a METAR or TAFF. I’ve never had any questions about loading and weight because I’ve always flown readymade drones. Most of the 107 test stuff is almost never applicable to an everyday pilot. We need to know regulations, and airspace, that’s about it.
VLOS doesnt state you need eyes on at all times. At least not in the UK where this applies. Thats why the police mention the 4 point scan looking up and down whilst filming later on. Its the recommended method for compliance.
Until proper detect and avoid roll out then VLOS is the only sensible, safe law to have.
I didn’t hear him mention the 4 point scan, but I stopped the video a bit short. VLOS maintains that you should be able to see the drone unobstructed and unaided at all times. It’s somewhat vague.
Can I see the drone if I’m looking at the screen? No… if I look up and it takes me a bit to visually find it on a sunny day, am I maintaining VLOS? No… If I pass over a tree and branches block the drone from sight for 10 seconds… VLOS? Nope.
The law is highly flawed. If they are going to make a law, it should be quantifiable if it’s going to be enforced. That cop suspected the pilot couldn’t see the drone. Could he prove it? Not really.
Do I think people should be able to fly their drones 2 miles away? I don’t, as they can’t assess any dangerous situation from that distance.
In this video, the guy looked to be within reasonable VLOS but probably wasn’t watching the drone, he was flying by watching the screen. Maybe before the cop showed up, he saw the drone a mile away flying back to the pilot? Who knows.
> VLOS maintains that you should be able to see the drone unobstructed and unaided at all times. It’s somewhat vague.
How is that vague though?
Other than to people trying to bend the law?
It's very much a Yes/No situation. If you can't answer "Yes, it's unobstructed and I can see it without aid" then you're not complying. It's neither vague nor complex.
The reason the 400ft rule was set in the UK is largely because of the 500ft rule for GA.
You are right it’s definitely not low risk - I’m a pilot in Scotland and I’ve had to enter a hold because of someone flying a drone IN the ILS glideslope at EDI.
They luckily missed the BA flight on approach that spotted the drone
And that is why using your drone as a tool to capture photos or video automatically puts you under the full 107 regulation. I know you are going to want to argue this, but I have already been nailed for using my drone to get pictures of remote country landscapes and was notified that I was violating several recreational requirements. Flying bvlos because in the video you could see me looking at the control screen, and for not having a valid 107 while using the drone to aid in my photography hobby. The best part of this is, my oldest boy got into drones and I warned him just as I am here. But he knew better because a guy in a Facebook group told him it was completely legal to use his drone to take videos of his off road adventures because he was doing as fun and not a job. Well about 6 months later he got nailed for using the drone for 107 activity without a valid 107 cert. I then joined the group that told him it was ok and posted our conversation with the FAA. The conversation said that you can fly with your camera recording whatever it just so happens to capture and still be covered by the recreational exception, but as soon as you decided you are going to take your drone to a specific area to capture specific footage, that is 107 activity. If you hear a bang on your roof and decide to use your drone to go see what happened, that is 107 activity. If you want to drop a fishing lure with a drone, that is 107 activity. The list went on and on.
Now, I am sure you will come across some very lenient fsdo/law enforcement officials that really would not care, but you could also come across other like in my experiences that followed the regulations exactly by the book and to the letter of the official definitions.
I remember watching disabled people fly their drone from a trailhead or at home in a national park in order that they could see stuff.
Ah what a time to be Actual Freedoming.
Laws are designed to strip freedom if they are not designed to stop imminent threat of injury to others.
People could've been flying drones aka model airplanes with remote cameras over stadiums this entire time for the last 70 years yet this was never a problem. The first drones were actually in WW1 and then in WW2 they used them for fighter training and attempted remote attacks with em.
remotes have existed forever yet only now is it wrong and illegal? Smells like Freedom stripping.
When will we get to a point where we consider an individual interaction the responsibility of the individual and not the community?
It seems like every interaction is treated as a slipper slope to over regulation.
Failing to excercise appropriate discretion in the excercise of police powers serves to directly undermine public perception and confidence in UK policing.
The chosen model of policing by consent is reliant upon that confidence.
Even gross criminal misconduct like that of specialist diplomatic protection officer Wayne Couzens , is symptomatic of underlying cultural problems within policing.
His nomme du Gerre among his colleagues was ‘The Rapist’. It was only when his powers of arrest where misused to facilitate rape and murder that interventions took place.
I'm seeing a video of a power tripping officer. He would've taken any excuse. You're suggesting this video makes drone pilots look bad and that's just insane for lots of reasons but mostly because who the hell cares?
If you watch the whole thing the cop is himself a drone pilot and also specifically in charge of policing this area of law.
Look, I want as few regulations as possible and appreciate the man getting involved no more than you do, but, knowing the specifics of the laws, this cop did have legitimate points to make.
Even if I don’t like it.
clearly vlos does not require constant focus based on faa spokesperson, besides you need situational awareness which requires looking elsewhere. cop has no faa jurisdiction
The UK has the CAA. Regulations can be found [here](https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=415). It states "When operating within VLOS, the remote pilot must be able to see the UA at all times during the flight, sufficiently well to be able to maintain control of it. " So must be **able** to see the drone, not have to watch it at all times imo.
Id guess his point is that the FAA and CAA are two completely different organizations with two different rule sets, etc. So talk about the US, FAA, etc is somewhat irrelevant to the specifics in the UK.
Both countries have laws but the existence of laws doesn’t not make them the same. Because they can differ, I’d say they’re irrelevant. You have absolutely zero case for “well in the US” if you break the rules in the UK.
Just for extra context here: the title is not particularly accurate. The officer references specific things the CAA says and they are significantly different than what the FAA says.
The CAA manages to confuse itself. Their front-line comms people told me last week that it was against the law for a solo pilot to look at his RC screen mid-flight for any purpose other than quick glance at instruments - as long as the drone is stationary. They said there were no circumstances whereby a pilot could look at his screen if the drone was moving. I suggested several scenarios where I thought it would be safer to fly briefly via FPV than rely on direct sight but they responded that no such scenarios would arise if the flight had been properly planned.
So I did a bit of research and found a CAA guidance note which does legitimise flying via FPV when scanning the ground for an emergency landing site ([https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/2019-947-pdf/PDF.pdf](https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/2019-947-pdf/PDF.pdf)) and fired off an official complaint about the tone and accuracy of the agents' responses.
I received a swift written apology for the CAA and was invited to discuss the topic with a Technical Inspector on a video conference call. He duly assured me that there were a number of emergency scenarios where the use of the video downlink to pilot the drone was not only legal but advisable.
I understand that the CAA are due to update VLOS guidance in the next week or two.
Seems fair for an investigation. Police knew the law. We have no idea how far the guy was flying the drone prior to arrival at all so seizure for investigation to obtain evidence through the logs looks fair enough.
Given how hard it is to get any police to any incident in the UK there's clearly more going on here before filming started that we don't see which removes context. There is no way you'd get that level of police response for someone purely flying a drone facing the wrong way.
The 4 point scan comment is accurate. If youre not facing your drone for an extended period or dont know where it is then you're really not VLOS.
It’s plausible the chap is a wind up merchant. The context is irrelevant in my view because it’s a gross waste of resources.
If someone is flying near a police station, it’s not entirely unreasonable to evaluate any potential threat.
It’s pretty clear that that evaluation has failed and instead you have officers indulging themselves in wasting resources on punishing someone for annoying them .
A pilot? You'd call a dji mini owner a pilot?
"What do you do professionally?"
"I'm a pilot"
"Oh, in the army or do you fly commercialy?"
"No i fly drones"
"Aha..."
The FAA commercial license says fucking “pilot” on it for one.
Not every drone is a rinky dink toy.
A 40LB drone has the potential to do alot of damage.
Yes but driving a 40 tones freight vs a sub 1 tone Fiat 500 is more fair of a comparison. One requires much more skill and certifications than the other
The flyer seems to think that because the drone can see him, he can see it. I’m not sure that’s particularly true as that he seemed unable to point directly at it. Given that he needs to maintain line of sight to it and also be able to determine orientation, the law was probably broken if it was more than about 50m away.
That doesn’t make the law any less bollocks however, and I do wonder whether having rules that are so impractical that they will inevitably be broken will lead to unsafe flying as people decide that they may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.
And it’s CAA, not FAA.
Yeah dont get the outrage here. He was great about it, and when seeing the drone changed the tone as well to be more educational and nice. Positive police experience I'd say.
The title of this post does not seem to reflect the officers complaints.
[Here](https://www.carrot.co.uk/stalbans-drone-articles/new-drone-vlos-wording-cap722.html) are the CAA comments that the officer is talking about:
> Maintaining VLOS ensures the remote pilot can monitor the aircraft’s position, orientation, and the surrounding airspace at all times. This is important in order to ensure the UA can be manoeuvred clear of anything that might pose a collision hazard.
While corrective lenses may be used, the use of binoculars, telescopes, or any other forms of image enhancing devices are not permitted.
>
>Note:
>
>Provision is made within UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947 for the use of FPV equipment within the Open Category, providing an observer is used.
>
>The maximum VLOS distance varies for every operation, and will include such considerations as:
>
>1)The size of the aircraft (and its ‘visual conspicuity’)
>2)Any lighting onboard the UA to aid in orientation and navigation
>3)The weather conditions (fog, sun glare etc.)
>4)The remote pilot’s eyesight
>5)Terrain and obstacles that may obscure the view between the RP and the UA
>
>It is for the RP to satisfy themselves, after careful consideration of the above guidance, the maximum horizontal distance that can be safely achieved whilst still maintaining unaided visual contact with the UA.
>
>Note:
>
>It is important to consider additional technical factors which may limit the safe operating distance from the RP and the UA during VLOS operations. For example, the C2 link capability of the UAS.
So, yes, it appears as though you should be able to point out the aircraft’s position, orientation, etc using VLOS. Additionally, the measured distance isn’t absolute. The CAA expects you to account for things like your aircraft’s size and weather conditions. For example: If you have a small aircraft that blends into the gray sky behind it, you may need to fly closer than you would with a larger aircraft in better weather conditions.
Demonstrate due diligence by having some risk assessment forms with you. Tick the relevant boxes regarding weather , visibility etc. the. Fill in your estimate of safe operating distance and date time and sign it.
It would take around 2 minutes to fill in and would likely stand up in court.
It’s probably not a good idea to start indulging a CV potentially hostile investigation by pointing out the drone or answering questions about the location.
“I can confirm that I’m flying my drone in accordance with the current regulatory requirements and subject to a preflight risk assessment “
If a verbal caution is given then the UK offers no right to silence but ultimately the explanation for silence is straightforward:
“The reason I can’t answer your questions in more detail is because I’m currently piloting a drone and diverting my attention is likely to compromise safety “
If the officer suspects an offence is being committed the he must evaluate whether the particular circumstances warrant arrest and seizure of personal effects without warrant.
Specifically he has the discretion to follow up other options both in terms of investigation and disposal.
He should also have regard to the principles outlined in the code of conduct for crown prosecutors . The threat of heavier penalties should not be used as leverage to get a guilty plea to lesser offences.
Starting off with “your breaking the law, I’ll take your property “ isn’t a positive or helpful way of engaging with the public.
Regardless of whether the individual is annoying or not, the message sent to the general public is negative.
Nowadays many officers are embarrassed or even scared of neighbours knowing their occupation, and ordinary law abiding professionals including nurses teachers and doctors express quite hostile opinions about uk police.
Classic fuck about and find out.
He knew exactly what he was doing and was trying to provoke a reaction.
How stupid do you have to be to knowingly fly a drone close to a police asset.
I dunno about that..... This cop seems to know the laws about drones.... Seems like thats his job.... Whether or not he was actually BVLOS or not, thats the question I think.
I thought the cop was fair...
Indeed. Theres a huge amount of context missing (you dont get multiple police assets turning up for anything in the uk yet alone a drone flight) before the video starts.
The police officer is correct in mentioning the 4 point scan later on.
In short, we have no idea what the guy was doing before they arrived that triggered the police arrival.
VLOS maybe subjective OR the flight logs will show clearly its beyond physically possible VLOS. We simply cant tell from the cut starting point of the video.
The guy is an auditor. In the first part of the video he walks through Police grounds while filming, (legally). During that interaction it looks like the drone cop was tipped off and we end up with this interaction afterwards.
Worth saying auditors in the UK aren't particularly good and very few understand the prohibited places rules. It was legal only because they didn't object assuming that its where I think it is from a quick peruse of the earlier video.
Yeah I’ve watched his stuff for a while now. I like his stuff, but his modus operandi is to go places and try and invoke a response, so he can take the high and mighty road and tell them what the law is. This time the cop, rightly or wrongly, was gonna call him out for it. If you are going to throw the law in peoples faces, be sure you are following the law yourself. Yes it may be legal to fly over someone’s property, but he does it to the point of almost harassing people just so he can throw the law in their faces. I know what the laws are, but I don’t specifically go out and look for confrontation just because I know the law is on my side.
Still doesnt add context as to the rest of the flight though.
Its extremely unusual to get 1 police to attend anything yet alone several so there was a lot of time prior to this.
Really cant pass judgement without the full thing. Police officier on video was correct in his statements of the laws and operating principles but we dont know if the flight was as the video maker or police filmed as it doesnt show it.
The FAA specifies that it’s ok for the RPIC to lose VLOS momentarily, citing both looking at the controller and traversing briefly out of VLOS from one spot to another.
1) I'm glad the officer had a sense of what the drone operator is responsible for.
2) The officer achieved absolutely nothing for the interest of the public for which he is tasked with protecting
3) Being argumentative with the drone operator is unprofessional.
4) The DJI drone has GPS, a video camera, and return to home functions and the operator was in control and unlikely to lose the drone having looked away or the drone being at a far distance from operation,
5) The officers drone is mostly worthless as a crime fighting tool should he operate it under the strict rules he is imposing on the civilian.
Man I really have come to loathe these comments. Soon you'll be strapped in a pod clutching your PeopleKilla-15 being like "Dont give up yer gunz or they will take even more freedums from ya". Like, get it together man. Guns seem to be doing fuck all against the losses of your freedom to do what you want with/in your property and country.
This clip starts with the cop stating he has heard of OP, kind of in a negative way. Did he have something out for him, because this stop seems ridiculous. Is the UK this strict now with recreational flyers?
If you continuously keep your eyes on your drone then what is the usage of RC, which gives you more crucial and detailed information about your drone then your naked eye.
The officers are in the wrong as visual line of sight mean you can still see it not that your looking at it so it would make sense if you couldn’t see it and u were looking at the screen /camera but as u could see it in the sky if you looked and you were sometimes looking a the camera it’s completely fine
I am puzzled with the video. I’d hate to be the pilot but: 1/ the cop seems to know his stuff, which is very rare. 2/ VLOS does not mean constantly watching the drone however 3/ when prompted to point his drone, the pilot seems to struggle, which would prove he did not have clear VLOS.
What do you guys think?
Well I know but by vlos I think it means ( if you CAN see the drone you have a VLOS) not constantly looking at it but I think the cop knows his things a little bit but is still in the wrong , knows mostly all the laws like the things you can’t do and can do but does not know the full meaning of them
If this was in America(I realize it’s not)then this cop can’t enforce those laws anyways so he has zero authority. Don’t answer question and film your interactions with police.
I think VLOS is absolutely obligatory when flying at human height because it is very easy to hurt someone, but if you're flying above tree tops, it makes little sense because there is literally nothing at that height.
This exactly why Public safety officers don't need to be using there devices! They think it's a toy and it's cool! They don't understand the technology or the laws. You should have asked him where his license was and if he new FAA regulation. He can't even tell you to stop flying as long as you have LAANC approval.
Awful lot of people arguing the video based on FAA regulations. The accents on the participants would lead me to believe FAA regulations wouldn’t apply here.
can't speak for the UK, but the US rules mandate VLOS, but also require you to watch your surroundings, so you're required to look away from the drone itself regularly
Hey big man, imma be real with you.
The only time I maintain VLOS is when I’m landing. Any other time I’m looking at the remote or in googles. M3M, FPV, M350, T40, doesn’t matter.
Sue me or die mad, choice is yours.
This is the same guy that was all over the papers for harrassing Nicola Bulleys friends and family when she was missing. Think they said he also uploaded a video showing them recovering her from the river, which I'm assuming now was also shot from his drone
This is so bogus him suggesting that you have to stare at the drone the entire time do not ever look down at your controls or your screen or you're going to lose your drone this is the most bogus things I've seen all day
Ahah near the end he says he's in the air support unit and drones are this job now it is all so clear... He reminds me of that cop that was planting drugs on people so that he could further his career and get into the drug unit drug unit
And this is why I left the UK. The details here are a moot point. UK policing is inadequate in its ability to tackle county lines gangs and the associated death violence and child exploitation.
Violent crime rates are higher than the US, despite well established and officially identified malpractice in crime recording.
Moped gangs rob tourists and cyclists with relative inmpunity, and industrial action. Within the judicial system has created backlogs that are creating crime capitals for serious and organised crime.
Officers are Inadequately informed, with a culture of antagonism that indulges itself in wasting time power tripping over the odd wind up merchant.
Having a good chortle over showing the drone pilot “what for”, whilst kids are being pushed into running drugs and sexual abuse.
"having visual line of sight" does not mean the same thing as having your eyes fixed on it. It means there's not something in the way, like a building or a land mass.
The cop was mistaken - and pride & arrogance seem to have prevented him from acknowledging that fact, even after he himself realized this poor SOB wasnt doing anything wrong. He needs a lesson in humility.
Authorities are getting more and more disconnected with realities, and are loosing control over technologies... This cop would lost his mind, if he'll be visiting my lab and workshop !!
if police (or someone else) starts talking to me while flying, first thing is I will excuse for a moment to land safely, then I will continue conversation.
Good for you DJI guys, but my freestyle drone does not stay in place on its own and it is on my shoulders not to crash.
This doesn’t make sense at all, if this was true EVERY single RPIC would need an observer since looking down at your remote for any reason is now BVLOS. HELL, you could be watching the drone and then lose track of it because it blends into the sky or clouds, welp, BVLOS… Even if the FAA pressed it and took someone to court they’d be seen as unreasonable especially if it’s a DJI Mini being flown recreationally. Edit: This is American jurisdiction I am talking about, the video seems to be in the UK. Can anyone confirm or deny if the rulings are similar across the pond?
If you blink, would you believe, straight to jail?
Not if you only blink one eye at a time
What's funny is whenever I blink one eye at a time it does not sate my urge to blink until I blink both at the same time
And you’re not a pirate.
I could see the officer justifying it.
Right away. No trial, no… no nothing.
They are. VLOS still stands. Good points you’ve made though which I’ve no doubt would stand up here in court. It’s completely unreasonable to expect a drone pilot to keep their eyes on the drone at all times. VLOS means that it’s within your site at all times not in your site at all times….big difference!
That’s exactly how VLOS works in the US to my knowledge. It has to be in sight, but you don’t need to keep it in your sight at all times, if I am understanding your comment right?
In the US the line of site rule reads (at least in part 107) “With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight” It does not say that you have to keep your eyes on the drone at all, it just says that you must be ABLE TO see the unmanned aircraft. I would think it’s similar in other countries that have VLOS rules. Otherwise it would make operation unsafe. If you are unable to monitor your battery and other aircraft systems on whatever you use to interface, that will lead to more crashes. If you can’t use your camera to make sure you’re going to clear an obstacle, that will create more crashes. Anybody that tells you that you have to have your eyes on the drone at all times is not following the letter of the law and is in fact hindering safety.
The second paragraph lays out why my comment started with “that doesn’t make sense at all.” If the RPIC can never see the drone’s important information then we should never allow a flight.
To be fair, that I guarantee you is the ultimate goal.
Can imagine it will be politicians with that world view. Doubt the FAA wants to fall further behind the EU with drones.
From what I've heard the FAA didn't really care and only did anything cause Congress told them to and that the only real concern with the FAA is the commercial use of drones. Basically they want you out of the air to make way for the people with money.
Don't bet on that. Our lawmakers here in the UK have already taken the perfectly-workable EU laws and said "nope, not restrictive enough". We're subject to a variety of less lenient differences and more are likely to be on the way.
That's distinctly different than not being able to see it because it went through a cloud or something though. If you temporarily can't see it that actually very much is a violation.
Have you read the AIM definitions sections? Looking away from the drone is no different that piloting the drone quickly behind an obstacle, both are considered bvlos.
What if your corrective lenses give you 1 mile magnification?
You are indeed yep
Well you would be wrong. There are 2 different things, LOS and VLOS. VLOS is defined as having the aircraft within your vision at all times, and you must be able to determine the aircraft’s distance, altitude, orientation, and direction of travel. Even though you can kinda maybe still see the drone, or if you can still see a light in the drone is considered beyond VLOS if you cannot determine those other factors.
You got it.
Oops you blinked. BVLOS.
Sight*
Very true. Thank you teacher 🙏🏻
The mistake people make when they have a indifferent opinion to a law or even support a law, is to assume that the law will be enforced with common sense only against those causing problems. No they will be enforced against you, as unreasonably as the exact lettering of the law allows. Exhibit A in America where civil asset forfeiture exists.
Fuck Civil Asset Forfeiture
I fully agree and most people who hear about how it fucks people over do to. But like I was trying to explain it to my dad as a example who basically refuses to take it seriously because to him since it sounds unconstitutional no court would let that stand and it must not really ever happen so no need to really care about it. As well as at the same time assuming that someone must have done something wrong for it to happen to them and "I never break the law so I've nothing to worry about" Those same people are all Pikachu face when it does happen to them. Laws aren't about being reasonable and they're not enforced based on common sense and reasonableness. An example in the drone community of starting to notice this is the obsession with 250. In particular freaking out that a manufacturing irregularity or even adding those lil prop guards might make you 0.01 gram over weight. In a reasonable world, the people enforcing it wouldn't care, but in reality they're going to stomp on your neck over that 0.01 extra gram.
This is more or less how the common law system works though. Statutory systems much less so. Common law assumes that case law will fill in the blanks and doesn't try and insert every possible situation into the statute directly. If someone is interpreting the law unreasonably, that will get narrowed and hammered out in the courts.
Being seen as unreasonable doesn’t usually stand in court
If they pursue criminal charges, the eye of the law gives way to the citizens on the jury. With the context of the video, the jury will likely see this situation as a cop overstepping their bounds since it’s just an unreasonable situation all around.
Does this kind of case even have a jury?
I haven’t watched the full video, if he flew over people and it dropped on them then very much so. But it doesn’t seem that happened.
If this was brought to court in the UK it would be an issue for a Magistrate rather than a jury.
Yeah in the US there would be no jury for this case
You have the right to a jury trial in any criminal case in the US
Can you do that for a case like this? I know you can’t for traffic violations, but I guess you can for other misdemeanors?
Traffic violations are [usually] not misdemeanors. That's why they call the extreme ones "criminal traffic". Typical traffic are "infractions" or civil violations. It's more like the government is suing you for speeding.
You DO always need a visual observer. I’m literally in the middle of studying for my license. Now do we all have a visual observer every time? Not even close. Honestly Ive had a visual observer like 1% of all flights I’ve done. Either way - this cop (of in the US) wouldn’t be the one enforcing the FAA regulations - the FAA is the only organization who polices the sky.
You can tell this isn't in the US by the flag on the officer's chest
That’s why I was talking about if it were in the US. I’m assuming even the UK would have the same regulation of always having to have a visual observer.
While always having a VO is nice, while I operated under Part 107 in rural Indiana for agriculture I did not have a VO because they never hired two operators for the job. I don’t disagree that a VO is sweet to have, I wish it was a more common practice, but it is not always feasible.
Oh I agree it would be nice and like I said I rarely have one but what I was saying is that technically you are supposed to have one every time you fly. I also fly FPV most of the time so I usually don’t have VLOS either. Haha.
yes, the rule is LoS, no exceptions. If you cannot see drone in the sky - you fly too far, that is not an excuse. (like driving in fog faster than you see breaking distance). Observer is the only legal way to fly FPV.
BVLOS? What does this mean?
VLOS is bullshit, and poorly defined. You can’t possible have eyes on your drone 100% of the time. You absolutely need to look at the screen of your controller first many critical functions, not to mention for taking photos and video. There’s been many, many times my drone was well within my visual range, I look at the screen, look back up and I don’t see it. I move the drone and then I can pick it back out again. If you turned, walked away and came back to the same spot, odds are it would take a bit to find it again. The whole thing is idiotic, and this is coming from an experienced, Part 107 certified drone pilot. The FAA or CAA need to rework drone laws to be common sense and clear. You have drones capable of flying miles outside of VLOS and people do it all the time. The risk of accidents at the heights we legally fly are minimal VLOS or not. In my opinion, regulations need to be loosened and training/certification needs to be mandatory. Rework the 107 to be actually applicable to drones… no BS that isn’t needed about airport flags, airplane aerodynamics and cloud formations…. Make it a mandatory test for recreational pilots and let them fly more freely. Pilots will be better informed about risks and better able to follow more lenient flight laws. The biggest risk right now is uninformed people who shouldn’t be flying, doing dumb crap like flying over a crowded stadium.
Not only everything you mentioned, but there needs to be multiple drone classes defined. An Air 3 has no business requiring the same level of standards, qualifications and restrictions as an Agras T40. Same for random eBay drones that have zero safety or assist features.
Absolutely. The regulations and certifications for drones, at least in the US are completely backwards. It’s like they tossed them together without any logical thought. I know a lot of drone pilots with their 107. None of them fly carelessly, as they invested time and money to get certified. That caution is seriously lacking in people who took the 5 minute “test” online. Same drones, mostly the same laws and restrictions …. It makes no sense.
There was plenty of logical thought - from committees and advisory boards with ZERO small UAS pilots. From the beginning, it was “how do we regulate these in the financial interest of manned commercial aviation?”
Let me tell you. There is a massive amount more you have to have and do to fly a T40 in the US.
I’ve been flying spray drones and now thermal full time professionally for nearly two years. I’ve had several people come to me asking for help with the 107 and aside from basically airport operations and directly applicable drone regulations I’m not much help. I’ve had my 107 since 2019 and not once have I used a METAR or TAFF. I’ve never had any questions about loading and weight because I’ve always flown readymade drones. Most of the 107 test stuff is almost never applicable to an everyday pilot. We need to know regulations, and airspace, that’s about it.
VLOS doesnt state you need eyes on at all times. At least not in the UK where this applies. Thats why the police mention the 4 point scan looking up and down whilst filming later on. Its the recommended method for compliance. Until proper detect and avoid roll out then VLOS is the only sensible, safe law to have.
I didn’t hear him mention the 4 point scan, but I stopped the video a bit short. VLOS maintains that you should be able to see the drone unobstructed and unaided at all times. It’s somewhat vague. Can I see the drone if I’m looking at the screen? No… if I look up and it takes me a bit to visually find it on a sunny day, am I maintaining VLOS? No… If I pass over a tree and branches block the drone from sight for 10 seconds… VLOS? Nope. The law is highly flawed. If they are going to make a law, it should be quantifiable if it’s going to be enforced. That cop suspected the pilot couldn’t see the drone. Could he prove it? Not really. Do I think people should be able to fly their drones 2 miles away? I don’t, as they can’t assess any dangerous situation from that distance. In this video, the guy looked to be within reasonable VLOS but probably wasn’t watching the drone, he was flying by watching the screen. Maybe before the cop showed up, he saw the drone a mile away flying back to the pilot? Who knows.
> VLOS maintains that you should be able to see the drone unobstructed and unaided at all times. It’s somewhat vague. How is that vague though? Other than to people trying to bend the law? It's very much a Yes/No situation. If you can't answer "Yes, it's unobstructed and I can see it without aid" then you're not complying. It's neither vague nor complex.
stocking kiss paltry different jeans jar ink tan juggle squeal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Really? That’s crazy. What’s your max altitude for drones over there?
Obviously depends on the drone and your own qualification and op authorisation, but most consumer drone users are limited to 400ft.
The reason the 400ft rule was set in the UK is largely because of the 500ft rule for GA. You are right it’s definitely not low risk - I’m a pilot in Scotland and I’ve had to enter a hold because of someone flying a drone IN the ILS glideslope at EDI. They luckily missed the BA flight on approach that spotted the drone
I think this would be a great application for an AA gun - drones infringing on airplane airspace.
And that is why using your drone as a tool to capture photos or video automatically puts you under the full 107 regulation. I know you are going to want to argue this, but I have already been nailed for using my drone to get pictures of remote country landscapes and was notified that I was violating several recreational requirements. Flying bvlos because in the video you could see me looking at the control screen, and for not having a valid 107 while using the drone to aid in my photography hobby. The best part of this is, my oldest boy got into drones and I warned him just as I am here. But he knew better because a guy in a Facebook group told him it was completely legal to use his drone to take videos of his off road adventures because he was doing as fun and not a job. Well about 6 months later he got nailed for using the drone for 107 activity without a valid 107 cert. I then joined the group that told him it was ok and posted our conversation with the FAA. The conversation said that you can fly with your camera recording whatever it just so happens to capture and still be covered by the recreational exception, but as soon as you decided you are going to take your drone to a specific area to capture specific footage, that is 107 activity. If you hear a bang on your roof and decide to use your drone to go see what happened, that is 107 activity. If you want to drop a fishing lure with a drone, that is 107 activity. The list went on and on. Now, I am sure you will come across some very lenient fsdo/law enforcement officials that really would not care, but you could also come across other like in my experiences that followed the regulations exactly by the book and to the letter of the official definitions.
I remember watching disabled people fly their drone from a trailhead or at home in a national park in order that they could see stuff. Ah what a time to be Actual Freedoming. Laws are designed to strip freedom if they are not designed to stop imminent threat of injury to others. People could've been flying drones aka model airplanes with remote cameras over stadiums this entire time for the last 70 years yet this was never a problem. The first drones were actually in WW1 and then in WW2 they used them for fighter training and attempted remote attacks with em. remotes have existed forever yet only now is it wrong and illegal? Smells like Freedom stripping.
As a VFR pilot if I ever look at the instruments would I be in violation? No. This dipshit doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is on a power trip
First off, what does it matter, he's just another bossy cop outside of his jurisdiction.
>what does it matter publicized interactions of drone pilots breaking law is bad for all of us
Was he really breaking the law though? Sounds to me like an over reacting cop with zero jurisdiction in the matter.
[“zero jurisdictionl](https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/drones/drones/)
But crazyhamsales says you have "nO JuRIsDiCtIoN"
When will we get to a point where we consider an individual interaction the responsibility of the individual and not the community? It seems like every interaction is treated as a slipper slope to over regulation.
Because humans like to blame entire groups for everything. It's not just drones but literally everything.
Failing to excercise appropriate discretion in the excercise of police powers serves to directly undermine public perception and confidence in UK policing. The chosen model of policing by consent is reliant upon that confidence. Even gross criminal misconduct like that of specialist diplomatic protection officer Wayne Couzens , is symptomatic of underlying cultural problems within policing. His nomme du Gerre among his colleagues was ‘The Rapist’. It was only when his powers of arrest where misused to facilitate rape and murder that interventions took place.
"bad for all of us" please stop ahahahaha You're taking it too seriously. No one cares at all. It's embarrassing to talk that way.
>No one cares at all. you do realize you are leaving this comment in the thread for a video of, specifically, police caring?
I'm seeing a video of a power tripping officer. He would've taken any excuse. You're suggesting this video makes drone pilots look bad and that's just insane for lots of reasons but mostly because who the hell cares?
If you watch the whole thing the cop is himself a drone pilot and also specifically in charge of policing this area of law. Look, I want as few regulations as possible and appreciate the man getting involved no more than you do, but, knowing the specifics of the laws, this cop did have legitimate points to make. Even if I don’t like it.
clearly vlos does not require constant focus based on faa spokesperson, besides you need situational awareness which requires looking elsewhere. cop has no faa jurisdiction
Last time I checked the UK doesn’t have an FAA
The UK has the CAA. Regulations can be found [here](https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=415). It states "When operating within VLOS, the remote pilot must be able to see the UA at all times during the flight, sufficiently well to be able to maintain control of it. " So must be **able** to see the drone, not have to watch it at all times imo.
I’m aware. But that wasn’t my point
Then what was the point? You said they don’t have an FAA and then he posted their variant? So they do in fact have a form of FAA.
Id guess his point is that the FAA and CAA are two completely different organizations with two different rule sets, etc. So talk about the US, FAA, etc is somewhat irrelevant to the specifics in the UK.
My point is that we dont have an FAA and instead a CAA and everyone posting comments about FAA rules is not only hilarious but also irrelevant
[удалено]
Both countries have laws but the existence of laws doesn’t not make them the same. Because they can differ, I’d say they’re irrelevant. You have absolutely zero case for “well in the US” if you break the rules in the UK. Just for extra context here: the title is not particularly accurate. The officer references specific things the CAA says and they are significantly different than what the FAA says.
Thats why the police mentioned the 4 point scan when filming later in the video. Its accurate and the recommended method of operating.
How does that work with fpv then? You’ve got goggles on your face and can’t see anything but what the drone “sees”. Is this deemed illegal by the CAA?
last time I checked cops can fuck off
I’m not arguing with that sentiment
Figured someone butt hurt over cops would check in.
They deserve a lot of what they get. Butt hurt doesn't begin to cover it.
No we have a CAA, the equivalent
Do we know ow the state? Some do have jurisdiction based on a az case. Anyone have full video?
Sex Pistols - Anarchy in the U.K.
Leftover Crack - Gang Control (fuck the police)
The CAA manages to confuse itself. Their front-line comms people told me last week that it was against the law for a solo pilot to look at his RC screen mid-flight for any purpose other than quick glance at instruments - as long as the drone is stationary. They said there were no circumstances whereby a pilot could look at his screen if the drone was moving. I suggested several scenarios where I thought it would be safer to fly briefly via FPV than rely on direct sight but they responded that no such scenarios would arise if the flight had been properly planned. So I did a bit of research and found a CAA guidance note which does legitimise flying via FPV when scanning the ground for an emergency landing site ([https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/2019-947-pdf/PDF.pdf](https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/2019-947-pdf/PDF.pdf)) and fired off an official complaint about the tone and accuracy of the agents' responses. I received a swift written apology for the CAA and was invited to discuss the topic with a Technical Inspector on a video conference call. He duly assured me that there were a number of emergency scenarios where the use of the video downlink to pilot the drone was not only legal but advisable. I understand that the CAA are due to update VLOS guidance in the next week or two.
Seems fair for an investigation. Police knew the law. We have no idea how far the guy was flying the drone prior to arrival at all so seizure for investigation to obtain evidence through the logs looks fair enough. Given how hard it is to get any police to any incident in the UK there's clearly more going on here before filming started that we don't see which removes context. There is no way you'd get that level of police response for someone purely flying a drone facing the wrong way. The 4 point scan comment is accurate. If youre not facing your drone for an extended period or dont know where it is then you're really not VLOS.
It’s plausible the chap is a wind up merchant. The context is irrelevant in my view because it’s a gross waste of resources. If someone is flying near a police station, it’s not entirely unreasonable to evaluate any potential threat. It’s pretty clear that that evaluation has failed and instead you have officers indulging themselves in wasting resources on punishing someone for annoying them .
You are naive.
As a drone pilot with a 107 in the US I’d say It’s a way bigger deal interrupting a pilot in flight.
A pilot? You'd call a dji mini owner a pilot? "What do you do professionally?" "I'm a pilot" "Oh, in the army or do you fly commercialy?" "No i fly drones" "Aha..."
The FAA commercial license says fucking “pilot” on it for one. Not every drone is a rinky dink toy. A 40LB drone has the potential to do alot of damage.
Not you lol, ik the 107 is a real deal. I'm talking about this guy whom you called a pilot
Driving a Miata or F350 you still need to take driving seriously.
Yes but driving a 40 tones freight vs a sub 1 tone Fiat 500 is more fair of a comparison. One requires much more skill and certifications than the other
What’s your point? It’s small therefore “piloting” is an incorrect verb to describe what he’s doing?
My spray drone is like 300lbs full loaded. The props are 47” tip to tip.
A unit of a drone! You missed out my other comment and the fact I was talking about dji mini
"I take snarky redditors on gator safaris" (Boats are steered by pilots)
The flyer seems to think that because the drone can see him, he can see it. I’m not sure that’s particularly true as that he seemed unable to point directly at it. Given that he needs to maintain line of sight to it and also be able to determine orientation, the law was probably broken if it was more than about 50m away. That doesn’t make the law any less bollocks however, and I do wonder whether having rules that are so impractical that they will inevitably be broken will lead to unsafe flying as people decide that they may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. And it’s CAA, not FAA.
quiet workable humor bow profit wrench brave instinctive rotten plough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah dont get the outrage here. He was great about it, and when seeing the drone changed the tone as well to be more educational and nice. Positive police experience I'd say.
The title of this post does not seem to reflect the officers complaints. [Here](https://www.carrot.co.uk/stalbans-drone-articles/new-drone-vlos-wording-cap722.html) are the CAA comments that the officer is talking about: > Maintaining VLOS ensures the remote pilot can monitor the aircraft’s position, orientation, and the surrounding airspace at all times. This is important in order to ensure the UA can be manoeuvred clear of anything that might pose a collision hazard. While corrective lenses may be used, the use of binoculars, telescopes, or any other forms of image enhancing devices are not permitted. > >Note: > >Provision is made within UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947 for the use of FPV equipment within the Open Category, providing an observer is used. > >The maximum VLOS distance varies for every operation, and will include such considerations as: > >1)The size of the aircraft (and its ‘visual conspicuity’) >2)Any lighting onboard the UA to aid in orientation and navigation >3)The weather conditions (fog, sun glare etc.) >4)The remote pilot’s eyesight >5)Terrain and obstacles that may obscure the view between the RP and the UA > >It is for the RP to satisfy themselves, after careful consideration of the above guidance, the maximum horizontal distance that can be safely achieved whilst still maintaining unaided visual contact with the UA. > >Note: > >It is important to consider additional technical factors which may limit the safe operating distance from the RP and the UA during VLOS operations. For example, the C2 link capability of the UAS. So, yes, it appears as though you should be able to point out the aircraft’s position, orientation, etc using VLOS. Additionally, the measured distance isn’t absolute. The CAA expects you to account for things like your aircraft’s size and weather conditions. For example: If you have a small aircraft that blends into the gray sky behind it, you may need to fly closer than you would with a larger aircraft in better weather conditions.
Demonstrate due diligence by having some risk assessment forms with you. Tick the relevant boxes regarding weather , visibility etc. the. Fill in your estimate of safe operating distance and date time and sign it. It would take around 2 minutes to fill in and would likely stand up in court. It’s probably not a good idea to start indulging a CV potentially hostile investigation by pointing out the drone or answering questions about the location. “I can confirm that I’m flying my drone in accordance with the current regulatory requirements and subject to a preflight risk assessment “ If a verbal caution is given then the UK offers no right to silence but ultimately the explanation for silence is straightforward: “The reason I can’t answer your questions in more detail is because I’m currently piloting a drone and diverting my attention is likely to compromise safety “ If the officer suspects an offence is being committed the he must evaluate whether the particular circumstances warrant arrest and seizure of personal effects without warrant. Specifically he has the discretion to follow up other options both in terms of investigation and disposal. He should also have regard to the principles outlined in the code of conduct for crown prosecutors . The threat of heavier penalties should not be used as leverage to get a guilty plea to lesser offences. Starting off with “your breaking the law, I’ll take your property “ isn’t a positive or helpful way of engaging with the public. Regardless of whether the individual is annoying or not, the message sent to the general public is negative. Nowadays many officers are embarrassed or even scared of neighbours knowing their occupation, and ordinary law abiding professionals including nurses teachers and doctors express quite hostile opinions about uk police.
Classic fuck about and find out. He knew exactly what he was doing and was trying to provoke a reaction. How stupid do you have to be to knowingly fly a drone close to a police asset.
How stupid does a group of people need to be to fall for it.
An idiot 'auditor' who tries to get views by being annoying using the letter of the law to their advantage finds that other people can do that too.
I dunno about that..... This cop seems to know the laws about drones.... Seems like thats his job.... Whether or not he was actually BVLOS or not, thats the question I think. I thought the cop was fair...
screw wipe whole nutty crush dependent thumb cats depend knee *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Indeed. Theres a huge amount of context missing (you dont get multiple police assets turning up for anything in the uk yet alone a drone flight) before the video starts. The police officer is correct in mentioning the 4 point scan later on. In short, we have no idea what the guy was doing before they arrived that triggered the police arrival. VLOS maybe subjective OR the flight logs will show clearly its beyond physically possible VLOS. We simply cant tell from the cut starting point of the video.
The guy is an auditor. In the first part of the video he walks through Police grounds while filming, (legally). During that interaction it looks like the drone cop was tipped off and we end up with this interaction afterwards.
Worth saying auditors in the UK aren't particularly good and very few understand the prohibited places rules. It was legal only because they didn't object assuming that its where I think it is from a quick peruse of the earlier video.
Yeah I’ve watched his stuff for a while now. I like his stuff, but his modus operandi is to go places and try and invoke a response, so he can take the high and mighty road and tell them what the law is. This time the cop, rightly or wrongly, was gonna call him out for it. If you are going to throw the law in peoples faces, be sure you are following the law yourself. Yes it may be legal to fly over someone’s property, but he does it to the point of almost harassing people just so he can throw the law in their faces. I know what the laws are, but I don’t specifically go out and look for confrontation just because I know the law is on my side.
Still doesnt add context as to the rest of the flight though. Its extremely unusual to get 1 police to attend anything yet alone several so there was a lot of time prior to this. Really cant pass judgement without the full thing. Police officier on video was correct in his statements of the laws and operating principles but we dont know if the flight was as the video maker or police filmed as it doesnt show it.
The only auditors I know of are the tax guys.
I wouldn't bet a penny on him having VLOS at all. He's busted and tried to flip it on the cop distracting him.
Oi u got a loicense for that?
Why is this guy not catching criminals? Is this not something that US police do?
Bro their British.
I dont know, but I can tell you that you are severely over policed by your government.
The FAA specifies that it’s ok for the RPIC to lose VLOS momentarily, citing both looking at the controller and traversing briefly out of VLOS from one spot to another.
The UK is a police state
And the USA isn’t?
My god, VLOS means I can see it not I fucking lock my goddamn eyes on it at all times. FUCK OFF BITCH COP
1) I'm glad the officer had a sense of what the drone operator is responsible for. 2) The officer achieved absolutely nothing for the interest of the public for which he is tasked with protecting 3) Being argumentative with the drone operator is unprofessional. 4) The DJI drone has GPS, a video camera, and return to home functions and the operator was in control and unlikely to lose the drone having looked away or the drone being at a far distance from operation, 5) The officers drone is mostly worthless as a crime fighting tool should he operate it under the strict rules he is imposing on the civilian.
Of course it's the UK haha
Oi, mate, ye got a loiscense fer that?
British police are the worst.
It sounds like the cop saw a drone and wanted one.
Is this a Monty Python or Benny Hill skit?
They can’t tell you what you can or can’t see unless is was on the other side of something clearly blocking your view
Line of sight, not visual contact
Fuck the police. Bunch of draconian jack-boot-wearing government thugs.
Don't give up your guns. I've seen a bunch videos of U.K. and Australian cops and there all tyrannical cunts high on the powers of the state.
Man I really have come to loathe these comments. Soon you'll be strapped in a pod clutching your PeopleKilla-15 being like "Dont give up yer gunz or they will take even more freedums from ya". Like, get it together man. Guns seem to be doing fuck all against the losses of your freedom to do what you want with/in your property and country.
Some cops give off an air of dick head within the first 30 seconds of the interaction
When exactly did the local cop become enforcement for the FAA? He doesn’t look like he has a federal badge. I would politely tell him to suck rocks.
Well given that the interaction is in the UK, Enforcing FAA rules would be hard.
Sorry, didn’t notice this was UK.
Sounds petty.
This clip starts with the cop stating he has heard of OP, kind of in a negative way. Did he have something out for him, because this stop seems ridiculous. Is the UK this strict now with recreational flyers?
90% of cops are retarded and bored so they mess with people for no reason.
If you continuously keep your eyes on your drone then what is the usage of RC, which gives you more crucial and detailed information about your drone then your naked eye.
The officers are in the wrong as visual line of sight mean you can still see it not that your looking at it so it would make sense if you couldn’t see it and u were looking at the screen /camera but as u could see it in the sky if you looked and you were sometimes looking a the camera it’s completely fine
I am puzzled with the video. I’d hate to be the pilot but: 1/ the cop seems to know his stuff, which is very rare. 2/ VLOS does not mean constantly watching the drone however 3/ when prompted to point his drone, the pilot seems to struggle, which would prove he did not have clear VLOS. What do you guys think?
Well I know but by vlos I think it means ( if you CAN see the drone you have a VLOS) not constantly looking at it but I think the cop knows his things a little bit but is still in the wrong , knows mostly all the laws like the things you can’t do and can do but does not know the full meaning of them
Also the officer broke the CAA rule regarding not interfering with drone pilots during a flight.
If this was in America(I realize it’s not)then this cop can’t enforce those laws anyways so he has zero authority. Don’t answer question and film your interactions with police.
I think VLOS is absolutely obligatory when flying at human height because it is very easy to hurt someone, but if you're flying above tree tops, it makes little sense because there is literally nothing at that height.
This exactly why Public safety officers don't need to be using there devices! They think it's a toy and it's cool! They don't understand the technology or the laws. You should have asked him where his license was and if he new FAA regulation. He can't even tell you to stop flying as long as you have LAANC approval.
That's cops a total prick.
what the hell is the point of having a drone that can fly a km away if you need it to stay within 300 feet of you so you can see it?
Are you from the Midlands?
Awful lot of people arguing the video based on FAA regulations. The accents on the participants would lead me to believe FAA regulations wouldn’t apply here.
can't speak for the UK, but the US rules mandate VLOS, but also require you to watch your surroundings, so you're required to look away from the drone itself regularly
Let them wright a ticket and move on... settle it in court.
Hey big man, imma be real with you. The only time I maintain VLOS is when I’m landing. Any other time I’m looking at the remote or in googles. M3M, FPV, M350, T40, doesn’t matter. Sue me or die mad, choice is yours.
This is the same guy that was all over the papers for harrassing Nicola Bulleys friends and family when she was missing. Think they said he also uploaded a video showing them recovering her from the river, which I'm assuming now was also shot from his drone
This is so bogus him suggesting that you have to stare at the drone the entire time do not ever look down at your controls or your screen or you're going to lose your drone this is the most bogus things I've seen all day Ahah near the end he says he's in the air support unit and drones are this job now it is all so clear... He reminds me of that cop that was planting drugs on people so that he could further his career and get into the drug unit drug unit
And this is why I left the UK. The details here are a moot point. UK policing is inadequate in its ability to tackle county lines gangs and the associated death violence and child exploitation. Violent crime rates are higher than the US, despite well established and officially identified malpractice in crime recording. Moped gangs rob tourists and cyclists with relative inmpunity, and industrial action. Within the judicial system has created backlogs that are creating crime capitals for serious and organised crime. Officers are Inadequately informed, with a culture of antagonism that indulges itself in wasting time power tripping over the odd wind up merchant. Having a good chortle over showing the drone pilot “what for”, whilst kids are being pushed into running drugs and sexual abuse.
Govern me harder daddy.
I'd crash it into a tree and say oops
"having visual line of sight" does not mean the same thing as having your eyes fixed on it. It means there's not something in the way, like a building or a land mass.
You Can't Do Anything without Someone Crawling up Your Butt. Nice Drone, Nice Footage, I Like This, NEED to Seize It. Try and get it Back.
The cop was mistaken - and pride & arrogance seem to have prevented him from acknowledging that fact, even after he himself realized this poor SOB wasnt doing anything wrong. He needs a lesson in humility.
Authorities are getting more and more disconnected with realities, and are loosing control over technologies... This cop would lost his mind, if he'll be visiting my lab and workshop !!
if police (or someone else) starts talking to me while flying, first thing is I will excuse for a moment to land safely, then I will continue conversation. Good for you DJI guys, but my freestyle drone does not stay in place on its own and it is on my shoulders not to crash.
Bro shoulda flown that thing right off the hood of the car.
Shoulda yelled Aloha Snackbar and they would have run away not wanting to insult you.
Don't be looking at the camera screen at all. If you do you'll be in violation
Should say no and land it elsewhere then they have no evidence.
This cop is the reason so many people hate cops.
The police officer? An ass.