Has the "drone always in sight rule" been thrown out? (Canada)

[MARK (LI)]

Its one of those ridiculous rules that is basically impossible to comply with. 99% of any flight will result in a loss of visual yet it remains a rule. Its quite silly when you think about it.

If you take a look at the video, I am sure that you will more fully understand the VLOS regulation, and realize that it really is not ridiculous at all....it acknowledges the need to scan the sky, and look at your controller while being ABLE to see the drone with a quick tilt of the head and eyes.....we frequently see posts on here from people who send the drone over a mountain, or into a valley, behind a building .....somewhere they lose sight of the drone ..fly around for a few minutes and then lose the drone....to me it seems to happen most often while flying sideways while out of site...usually it is determined that it hit a tree, or is on a roof somewhere...recently someone on here flew into a lighthouse and had no idea that's what happened...I can't think of an instance where it hit some obstruction ...or worse an in flight aircraft ( a verified account ......we have read about questionable reports of this) and then fell on someone...the regulation is two pronged...it does help prevent you from losing the drone, and it protects others from being injured or property from being damaged

 

[racingdemon]

I was recently studying the eu drone laws via a course, and the guy said the rule for follow me is that it has to be within 50 meters of you

 

[slozukimc]

After watching the video it is simple to me that you must be able to see the drone at all times, not see the drone at all times.

I have another question. He says you can’t look left and right like a pilot can in an airplane so that makes it so you can’t fly out of VLOS. He goes on to say that you can get an exemption if you can prove that you can see what is around you if I got it right. Does that mean that my M1P and Goggles RE in head tracking gimbal mode would be what you need for the exemption? I don’t intend to file for that or anything. I am just curious.

Mike

 

[Mikieh]

So I think we need spotters for every aircraft in the sky!!! Let’s be fair FAA!! Gov’t just loves to dump on the little guy… Us!!

 

[old man mavic]

its also not just about being able to see the drone, it means that you need to be able to react in an emergency situation, and be able to control the drone safely ,such as if a low flying aircraft suddenly entered the airspace you were flying in

 

[theDRONEranger]

Not if you have a spotter standing beside you. But with follow me, it's not possible have a spotter as you're racing down a steep incline on your mountain bike and your drone trailing behind you. Even if you had a spotter behind you, he'd be crashing by not watching where he's going. That's the scenario I'm referring to. But I suppose you'd be breaking rules anyway because as the pilot you wouldn't have continuous control of the drone anyway. I suppose in the long run you just do what you want within reason and hope not to have an accident where you could get sued, etc etc..

I honestly do not think that you would be the PIC if you are riding you bike down a steep incline trail.

 

[Solsearcher]

The Government of Canada says this (and I quote)

"-visual line-of-sight or VLOS means unaided visual contact at all times with a remotely piloted aircraft that is sufficient to be able to maintain control of the aircraft, know its location, and be able to scan the airspace in which it is operating in order to perform the detect and avoid functions in respect of other aircraft or objects. (visibilité directe ou VLOS)"

That definition seems to contradict itself. On the on hand if you stopped reading right after "at all times", there you got. But because the sentence carries on with "That is sufficient to be able to maintain control, now its location etc.", that seems to be leaving it open to some interpretation and debate. If I say I have enough visual contact for that list, and YOU say I don't...what then? lol

Bottom line is we all know what VLOS is. Trying to find a way around it is a waste of time. Just know that "technically" flying with a controller or phone or tablet is technically breaking the law every time you look at the controllers. We will all do it anyway doing photo shoots or video. I don't think anyone is going to get busted for looking at their controller too much, but you could if your drone is far away. I highly doubt anyone here could see their drone 500m away. You might see the strobe if equipped, but you sure aren't seeing the actual drone!

When I had my flight review for our Advanced Certification, I'd say I flew 50% of the time looking at my tablet, and 50% of the time looking at the drone. I made to glance up periodically. Since I passed the flight review, I have to assume that I wasn't breaking any rules at least as far as the flight reviewer was concerned!

 

[racingdemon]

For flying in EU, definition in law is:

‘visual line of sight operation’ (‘VLOS’) means a type of UAS operation in which, the remote pilot is able to maintain continuous unaided visual contact with the unmanned aircraft, allowing the remote pilot to control the flight path of the unmanned aircraft in relation to other aircraft, people and obstacles for the purpose of avoiding collisions;

The caveat here is 'able to'.

Then further on, it says:
"the remote pilot keeps the unmanned aircraft in VLOS at all times except when flying in follow-me mode or when using an unmanned aircraft observer as specified in Part A of the Annex;"

Whole text is here: EUR-Lex - 32019R0947 - EN - EUR-Lex

 

[RUFFSTUFF]

VLOS doesn't mean you're staring at your drone 100% of the time.

 

[sar104]

VLOS doesn't mean you're staring at your drone 100% of the time.

Apart from anything else that can make the drone very uncomfortable.

 

[slozukimc]

Apart from anything that can make the drone very uncomfortable.

My drones are kinda needy. They like the attention.

Mike

 

[Cobber]

Does the VLOS rule mean you can see the line of sight to the drone (so as to avoid obstacles) but not actually have to see the drone because of distance?

 

[sar104]

Does the VLOS rule mean you can see the line of sight to the drone (so as to avoid obstacles) but not actually have to see the drone because of distance?

No - in aviation LOS is not the same as VLOS, which requires you to be able to see the aircraft and visually determine heading and speed.

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

I strongly disagree that "99% of any flight will result in a loss of visual ...". That is clearly a choice. At most 5% of my drone flight typically involves my looking away from the drone. The rule, as interpreted by the advisory circulars, allows you to look briefly at your controls/display for operational purposes. That is not breaking the rule, but if you choose to do it for 99% of the flight then you are intentionally breaking the rule.

I again draw the parallel with crewed flight. You can look at an instrument or at a map for brief period of time without running afoul of the VFR requirement to maintain outside visibility. But if you put your aircraft on autopilot, pull out your camera and stare through it at the ground then you are violating the rule. If you want photos from a crewed aircraft, you bring along someone else to look through the camera so you can make sure you don't run into any other aircraft (or for that matter a mountain). With a drone we have the extra flexibility of looking at our screens while someone else maintains visual contact with the drone to make sure it doesn't endanger other aircraft. Otherwise, if you are alone and staring at your screen, you are breaking the rules. You may not get caught, but you are breaking the rules, and potentially endangering other aircraft (drones or others) which may be approaching from a different direction than your camera is pointed.

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

Does the VLOS rule mean you can see the line of sight to the drone (so as to avoid obstacles) but not actually have to see the drone because of distance?

No. Per the advisory circular you must be able to see the drone. And if under part 107 that means being able to tell the orientation, altitude, and velocity of the drone by sight at all times. Reading the circulars and listening to the video I'm not clear whether the stricter definition applies to recreational flight or just part 107 flight, but either way you need to be able to actually see it.

 

[dmpv]

No. Per the advisory circular you must be able to see the drone. And if under part 107 that means being able to tell the orientation, altitude, and velocity of the drone by sight at all times. Reading the circulars and listening to the video I'm not clear whether he stricter definition applies to recreational flight or just part 107 flight, but either way you need to be able to actually see it.

It's always been interesting to me (and entertaining) when we have people who say they can see their drone from a mile away. perhaps they can see whatever light setup they've attached to their drone. I'm not arguing that. There are probably people with exceptional vision who can do this but it must be in the major minority compared to all drone pilots out there.

What I would like to see is the same drone fly out 1 mile, disconnect the phone or any device that is streaming from the drone's camera, the pilot look away for a few seconds while someone else randomly push the left joystick to the right and left while doing random movements with the right joystick to simulate loss-of-orientation. Now give the controller back to the pilot without any visual aid other than the pilot's visual line of sight and see if the pilot could re-establish visual lock on the drone and return the drone back home safely.

Isn't my example above be a true test of VLOS? Being aware of your drone's entire orientation and being able to control it at all times? I think too many of us depend on the visual feedback of the camera and if the camera would fail or the tablet or phone or smart controller screen, we'd all be screwed to some extent.

Another example, no way this guy has VLOS out 6 miles? Plus it goes evening dark on return. Would he have been screwed if his tablet died randomly even at the 2 or 4 or 6 mile mark? Perhaps this is an extreme example but wouldn't 1 mile or 2 miles out qualify as too far?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Droniac]

Not if you have a spotter standing beside you. But with follow me, it's not possible have a spotter as you're racing down a steep incline on your mountain bike and your drone trailing behind you. Even if you had a spotter behind you, he'd be crashing by not watching where he's going. That's the scenario I'm referring to. But I suppose you'd be breaking rules anyway because as the pilot you wouldn't have continuous control of the drone anyway. I suppose in the long run you just do what you want within reason and hope not to have an accident where you could get sued, etc etc..

AGREED. For varied reasons, It’s truly a very litigious world now more than ever. I used to have an attorney on full retainer. After 27 years and 6 boys I fired her (…or she, me. yup divorced). Now I use Google Law School. Must take every caution possible. Godspeed, Droniac

 

[RandyV]

Has it been thrown out ... no, still applies in most countries worldwide.

Even though you have a gadget that hopefully can manage on it's own for awhile without you looking at it, Visual Line Of Sight still commonly applies.

If your logic would work we should be able to buy cars that can exceed the speed limits ... & by that it would be OK to disobey the speed limits.

LOL Not do diss "fjc" but your analogy was spot on!

 

[Mudbone]

Along these threads of line-of-sight... How does Zing proceed with delivering
packages via drone?

 

[sar104]

Along these threads of line-of-sight... How does Zing proceed with delivering
packages via drone?

Waivers.