Has the new CAP722 killed off drones in the UK?

[Jamesz]

The latest update to UK law (as detailed in CAP722 v9) has removed the 500m rule for VLOS drone operation!

Instead of being great news to allow greater visual range, pilots now have to be able to identify the drone's orientation -with unaided eyesight- to maintain VLOS. With small drones like the Mini, that effectively means a visual limit of only 30-50m before the pilot is unable to say which way it is facing, without using telemetry. This effectively makes most drones, particularly the sub 250's useless- despite the almost perfect safety record.

 

[old man mavic]

@Jamesz ,sorry to be the bearer of bad news fellow flyer ,but i think you have completely misunderstood both the old VLOS rules and now the new ones as well
under the old rule the pilots ability to know by seeing the drone and its surroundings, its orientation and position, in respect of structures and other aircraft was set at a maximum of 500m, irrespective of whether or not those rules could be followed at that distance ,it did not mean you could just fly out to 500m even if you could just see a dot in the sky or even see the drone at all
on an overcast day i could just about make out my MPPs position at 500m ,using the attached strobes front and back ,but that was pushing it a bit
the Mini on the other hand is a different story ,and i would not be able to see it at 500m
all that has changed is the wording of what the CAA considers to be the meaning of VLOS and if someone with extremely good eyesight is able to comply with the rules they can now fly their drone further than 500m if they so wish

 

[Jamesz]

@Jamesz ,sorry to be the bearer of bad news fellow flyer ,but i think you have completely misunderstood both the old VLOS rules and now the new ones as well
under the old rule the pilots ability to know by seeing the drone and its surroundings, its orientation and position, in respect of structures and other aircraft was set at a maximum of 500m, irrespective of whether or not those rules could be followed at that distance ,it did not mean you could just fly out to 500m even if you could just see a dot in the sky or even see the drone at all
on an overcast day i could just about make out my MPPs position at 500m ,using the attached strobes front and back ,but that was pushing it a bit
the Mini on the other hand is a different story ,and i would not be able to see it at 500m
all that has changed is the wording of what the CAA considers to be the meaning of VLOS and if someone with extremely good eyesight is able to comply with the rules they can now fly their drone further than 500m if they so wish

I can't find anything in the 'old' rules that state you had to visually be able to identify the drone's orientation to maintain VLOS. I have an Operational Authorisation (formerly PfCO) and there is no reference to this. I agree you have always had to be aware of the airspace the drone operates in and its position relative to the ground, obstructions, people and other air users. The change is the need to identify orientation visually, which is almost impossible, even with amazing eyesight beyond short range. Prior to this, you could legally and safely fly your mini to say 200m, being fully aware of the surrounding airspace, but as of now this is illegal - that is the massive change that will lead to many peope ignoring the new rules.

 

[old man mavic]

@Jamesz well because so many people have flown their drones illegally, by making their own interpretation of what VLOS meant ,under the old rules ,the CAA have redefined its meaning ,to make it less ambiguous , just being able to see a dot in the sky ,is no longer what VLOS is meant to be ,as it was before the changes,
the people you have to thank for these changes ,are all the idiots, who have been posting on the internet showing illegal VLOS flights
if the guidelines interpretations are pushed to the limit ,then unfortunately there will be a reaction from the law makers
there will as you say be many who will just ignore the new rules ,and nothing will happen until doing ,that causes a serious incident ,and then the proverbial will hit the fan,and we all know where that will end up,

 

[Jamesz]

@Jamesz well because so many people have flown their drones illegally, by making their own interpretation of what VLOS meant ,under the old rules ,the CAA have redefined its meaning ,to make it less ambiguous , just being able to see a dot in the sky ,is no longer what VLOS is meant to be ,as it was before the changes,
the people you have to thank for these changes ,are all the idiots, who have been posting on the internet showing illegal VLOS flights
if the guidelines interpretations are pushed to the limit ,then unfortunately there will be a reaction from the law makers
there will as you say be many who will just ignore the new rules ,and nothing will happen until doing ,that causes a serious incident ,and then the proverbial will hit the fan,and we all know where that will end up,

Yes, I've criticised the 'range test' idiots and other examples of poor airmanship, as have you on these pages. I'm not convinced this is why the CAA have brought this in; I don't think it's going down the rabbit hole of paranoia to see a commercial motive to clear the sky to make way for future drone delivery systems. I'd repeat again; this CAOP722 version 9 is not a clarification or interpretation of existing VLOS, but a sea change. Prior to this we could use drones effectively for SAR use, which is what I do- now it looks like this has been killed off.

 

[old man mavic]

@Jamesz you may be right in your interpretation of the rule changes,but to be honest with you ,using the SAR part of drone use ,is not really a good example
you know as well as i do, that SAR presents its own unique set of challenges ,and it is exempt from a lot of the normal flight restrictions that exist ,in fact it is a very well organised and controlled operation, that allows the PIC to do what others without the specialised training
can not do
it will have no impact on the emergency services use of drones

 

[twickers14]

Interesting exchange gentlemen. Very helpful for us even older guys who love their drones and are rather proud to be wizzing (not literally) around with a pretty sophisticated piece of kit at our age. Just out of interest does anyone know what the VLOS rules re drone flying are where dji are based. Reason for asking is they must be somewhat worried about market decline in the light of these developments-choosing my words very carefully there! No flying here today, pouring with rain and gusting 45mph!

 

[Ralph thompson]

Not a lawyer but a slight twitch of the RHS control stick (left right fore aft) quickly indicates the orientation of the drone even if it’s just a dot in the distance.

 

[old man mavic]

lets try to answer the OP original question in a succinct manner has the new CAP 722 killed off drones in the UK and the answer is NO
will it reduce the distances from the PIC to the drone ,depending on the PICs vision capabilities, and the conditions during the flight YES

 

[Cymru]

Flip side, it could increase distances for larger drones.

 

[JavaJack]

@Jamesz well because so many people have flown their drones illegally, by making their own interpretation of what VLOS meant ,under the old rules ,the CAA have redefined its meaning ,to make it less ambiguous , just being able to see a dot in the sky ,is no longer what VLOS is meant to be ,as it was before the changes,
the people you have to thank for these changes ,are all the idiots, who have been posting on the internet showing illegal VLOS flights
if the guidelines interpretations are pushed to the limit ,then unfortunately there will be a reaction from the law makers
there will as you say be many who will just ignore the new rules ,and nothing will happen until doing ,that causes a serious incident ,and then the proverbial will hit the fan,and we all know where that will end up,

I agree completely. I’ve been operating for more than a decade as a commercial operator and I am constantly amazed at the number of video posts of severely legal flights, either distance or altitude to the physical limits of the drone. I usually try to educate first, as often these operators don’t really know the rules, but often just disregard the rules and then we are all painted with the same brush and yes the laws change as a result, as you say.

 

[Jamesz]

@Jamesz you may be right in your interpretation of the rule changes,but to be honest with you ,using the SAR part of drone use ,is not really a good example
you know as well as i do, that SAR presents its own unique set of challenges ,and it is exempt from a lot of the normal flight restrictions that exist ,in fact it is a very well organised and controlled operation, that allows the PIC to do what others without the specialised training
can not do
it will have no impact on the emergency services use of drones

I only wish this was true!
For mountain rescue use, we have NO special exemptions at all and are subject to the terms of our Operational Authorisation, ie VLOS,500m/120m limits , just like any commercial operation. Police- and others have an emergency services exemption that unfortunately does not apply to rescue. Where previously we could search large areas of empty mountain and moorland effectively and safely, we are now hamstrung to short range, effectively taking drones out of use for searching. After years of intensive training, creating systems, operating manuals etc, this is a huge setback.

 

[Bog Down]

I only wish this was true!
For mountain rescue use, we have NO special exemptions at all and are subject to the terms of our Operational Authorisation, ie VLOS,500m/120m limits , just like any commercial operation. Police- and others have an emergency services exemption that unfortunately does not apply to rescue. Where previously we could search large areas of empty mountain and moorland effectively and safely, we are now hamstrung to short range, effectively taking drones out of use for searching. After years of intensive training, creating systems, operating manuals etc, this is a huge setback.

Ouch. So just because you are a volunteer organisation, you don't get an exemption? That's even more absurd than the new rule.

Shame you can't get someone from the CAA to come out and help comb the Upper Derwent on foot, just to see how long it is before they agree that perhaps being able to deploy a UAV might be a good idea.

 

[old man mavic]

@Jamesz ,I am sorry if I misunderstood your roll in SAR ,i too thought you were operating in conjunction with ,and alongside other emergency services ,and as such would have similar exemptions during a mission ,i do find that a strange situation ,and apologise if I offended you in any way ,

 

[Jamesz]

@Jamesz ,I am sorry if I misunderstood your roll in SAR ,i too thought you were operating in conjunction with ,and alongside other emergency services ,and as such would have similar exemptions during a mission ,i do find that a strange situation ,and apologise if I offended you in any way ,

No offense at all! -I always appreciate the common sense and experience shown in your posts.
I used SAR as an example of how this new VLOS interpretation may affect the beneficial use of drones to the community.
Similarly, organisations like droneSAR, who find many lost dogs each year for their desperate owners will now find it very hard to operate effectively. Despite being qualified, experienced, insured, having strobes, having an observer, pre-notifying everyone from the RAF to air ambulances and local ATC, risk assessing every time, I now have to keep to a restrictively short range.
Is any other activity so safe, yet so controlled....

 

[old man mavic]

thanks for your reply ,and i appreciate your comments ,i guess time will tell if the issues you mentioned do cause such flights to be compromised

 

[CJG]

Not a lawyer but a slight twitch of the RHS control stick (left right fore aft) quickly indicates the orientation of the drone even if it’s just a dot in the distance.

Pragmatism is always a good idea @Ralph thompson . I agree with what you say.

But the best tip of all, in my opinion, is to fly well away from folks and in such a manner as to be unobtrusive and non-disturbing.

But - as @old man mavic has said - there will be some pilots who abuse the tough legislation/pragmatic enforcement climate and ruin things for everyone.

 

[guy_7]

Yes, I've criticised the 'range test' idiots and other examples of poor airmanship, as have you on these pages. I'm not convinced this is why the CAA have brought this in; I don't think it's going down the rabbit hole of paranoia to see a commercial motive to clear the sky to make way for future drone delivery systems. I'd repeat again; this CAOP722 version 9 is not a clarification or interpretation of existing VLOS, but a sea change. Prior to this we could use drones effectively for SAR use, which is what I do- now it looks like this has been killed off.

Yes, these restrictions were going to happen eventually. With or without idiots.

 

[YVRGUY]

Yes, these restrictions were going to happen eventually. With or without idiots.

guy_7 you are completely correct. There will be journals of laws, legislation, and more definitions written on VLOS, orientation, wether or not it’s a dot or a drone, is it an idiot or fully certified pilot flying.

The world is a very fictitious litigious culture and there will be someone 24/7 continually rewriting these “restrictions”. All this gives authorized watchdogs and unauthorized ‘Karen’s’ more fodder to bring you down.

Flying sensibly and responsibly and respecting your surroundings is what we do in the perfect world. What really occurs up in the sky, is what keeps these legislators continually posting new rules…”with or without idiots”

When I started flying drones 4 years back, I followed the manufacturer’s safety guide to flying…they seemed sensible and reasonable with some rationalism. Today, even though I fly sub 250 g drones, I’m all certified up to fly here in Canada and the USA.

Flying for fun and recreation.