> I haven't checked the exact circumstances of the 'drone' being near a aeroplane, but if it was more than 50m away from the 'vehicle' at all times, it would ap

> I haven't checked the exact circumstances of the 'drone' being near a aeroplane, but if it was more than 50m away from the 'vehicle' at all times, it would appear that what happened was not forbidden. Even if they hadn't been operating beyond the Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) conditions (they were apparently at 700ft, CAA accepts VLOS to be below 400ft), I wouldn't be surprised if the aircraft was in breach of other rules, such as operating an FPV/Surveillance aircraft over a congested area, or within an aerodrome traffic zone. > The rule requiring line of sight is interesting, as it forbids what seems a likely common use - looking where you can't see. I think you'd be surprised at how much of a "non-issue" this is (excuse the awkward grammar). UAVs are my profession and I do a lot of surveillance and data acquisition work, and I can't remember ever _needing_ to fly out of VLOS. Real time video feeds give you a great view of what is going on in front of the camera, but not of what is happening around the aircraft. As advanced as UAVs have become they are not infallible and, as unlikely as it may seem, you should be prepared for your flying blender to fall out of the sky at any moment. We were operating just a few days ago and the crew list was: pilot, pilot's spotter/assistant, payload operator, and three spotters. This may seem like overkill but a 7kg object falling from 50m can do some serious damage, and that is assuming the blades stop spinning on the way down.