BEYOND VISUAL LINE OF SIGHT and FORWARD OBSERVERS
Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS) when flying drones is currently a BIG no no . . and almost every jurisdiction is making rules about how it can be done commercially with restrictions, limitations, regulations, certifications, and qualifications. All this seems necessary, since irresponsible flyers can endanger hundreds of human lives with a single mid-air collision with an airliner that brings it down. Yes that's a horrific and sobering vision . . like that time you saw an airliner flown into a building intentionally! . . .even so the reaction is very visceral as you step aboard your next flight to Miami, (sorry it's Canadian Snowbird season. Everyone seems to be headed south this time of year) it is important to put that risk into perspective, based on a full and rational analysis of all likely or unlikely threat and safety factors. As long as the machine is in Visual Line Of Sight of an Observer in a Forward area . . who can communicate with the Pilot the, and the Pilot in Command (PIC) has visual sight of the areas ahead of where the drone is moving then FORWARD BVLOS (FBVLOS) is equivalent and as safe as VLOS.
Here are some other issues to consider. . . see also IFR WEATHER vs IFR Rules
Transport Canada and partners have investigated practices and guidelines for established Small drone operators who wish to extend their operations from VLOS to FBVLOS. From this I assume there must also be a new set of Best Practices for Very Small operators coming some day. Does this mean that very small "Compliant Operators" will be able to fly "non-compliant" aircraft for commercial work or can Compliance be modified to allow lower priced but fully capable systems to qualify for some reasonable FBVLOS activities . . when they are in the hands of a competent pilot. Maybe the proof of capability should rest with the Operator themselves and Transport Canada could qualify operators to allow them to judge the safety of their very small machines. At some point, the buck stops with the pilot anyway, doesn't it? Very Small RPAS is not a full fledged aircraft like a Cessna or even an Ultralight requiring strict standards so they don;t threaten human life. I think you can best regulate this end of the industry by regulating the pilots/operators to a reasonable standard. . . and it does not have to onerous . . . mostly common sense rules that can be assessed on a written test like a drivers license but with demonstrated knowledge of airspace and ATC rules.
Here are some other issues to consider. . . see also IFR WEATHER vs IFR Rules
Transport Canada and partners have investigated practices and guidelines for established Small drone operators who wish to extend their operations from VLOS to FBVLOS. From this I assume there must also be a new set of Best Practices for Very Small operators coming some day. Does this mean that very small "Compliant Operators" will be able to fly "non-compliant" aircraft for commercial work or can Compliance be modified to allow lower priced but fully capable systems to qualify for some reasonable FBVLOS activities . . when they are in the hands of a competent pilot. Maybe the proof of capability should rest with the Operator themselves and Transport Canada could qualify operators to allow them to judge the safety of their very small machines. At some point, the buck stops with the pilot anyway, doesn't it? Very Small RPAS is not a full fledged aircraft like a Cessna or even an Ultralight requiring strict standards so they don;t threaten human life. I think you can best regulate this end of the industry by regulating the pilots/operators to a reasonable standard. . . and it does not have to onerous . . . mostly common sense rules that can be assessed on a written test like a drivers license but with demonstrated knowledge of airspace and ATC rules.