VLOS explained: what "visual line of sight" actually means for UK drone pilots
Approx read time: 16 minutes | Last verified: 8th May 2026
Reader Note: UK drone regulations and platform status change. For current guidance, always check the relevant CAA guidance & legislation, or speak to the BSDT team.
Visual line of sight.
Three words.
Easy to say.
Genuinely difficult to get wrong unless you're trying to.
And yet, no rule in UK drone flying gets argued about more than this one.
Spend any time in drone Facebook groups, YouTube comment threads, or pilot forums and you'll find people insisting that VLOS is bureaucratic overreach.
That modern drones with telemetry and obstacle avoidance shouldn't need it.
That high-tech consumer drones flying in remote areas should be exempt.
That "common sense" should let experienced pilots fly further than the rules allow.
That kind of argument is genuinely understandable, but, it misses the point of why VLOS exists in the first place.
So in this piece, we're going to do three things.
First, look at what the legislation actually says about VLOS, in plain English.
Second, we'll look at what the CAA's Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) adds to the legislation, and why.
Third, and most importantly, we'll talk about WHY VLOS exists. Because once you understand that, the rest of the rule starts making a lot more sense, and you'll be in a much better place to fly within it confidently.
This isn't a piece about clever workarounds. It's a piece about understanding a rule that exists to keep you (and everyone sharing the airspace with you) alive.
If you've been thinking about giving up on the hobby because the rules feel too restrictive, this piece is also for you. The rules are clearer than they look, the practical compliance is simpler than you fear, and the answer isn't to stop flying. It's to fly within a framework you actually understand.
Let's get into it.
In this article
• What VLOS actually says (the legislation)
• What the CAA's AMC adds, and why
• Why VLOS really exists: the manned aviation perspective
• The biggest misconception: telemetry is not VLOS
• VLOS is a variable, not a fixed distance
• Engaging the strongest counter-arguments fairly
• What about FPV, follow-me, and long-range work?
• So, what should YOU actually do?
• Conclusion
• FAQs
What VLOS actually says (the legislation)
Let's start with what the law actually says.
The definition of Visual Line of Sight in UK drone regulation comes from Article 2(7) of UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947. Here's the actual text:
From Article 2(7), UK Regulation 2019/947
“'VLOS' or 'visual line of sight operation' 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.”
Read that again. There's a lot in there.
Three things stand out, and they're worth pulling apart properly.
First: "continuous unaided visual contact."
"Continuous" means throughout the flight, not just sometimes. "Unaided" means without the use of binoculars, telescopes, monoculars, telephoto camera lenses, FPV goggles, or anything else that artificially extends what your eyes can see. Glasses and contact lenses you normally wear are fine. Anything else isn't.
Second: "control the flight path… in relation to other aircraft, people and obstacles."
This is the part most pilots underweight... VLOS isn't just about seeing your drone. It's about being able to control where it goes, with reference to everything else around it. If you can see your drone but you can't tell where the approaching helicopter is in relation to it, you're not maintaining VLOS in the legal sense.
Third: "for the purpose of avoiding collisions."
This is the WHY. The entire rule exists because of collisions. Not because the CAA wants to make life harder. Not because the rule-makers don't trust pilots. Because if a drone hits a manned aircraft (or a person, or a vehicle, or another drone), people get hurt or killed.
So the legislation is, in plain English, the following: you have to be able to see your drone with your own eyes, throughout the flight, well enough to control its flight path safely in relation to other aircraft, people, and obstacles, in order to prevent collisions.
Notice what's NOT in the legislation.
There's no specific distance.
There's no mention of orientation explicitly.
There's no list of which drones are or aren't allowed.
Those things ARE in the CAA's interpretation of the rule (the AMC), and we'll get to those in a moment. But the legislation itself is principles-based: maintain visual contact, control the flight path, avoid collisions.
That's it.
What the CAA's AMC adds, and why
The legislation gives us the principle. The CAA's Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) gives us the practical interpretation.
The AMC isn't law itself. It's the regulator telling you, "here's what we consider compliant with the law." If you fly to the AMC, the CAA's working assumption is that your flight is legal. If you fly outside it, the burden of proving compliance with the underlying legislation falls on you.
That's an important distinction worth understanding properly.
The AMC adds two key things to the bare definition in the legislation.
First: orientation.
The CAA's interpretation is that to genuinely maintain VLOS, you need to be able to see the orientation of your drone (which way it's facing) without relying on the screen, lights, or telemetry. The reasoning is that if you can't see the orientation, you can't reliably control the flight path, which is what the legislation requires.
In practical terms, for a typical Mini-class drone (around 250g, small and grey or white), that means keeping it within roughly 90-100 metres of your position. Larger drones, you can fly further. Smaller and harder-to-see drones, less far.
Second: a practical interpretation of what "unaided" means.
Glasses and contact lenses are fine. Binoculars, telescopes, telephoto lenses, and FPV goggles are not. The screen on your controller showing the drone's camera feed is not a substitute for direct visual contact. The drone's flashing lights might help you see it, but they don't tell you which way it's facing.
Now, here's the key point most pilots miss.
The AMC isn't there to be annoying. It's the CAA's translation of the legislation into something you can actually apply on the ground. If you're flying within the AMC, you have a much stronger position if anything goes wrong, because a regulator-approved interpretation of the law is exactly the kind of thing a court or investigator will look at.
If you're flying outside the AMC, you're not necessarily breaking the law. But you're putting yourself in a position where you'd need to defend your interpretation of the legislation against the regulator's interpretation, in a setting where the burden of proof is on you.
Which raises an obvious question.
Why does the CAA care so much about this rule in the first place?
That's the question that matters most. So let's address it properly.
Why VLOS really exists: the manned aviation perspective
Most drone pilots, very understandably, think about VLOS in the context of their own airspace. The bit of sky directly above where they're standing. They know there's nothing flying near them. They can hear there's nothing nearby. So why does it matter how far away the drone is?
Here's what most drone pilots don't see.
Below 500 feet across most of the UK, there's a whole world of aviation happening that drone pilots are sharing the airspace with. Search and rescue helicopters, Police helicopters, the air ambulance (HEMS), agricultural aircraft, light aircraft on training flights, and the UK Military Low Flying System.
That last one is the bit that catches most drone pilots out.
So let's talk about it properly.
The UK Military Low Flying System
The UK Military Low Flying System (LFS) covers the open airspace of pretty much the entire UK. It runs from the surface to 2,000 feet above ground level.
Within that volume, fixed-wing fast jets routinely fly at a minimum of 250 feet above ground level. Helicopters can be authorised down to ground level.
This isn't a few flights a week in remote corners of Scotland.
It's daily training across most of the UK, conducted by aircrew operating to a published flying schedule. Hawks. Typhoons. Wildcats. Chinooks. Apaches, and a bunch more… Plus visiting aircraft from US, NATO, and other allied air forces.
In Tactical Training Areas (TTAs), fixed-wing aircraft can drop down to 100 feet AGL, again, with helicopters authorised to fly as low as surface-level. There are three of these in the UK, in mid-Wales, central Scotland, and the Borders.
If you're flying a drone in the open countryside, you are sharing your airspace with these aircraft.
Now here's the part that puts the whole VLOS rule into perspective.
Closing speeds and reaction windows
A typical fast-jet trainer at low level (a Hawk T2, for example) typically operates at 420 knots at low level, which is about 216 metres per second.
In other words, if you spot a Hawk on the horizon at 1 kilometre away, it covers that distance in just under five seconds.
From 500 metres? Just over two seconds.
Two seconds.
That's how long you have, between first noticing the aircraft and the aircraft passing your position. In those two seconds, you need to: spot the aircraft, judge its altitude and trajectory, decide where your drone needs to go, input the control commands, and have the drone respond and clear the airspace.
If your drone is 400 metres away from you and you're looking at the screen when the jet appears, the situation is over before you've even looked up.
And here's the thing that nobody warns you about until you've sat in the front seat of a fast jet at low level: spotting a small drone from a cockpit moving at that kind of speed is essentially impossible.
The pilot is dealing with terrain, navigation, the aircraft, weather, and a hundred other things. A grey drone against a cloudy sky, at 250 feet, off-axis from the aircraft's flight path, probably won’t be seen at all.
YOU have a much better chance of seeing the aircraft than the aircraft has of seeing you.
Which is why the responsibility for collision avoidance, in shared low-level airspace, sits primarily with the drone pilot.
And why the drone needs to be close enough that you can react in two seconds, not in twenty.
This is what VLOS is actually for. Not bureaucratic compliance. Not paperwork. The simple physics of two aircraft sharing a piece of sky, where one of them is moving fast and one of them needs to get out of the way.
If you've never flown a fast jet at low level, that's not on you… How else would you know? That makes it even more important for us to teach as many people as possible WHY these rules exist – despite the frustrations and inconvenience they can sometimes cause.
The biggest misconception: telemetry is not VLOS
Now we're going to address the single most common misunderstanding of VLOS. The one that comes up in every drone Facebook group, every comment thread, every forum debate.
"My drone has GPS, telemetry, a real-time map, an HD video feed, and a return-to-home function. I can see exactly where it is, where it's pointing, and what's around it. Surely that counts as VLOS?"
No. It doesn't. And here's why.
Telemetry is not visual contact.
The legislation specifically requires "continuous unaided visual contact with the unmanned aircraft." Looking at a screen showing where the drone is, isn't visual contact with the drone. It's visual contact with a representation of where the drone says it is. Those are two different things.
Three reasons this distinction matters:
One: telemetry can be wrong.
GPS can drift, especially in urban environments or near tall structures. The compass can lose calibration mid-flight. The map view can lag. The telemetry can show data that's seconds out of date. None of these are common, but all of them happen, and any of them can put your drone somewhere different from where the screen says it is.
Two: telemetry doesn't show what's near your drone in the air.
Even if the telemetry tells you exactly where YOUR drone is, it doesn't tell you where anything else is. The Hawk T2 closing on your position at 420 knots isn't on your map. The light aircraft at 600 feet isn't on your map. The HEMS helicopter that just lifted off from the local hospital isn't on your map. Visual contact with the drone, in the actual sky, is the only way you'll see them in time.
Three: the legislation is clear, and the AMC reinforces it.
Article 2(7) requires the remote pilot to maintain unaided visual contact with the unmanned aircraft. The CAA's AMC explicitly states that this means seeing the drone with the naked eye, including its orientation. Telemetry, lights, screen feeds, FPV goggles, binoculars: none of these substitute for actual eyes-on-drone visual contact.
This applies even when your drone has every safety feature on the market.
Obstacle avoidance is brilliant. ADS-B receivers are useful (but often don’t work against fast moving aircraft in the low-level environment). GPS-based geofencing is helpful. Automated return-to-home is a great safety net. But none of them turn telemetry into visual contact, in the legal sense.
The point isn't to say these features are useless, far from it. They genuinely make flying safer. But they're complementary to VLOS, not a substitute for it.
If you're flying further than you can see your drone, and relying on the screen to tell you where it is, you're not maintaining VLOS. You can call it whatever you want. The regulation, the regulator, and the courts will all see it the same way.
VLOS is a variable, not a fixed distance
Here's the bit where the rule gets more nuanced than "keep your drone within 100 metres."
VLOS isn't really a distance. It's a capability. The capability of seeing your drone well enough to control it safely and avoid collisions.
And that capability changes from flight to flight.
Think about how much harder it is to spot a small grey drone in the following conditions:
• A bright cloudy sky with low contrast
• Heavy haze, mist, or fog
• Light fading toward dusk
• Drone moving against a backdrop of trees, buildings, or rolling hills
• Looking into the sun
• Wearing the wrong glasses, or being short on sleep
Each of these factors changes how far away your drone can be while you genuinely maintain VLOS. On a clear sunny day with the drone against open sky, you might comfortably maintain visual contact at 150 metres. The same drone in the same position on a hazy overcast day might be at the edge of your vision at 80 metres.
Same drone. Same distance from you. Different VLOS.
Some factors that make VLOS harder:
• Smaller drones (sub-250g class, particularly the Mini series)
• Drones that match the colour of the sky (grey is the worst offender)
• Drones at altitude (more sky around them, harder to spot)
• Drones over busy backgrounds (towns, woodland, cluttered terrain)
• Weather, visibility, and lighting conditions
• Pilot fatigue, eyesight, distractions
Some factors that help:
• Larger, more visible drones
• High-visibility tape on the drone (matt orange, yellow, or red)
• Open clear sky as a backdrop
• Bright, contrasty daylight
• Knowing where the drone is going (planning your flight path mentally before take-off)
This is part of why pilot judgement matters so much in the rule. There's no one number the CAA can put on "how far is too far," because the answer genuinely depends on conditions.
The AMC's roughly-100-metres-for-a-Mini guidance is a baseline. In good conditions you could probably maintain better VLOS at 120 metres. In poor conditions, 80 metres might be the practical limit. Your job as the pilot is to make that judgement honestly, with safety as the priority.
Honest self-assessment, and being willing to land when conditions aren't right, is more valuable than knowing the exact AMC distance for your particular drone.
Engaging the strongest counter-arguments fairly
There are a few arguments against VLOS that come up regularly in the drone community, and some of them are genuinely worth engaging with rather than dismissing.
"If I just descend when I see an aircraft, I don't really need to be that close to my drone"
This is one of the most common arguments against tight VLOS, and it deserves a proper answer because it's partly right and partly based on a misunderstanding of how manned-aviation deconfliction actually works.
Let's address the misunderstanding first.
In manned aviation, the standard collision avoidance technique isn't altitude change. It's a turn, in a specific direction determined by the geometry of the encounter.
The Rules of the Air, derived from international convention, set out the principles:
• Two aircraft approaching head-on, both pilots alter course to the right. Each turns right and the aircraft pass on each other's left.
• Two aircraft on converging courses at roughly the same altitude, the aircraft that has the other on its right gives way.
• Overtaking, the overtaking aircraft passes on the right.
Vertical separation IS used in aviation, but mostly as a strategic separation method, e.g. different cruising altitudes for different directions of travel. It's not the standard tactical move when two aircraft actually converge.
The real collision avoidance technique is a geometric one. You assess the relative direction of travel of the conflicting aircraft, and you turn in the direction the rules require for that geometry.
Now, here's where this gets interesting for a drone pilot.
Doing geometric collision avoidance properly requires you to:
• See the manned aircraft clearly enough to assess its direction of travel
• Know where YOUR drone is and which way it's facing, well enough to command a turn in the correct direction
• Do all of that in the few seconds available before the aircraft passes
Try doing that with your drone 500 metres away while you're looking at a screen.
You can't.
Geometric assessment of fast-moving aircraft requires good visual contact with both aircraft, in real space, with enough time to think. Tight VLOS is what gives you that capability.
So the counter-argument actually strengthens the case for VLOS, not weakens it.
That said, here's the bit that IS partly right.
For a small drone in the Open Category specifically, the realistic emergency action when a manned aircraft appears is probably to descend to ground level as quickly as possible. That's not because it's the standard manned-aviation procedure (it isn't). It's because:
• A drone at low altitude has very little manoeuvring room compared to a manned aircraft
• Most drone pilots aren't trained in real-time geometric right-of-way assessment
• Getting to the ground fast removes the conflict entirely, which a turn doesn't
• The drone is so much smaller and slower than the conflicting aircraft that rapid descent is the most reliable clearance
So in practice, "see aircraft, descend immediately" is reasonable advice for a drone pilot specifically, even though it's drone-pilot pragmatism rather than the manned-aviation rule.
But, and this is the point, you still need to spot the aircraft in time to do anything. A descent only clears the conflict if you've started it before the aircraft is overhead. Two seconds of reaction time isn't a lot. If your drone is 600 metres out and you're looking at the screen, you've used those two seconds before you've even looked up.
That's the whole reason VLOS exists. Whichever emergency action you'd take, you need the visual contact to know there's something to take action against, and the time to actually take it.
"High-tech drones have safety features that should change the rules"
Modern consumer drones do have safety features that are genuinely impressive. Obstacle avoidance, GPS-based return-to-home, ADS-B receivers (in some models), geofencing, automated emergency landing. These ARE relevant to safety.
But two things to bear in mind.
First, the regulator is aware of these features. The framework hasn't ignored them; it's just that the framework treats them as complementary to pilot responsibility rather than as a substitute for it. ADS-B receivers might warn you about nearby aircraft, but military aircraft don't always transmit ADS-B (especially in low-level training, and, if they do – there’s a whole bunch of technical reasons that prevent ADS-B from being truly effective in the low-level environment). Geofencing prevents you flying into known restricted airspace, but doesn't stop you flying into a low-flying military training route, because those routes don't have static boundaries.
Second, the safety features are only as good as their reliability. They reduce risk; they don't eliminate it. A drone with obstacle avoidance is safer than one without, but "safer" doesn't mean "safe enough to fly beyond visual line of sight."
The legislation requires VLOS regardless of which safety features your drone has. The reasoning is that the responsibility for safe flight always sits with the pilot, and the pilot needs the means to discharge that responsibility, which means seeing the drone.
"Experienced pilots should have more freedom"
This argument comes up a lot, often from people with genuine aviation backgrounds (private pilots, military aircrew, ex-aircrew).
And it's understandable. If you've spent years flying manned aircraft, you have a sophistication around airspace, traffic, and decision-making that a casual drone pilot doesn't. Why shouldn't that experience translate to more freedom?
The honest answer is: it does, but through the right route.
If you genuinely need to fly beyond visual line of sight, or in ways that the Open Category doesn't permit, the legitimate route is the Specific Category. You apply for an Operational Authorisation. You traditionally needed to apply for an ‘Operating Safety Case’ (OSC) to do so, but now you’d need to go through the ‘SORA’ process. Whereby you must document your extended operations and demonstrate how you'll mitigate the additional risks.
That's the framework. And it works. Plenty of UK operators are flying beyond visual line of sight, or above the 400’ limit legally, in the Specific Category, with the right approvals.
What doesn't work is using your aviation experience as a personal exemption from the Open Category rules without going through the formal route. The CAA doesn't recognise that, the courts don't recognise that, and your insurer probably doesn't either.
The Open Category rules apply to everyone in the Open Category, regardless of personal experience.
If your operations need more, you upgrade your authorisation, not your interpretation of the rule.
What about FPV, follow-me, and long-range work?
Three specific scenarios come up a lot, and each has its own answer.
FPV flying with goggles
If you're flying FPV with goggles on, you are, by definition, not maintaining unaided visual contact with the drone. The goggles count as aided viewing under the legislation.
The way around this is a competent visual observer (a "spotter") standing next to you, maintaining VLOS on your behalf, and briefing you on what's around. The legislation allows for this when properly applied. Your spotter must be physically next to you, must not be using binoculars, and must be able to communicate with you in real time.
For the FPV community, the most common enablement route is membership of an organisation operating under Article 16 (the most common being FPV UK). Article 16 organisations have specific provisions for FPV operations that work differently from the standard Open Category rules. We'll cover this in detail in a future piece.
Follow-me modes (drone tracking you while you cycle, run, etc)
This is a genuinely tricky one because the drone is often behind the pilot, autonomously tracking. Strictly interpreted, you're not maintaining visual contact during a follow-me flight, because you're not always looking at it, or in direct control of it.
However, the UK CAA does have an exemption for this type of flying in the drone code HERE, which states that: “You do not have to keep your drone or model aircraft in direct sight when follow-me mode is active and set to follow within 50m of you”.
Long-range work for industry, agriculture, surveying, etc
This is the Specific Category's bread and butter.
Beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations are genuinely useful for things like pipeline inspection, large-area surveying, search and rescue, agricultural monitoring, and so on.
The legislation has a route for these operations: the Specific Category, with an Operational Authorisation, with a documented safety case, using the SORA methodology.
The route exists. It's not closed off. It's just not an option in the Open Category.
If your operations genuinely need BVLOS, that's the route to take. We'll cover how to achieve this, in detail in a future piece on this site.
So, what should YOU actually do?
Three steps, and honestly, this is simpler than the rule's reputation suggests.
Step 1: Match the distance to the conditions, not to a fixed number.
Don't memorise "100 metres for a Mini." Instead, before each flight, ask yourself: am I confident I can see my drone, its orientation, and the airspace around it, well enough to react to a manned aircraft in 2-3 seconds? If yes, you're maintaining VLOS. If no, bring it closer.
Step 2: Make the drone easier to see.
High-vis tape (orange, red, or yellow matt vinyl, designed for outdoor use) on a couple of strategic spots will dramatically improve how far you can comfortably maintain visual contact, especially in poor conditions. It's cheap, removable, and adds essentially no weight. For sub-250g drones, check that the tape doesn't push the drone over its weight class threshold.
Step 3: When in doubt, land.
If conditions degrade, if you're not sure you'd see an aircraft in time, the right move is to bring the drone closer to you and ultimately, land. There's no shame in cutting a flight short. I’ve done it and every commercial operator I've ever worked with has done it. The pilots who get into trouble are the ones who push on when they should have landed.
Beyond those three: if your operations genuinely need more than the Open Category allows, look at the Specific Category. The framework is there for a reason. It's not designed to make life difficult; it's designed to give competent operators a structured route to additional freedoms.
Conclusion
Visual line of sight is probably the most argued-about UK drone rule, and probably the one with the largest gap between perception and reality.
The perception is that it's bureaucratic overreach. That modern drones don't need it. That experienced pilots should be exempt. That common sense should prevail.
The reality is that VLOS exists because of physics.
Manned aircraft fly fast and low across much of the UK, every day, on training and operational sorties. The reaction window between spotting a fast jet and getting out of its way is measured in seconds.
VLOS is what gives the drone pilot any chance of using that reaction window.
The rule isn't going away. The regulator isn't going to relax it. As lower airspace gets busier (and it will, with delivery drones, eVTOL aircraft, and increasing helicopter traffic), the rule is more likely to tighten than loosen.
That said, compliance isn't actually difficult. Match the distance to the conditions. Make the drone easy to see. Land when you're not sure. Use the Specific Category for operations that genuinely need it.
To everyone in the comments of every drone YouTube channel saying they've stopped flying because the rules are too restrictive: don't.
The rules aren't as bad as the heated discourse around them suggests. Most of what you want to do, you can still do. The Open Category accommodates an enormous range of legitimate flying, and the freedom-vs-safety balance, once you understand it properly, isn't actually unreasonable.
Fly the drone you've got, in the conditions that suit it, at distances where you can genuinely see what you're doing, and you'll be flying within the rule the whole time.
There's a lot more depth to UK drone regulation, and we'll keep covering it in future articles and videos. If this piece was useful, the BSDT YouTube channel covers a lot of the same material in video form, and there's plenty more on the blog. If you've got specific questions, drop us a line, we use real reader questions to shape what we publish next.
Until next time, fly safe & blue skies,
Matt
FAQs
Q: What's the maximum distance I can fly my drone in VLOS?
There isn't a fixed legal distance. The CAA's AMC suggests roughly 90-100 metres for a typical Mini-class drone in normal conditions, with larger or more visible drones able to maintain VLOS at greater distances. The honest answer is that VLOS depends on your drone size, the weather, the lighting, the background, and your eyesight on the day. The right test isn't "am I within X metres," it's "can I genuinely see my drone, its orientation, and the airspace around it well enough to react to a manned aircraft in 2-3 seconds?"
Q: Can I use binoculars or FPV goggles to extend VLOS?
No. The legislation explicitly requires "unaided" visual contact, which excludes binoculars, telescopes, monoculars, telephoto camera lenses, and FPV goggles. Glasses and contact lenses you'd normally wear are fine. If you're flying FPV with goggles, you need a competent visual observer ("spotter") standing next to you, maintaining VLOS on your behalf and briefing you on the airspace.
Q: Does telemetry on the controller screen count as VLOS?
No. The legislation requires visual contact with the unmanned aircraft itself, not with a representation of it on a screen. Telemetry, GPS map view, and HD video feeds are useful tools, but they don't satisfy the VLOS requirement. The reasoning is that telemetry can be wrong, can lag, and crucially doesn't show what's near your drone in the air, like a low-flying aircraft.
Q: What if I'm flying somewhere genuinely remote with no aircraft for miles around?
VLOS still applies. There's no "remote area" exemption in the Open Category. The reasoning is partly that low-flying aircraft don't need to follow predictable routes (they're operating in Class G airspace with see-and-avoid principles), and partly that the rule is designed to be uniform regardless of perceived risk on the day. If you genuinely need to fly beyond visual line of sight in remote areas (for survey work, search and rescue, etc), the Specific Category is the route.
Q: I'm an experienced manned-aviation pilot. Can I fly drones beyond VLOS based on my experience?
Not in the Open Category. The Open Category rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of personal aviation experience. If your aviation background and operations justify additional freedoms, the route is the Specific Category and the SORA; where you apply for an Operational Authorisation and demonstrate competence and risk mitigation through a documented Operations Manual and process. Plenty of experienced aviators operate in the Specific Category, and the framework is designed to help recognise their additional capability through a formal route, not as an informal exemption.
Q: What happens if I lose sight of my drone briefly?
Brief, momentary loss of sight (looking down at the controller for a couple of seconds, for example) isn't a VLOS breach in any practical sense. The legislation talks about "continuous" visual contact, and a court would interpret that in a sensible way. What's not acceptable is sustained loss of visual contact, where the drone is at a distance where you're relying on the screen or the lights to keep track of it. If you genuinely lose sight of your drone for any meaningful period, the right move is to bring it closer (or activate return-to-home if needed) and re-establish visual contact.
