What constitutes a reason for the weight classification? and Why should we regulate? This needs to be resolved before we blanket new drone technology and capabilities with the existing control and safety regs of the past 50 years.

I have read though all of the notes and recommendations I can find on how Canadian Air Regs will be modified to accommodate drones . . .sorry "RPAS"  . . RPAS is the new acronym now generally agree on internationally . . so we are going to have to get used to that one now over UAVs or RPVs or UAS or drones. For now I'll just drone for convenience until the dust settles.

From all my reading  of the proposals and recommendations it comes down to CLASSIFICATION. If there is no new lower classification lower than 25kg then we are regulating on fear not physics and a whole set of over regulated unnecessary and ineffective control will result. The new rules Canada is proposing make perfect sense . . to a point . . . public safety, pilot knowledge, certification, vehicle maintenance and reliability  as well as ATC "rules of the air" all benefit from drones being required to meet certain standards. But . .  at some point you have to be practical as we have done with other vehicles. . . like bicycles, skateboards and scooters etc that share the road. Airspace is just a 3 dimensional road and the threat to life and property is no less real than unregulated drones.

However, given the ability to define rules of the air that automated systems can be programmed to avoid, there is no reason to further control 1kg machines than exploding cellphones or hoverboards.

So the first order of business, before setting the new regulations in "political concrete" is to recognize a weight or size class boundary that makes rational sense according to physics and analysis of the threat that goes beyond "antiquated" aviation flight experience.  . . I say antiquated because we have only just now realized the capability and performance of a 1kg flying camera. There are very capable systems now that general aviation has little or no first hand experience operating.

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.

Here are some issues to consider.

They are working on practices and guidelines for established Small drone operators who wish to extend their operations from VLOS to BVLOS.  From this I assume there must also be a new set of Best Practices for Very Small operators. 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 BVLOS 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.

What is the difference with BVLOS anyway for VERY SMALL machines? BVLOS applied to VERY SMALL RPAS should be defined as "BVLOS of potential hazards" not BVLOS of the MICRO RPAS itself. They are just too small.  You can see other aircraft or particularly large buildings of natural features. If you can see them but still know where your machine is, then you should be considered VLOS since the criteria of VLOS/BVLOS primarily exists to define risk of collision, damage or loss of life and a VERY SMALL RPAS is no more lethal than a baseball . . . so the PIC of a MICRO RPAS is able to see and avoid any other potential aircraft or hazards in his line of sight.

Instrument flight rules are designed to maintain aircraft separation while flying in cloud. This is different than IFR weather conditions. Simply speaking, VFR (Visual Flight Rules ) means you can fly if there is more cloud than sky with the lowest cloud being 1000ft and you can see 3 miles horizontally.  Any weather less than that is considered IFR. .  well except for SPECIAL VFR which is a special case. So in order to allow aircraft to fly IFR ie less than "1000 and 3" any aircraft must have certain equipment that are regulated to assure the aircraft can be flown safely in those conditions.. This is different than the rules for actually flying in IFR conditions which involve flight procedures and clearances and altitude restrictions. However, when you're flying a drone you can barely see  800ft away requiring 15,840ft visibility (3 miles) makes no sense. If you can see a  conflicting airliner 1 mile away then there is not going to be a conflict if you have the drone under positive control. Besides the airliner or any civilian aircraft should not be flying at 500ft anywhere except near an airport, so there is practically zero chance of a collision or even a near miss anyway.

So, IFR for VERY SMALL drones should mean you can fly if the weather is not below 1/4 mile visibility and 500ft lowest clouds (ceiling). Remember, 300ft AGL is a reasonable  maximum altitude for civil aviation separation in rural areas that are supposed to stay above 500ft. Both Canada and US FAA require planes to stay "1000ft above any obstacle within 2000ft of the aircraft", over built up areas so realistically, 500ft AGL maximum over built up areas should be perfectly safe for Very Small RPAS. I also think, reasonably, you should not be flying if there are icing conditions either during or forecast for your area within 1 hr of your planned mission but that's a different area for discussion.

Current CARs says your knowledge should include altimeter, airspeed indicators and the like. That's for Airplanes. VERY SMALL RPAS knowledge demonstration should not be about aircraft systems but be around the RPAS display instrumentation, map displays, navigation and flight modes interface and methods of using and switching flight modes . . . and WEATHER.

Recommendations currently call for only 6 hrs of flight time over 2 years (in the past 24 months) to remain qualified as a drone instructor. My experience with operational instructional flying in RCAF tells me that's pretty limited to be teaching others. 2 hrs or Dual instruction. 2 hrs of Dual acting as an instructor and 3hrs of solo and your an instructor? Maybe I'm reading that wrong but that's a bit light for Small Class drones. . . but realistically, for VERY SMALL drones it may be enough for qualification to fly but it's not enough to teach or qualify others at any size.

There is a range of required equipment recommended for BVLOS flight. Most of it is valid like ability to display magnetic direction, position or speed.  . . but a lot of seems to be a hangover from manned systems.  . .  Like "Means of making a standard rate 1 turn". That's called a "turn and slip indicator and a stop watch". . . . and mostly for fixed wing aircraft that can't hover in place. I can think of no circumstance flying a drone when a standard Rate 1 turn would achieve any useful purpose for the Pilot or an air traffic controller.

Requirement for "an adequate set of fuses" " accessible to the PIC ( Pilot In Command) for all on-board equipment is also a carry over from flying piloted aircraft. First there are virtually no accessible electronics in either the controller or the drone and replacing one during a flight is equally impossible so I would strike that requirement entirely for VERY SMALL class systems.

Then there is the recommendation it should carry ADS-B.  . . an aircraft based GPS reporting radio signal that reports your aircraft position to ATC and provides flight path de-confliction data for other aircraft in the area. As far as I can see there is no value to ATC for MICRO RPAS to possess ADS-B Out navigation or course correction for RPAS flying below 300ft AGL. Or a typical aviation Transponder. (see comments on real-time position reporting - Alternate World). Doing so would also clog the system unnecessarily.

In general, the drone world ( especially very small ones should not need to have anything to do with civil aviation. Their primary goal should be not to interfere and not present a threat to normal aircraft operations. For small and larger classes of drones, that's a different issue. They will need to interface regularly and there fore accommodate more restrictive access. I want to deal with just the Alternate World of VERY SMALL drones the same way the airlines would consider airport parking congestion as a threat to aviation. thousands of very heavy and powerful machines are allowed to manoeuver through airports and around aircraft with people in them but present virtually no threat to people or property unless its in the hands of a suicide bomber. There are fences and access roads, barriers and signs to direct traffic safely and efficiently. . . it's an Alternate Universe, and I believe the same can be done for personal and commercial drones. . .  especially the VERY SMALL ones.

A system of reporting position is currently feasible and could be implemented with existing RPAS simply by requiring an Internet link with the controller that reports position direction and ground speed like ADS-B. Typical Micro RPAS already store this flight information and a lot more locally in real-time. The ability to report updates to an existing website already is in use and Transport Canada or the FAA could make use of this data by allowing or requiring such reporting to an ATC accessible secure web address. How hard would that be, given anyone can see real-time video from personal drones in Facebook. Personally, I think it's overkill to require small business to report activities this way but if ATC Transport Canada or the FAA determined that VERY SMALL drones pose a serious threat because no one is tracking there locations with respect to civil aviation there IS a way to do it without a burdensome cost or operational impact to the small business operator.

Technology advancement continues at an ever increasing pace and Aerial Cameras have overtaken the classification of aerial vehicles.  . . New flight rules from Transport Canada and the FAA are based on  the old technology and need updating. I have recently put forward an official request for consideration by the Canadian board or committee that is finalizing the CARs UAV Proposed Amendments. Particularly PART V and PART VI. (6.37 Collision avoidance). So I thought I'd capture that process here in the BLOG.

There is enormous commercial market and need for aerial photography, surveillance and security that can be effectively accomplished with palm size UAVs weighing <1kg that carry sufficient communications and sensors to be operated safely beyond 200 meters or so where they cannot be seen because of their small size. Right now SMALL means <25kg.
 
The case of very small, light weight UAVs ( ie Low Energy RPA . . in my case <1kg all up weight and ~150joules maximum total energy <3 joules /sqcm) the missions are extremely low risk with SFOC qualified pilots. Therefore, (UAV_REPORT -1 PART 2 of the Terms of Reference) deserves further consideration now that accurate positioning and reliable collision avoidance has been miniaturized.

Definitions:
RPA - Remotely Piloted Aircraft
UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Low energy RPA - means an RPA that has been analyzed and/or demonstrated, for the case of an uncontrolled impact, to not impart a peak energy of more than 12 Joules /cm2 on a stationary person or object in the most unfavourable of circumstances.
Small RPA - means an RPA with a maximum permissible take-off weight of 25 kg (55 pounds) or less, not including low energy RPA.
SFOC Special Flight Operations Certificate. This is how UAV/RPAs/Drones are currently regulated for commercial use in Canada.
VLOS - within Visual Line of Sight - Can be seen by the naked eye.
BVLOS - Beyond Visual Line of Sight - Can't be seen without aides. NOTE: The location of a UAV BVLOS is still known as accurately as within VLOS and displayed for the operator.
 
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend a class of VERY LOW ENERGY RPAs and VERY SMALL RPA/UAV class (PART V RPAS), of <2kg with a total energy of <150Joules, and <5 Joules/sq cm. that can be authorized to fly BVLOS out to at least 50% of the demonstrated telemetry range when flown by a qualified/authorized pilot, from surface to 300ft, while maintaining 2 way communications and a listening watch on the low level frequency appropriate to the class of airspace it is authorized to operate in.
 
Technical Rational and EXAMPLE

The KE (Kinetic Energy) is 1/2 Mass x Velocity Squared and for current commercially available technology (eg Mavic Pro) that is 0.5 x 0.743 x 424.4 = 157.65 joules of energy. If you divide that by the cross section of a head-on MavicPro ( 8.3 cm x 8.3 cm) doing 20.6 m/s then the maximum impact energy / sq cm is 2.29 Joules. According to Transport Canada's PHASE I REPORT, this is less than a baseball (3.9) or tennis ball (3.1) These balls weigh much less than a UAV but they can go more than 2-3 times as fast. . . which is called  "NOT lethal" in the report. A golf ball imparts 8.4 joules/sq cm. and the report states this is "NOT lethal but getting close".

So by this reasoning, the Class of VERY SMALL UAVs like MavicPro carries a maximum 157joules of energy while a baseball is comparable at about 140 joules. Yet we still allow people to stand around stadiums right next to the foul line and get hit now and again. In the worst case scenario of a flyaway (uncontrolled/uncommanded flight), I submit that there is no difference in risk from VERY SMALL UAVs flying BVLOS. The risk is identical and just because you can see one within VLOS you still cannot do anything about it if it fails and the injury risk is identical. Also, to be noted that Mavic's 157joules is only at top speed in "SPORT " mode flying in forward orientation, otherwise it's less. At normal maximum transit speed of 32mph (14.4m/s) it's less.

The RISK when flying BVLOS with VERY SMALL CLASS Drone then a 3 part problem.
1. You might hit someone and hurt them. (chances are extremely low comparable to hitting someone while playing baseball, unless you intentionally aim at a victim or become incapacitated and the UAV is uncontrolled in a mode that can reach >20m/s speeds, approx 40mph) Here is a quick reference point for <1kg Class RPAS www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY2eCvuHflA
2. You might hit an obstacle and damage it or cause a fire. (except that you can see and avoid where you are going (Forward Camera) and you have reliable collision avoidance, including 4 more automated cameras and GeoFencing that will stop flight into prohibited airspace and also inhibit active command attempts to do so.)
3. You might get in the way of a commercial or recreational aircraft and cause damage, injury or death. (except airplanes/helicopters and hot air balloons are easy to spot and avoid with the unaided eye at a range exceeding the practical range of the UAV. In addition you know exactly where your UAV is (GPS map display heading, altitude and ground speed) despite not being humanly able to see Mavic's (.02 sqm cross-section) unaided only 200m away. . More importantly, there are already airspace restrictions for all types of air vehicles to avoid such conflicts and situations, and proper GeoFencing along with responsible, qualified and authorized pilots will prevent unwanted or illegal deviations.

So for VERY SMALL/VERY LOW ENERGY UAVs then( <1kg <.02sqm profile machines especially), the risk of accident or serious personal injury is lower than a baseball and normal eyesight combined with current rules of the air mean the likelihood of being in the same airspace with commercial aircraft (that you CAN easily see) is highly unlikely with qualified responsible pilots. There is no safety rationale to restrict VERY SMALL/VERY LOW ENERGY UAVs  from operating  BVLOS.
 
As seen by the new MavicPro, technology continues to change at an increasing pace but proposed regulations do not consider the positive impact of miniaturization (pun intended). The Transport Canada Terms of Reference from 2012 said, they "expected that the availability of reliable detect, sense and avoid technology is likely to be a significant number of years away, therefore, some of the work in Phase 2, which is dependent on the availability of sense and avoid technology, may be delayed." I think both the technology and the reliability has already arrive nearly a year ago (Mavic predecessor Phantom 4) and we should revisit Phase 2 work now and create a VERY SMALL and VERY LOW ENERGY class of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles..

Everyone who flies a camera or does Post Production has lots of things they've learned from experience. My old flying instructor used to say, "Try to learn from the mistakes of others, you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself."

I've collected lots of those tips from flying over the years, and I'm still learning more since I began flying drones/UAVs a couple of years ago. So, there are now two types of TIPS, ones for flying and not crashing and burning (or getting in trouble with authorities)  . . . and another whole different kind of TIPS for getting super aerial photos and videos. I'm in the process of developing a course for both. . .  An introductory 1/2 day course on building or flying any drone, regulations and flight safety etc  . .  and then another 1/2 day on the new Drone markets, photo/video equipment and creating amazing Photo/Videos.

I learned a lot myself just from my own experience but some of the best ideas and practices I've learned from others who already fly or create aerials professionally, so my goal is to put the BEST of these tips together in two new courses I plan to offer soon. . . things like just walking behind your drone when you are maneuvering low level in tight spaces, (it isn't always about altitude) . .or how to adjust your gimbals setting to make really smooth professional transitions. Spacial awareness is key in all types of flying and especially so when flying and taking pictures at the same time. You certainly have to learn to fly safely, but planning and rehearsing the shot pays great dividends, flying "through the shot" or try keeping the subject hidden from view for the first few seconds of a shot. . . . and then . . . there is so much more you can do in Post Production. . . 

Anyway, have a look at this outline (link below) and let me know if you or your photography group would be willing to host a course and retain some of the proceeds. Leave me an email at david@inskyphoto.com and we can talk.

I'm planning some travel . . Toronto Canada to the US  . . with a Phantom4 and been researching US and Canadian rules & regs. For my part, I will only take my UAV with me as carry-on ( although you can check it as long as batteries are removed. Some UAV forum recommend putting blades in your checked baggage especially if they are carbon fiber since they  "could be used as a weapon". Not long ago, I had a small Braun coffee grinder taken away from me by Toronto airport security "because it had blades" in it   . . 2 rounded metal 1 inch blades in the bottom of a plastic cylinder. . . no sense arguing, but I'll put them in checked baggage, just to save the hassle. I'm still trying to find a good hard sided case that meets the dimensions spec. Size/weight limits are similar for most airlines (but not identical). This is what Canada and United Airlines say re: carry-on.

Both Air Canada and United Airlines allow multiple (2-3+) <100watt hr batteries but ONLY in carry-on. They must be separated from the device, labeled and terminals taped over. The P4 battery is 81.3w fully charged and they recommend <50% SoC ( State of Charge).  volts x AmpHr = Watts. For Phantom 4 it's 15.2 x 5.35 (5350mAh) = 81.3W. It's all here on the dji website if the security guys want you to show them. The charging terminals should be taped over so they cannot touch anything metallic by accident. I recommend that Blue paint edging tape. It's an obvious colour and can be pulled off and reused without leaving sticky residue on the battery.

Regulations say multiple spare batteries can only be for personal use ( ie as long as they are not for resale). I'm also putting my 2 spares in a fireproof safety bag ( get them at most hobby places). With a recommended safety label on the outside of the fireproof bag you have a much better chance there will be fewer questions (or ANY questions) as you go through security.  if you look/act like a safety minded person and you get treated better I find. You can just copy/print this label below or make one yourself. The controller battery is not easily removable so I guess that just stays in the case. With a charged LiPo battery installed it's illegal to go in checked baggage.

It says on the FAA website the "aircraft" needs to be registered. For US citizens it's an actual registration number like all piloted planes. You can do that on line if it is less than 55lbs. P4 is only 3 lbs .. . . but if you are a foreigner ( like Canadian) you still have to register as "proof of ownership". There are 2 wrinkles here for Canadians.

First, you can only register online from INSIDE the USA. The FAA website says they will refuse to allow you to the registration page if it sees a foreign IP address.  . . it's true, I tried. Not sure how you do that unless you wait till you arrive and then register on line, so I haven't seen the questions or forms they ask for.

And second, you cannot do any work with it in the US. If it's for commercial purposes then it must be registered and there is another whole layer of forms about work permits and VISAs. I'm just going for a holiday to visit family and do photos and videos, so that should be ok. I live just a couple of miles from the border in Canada so I went over to US Customs this morning to talk to a customs officer directly and I got a pretty senior looking officer who was very helpful. He told me basically "no problem" after we had discussed pretty much everything I just outlined here above. He did not know about the FAA rules specifically though.

HAVE FUN  . . . no working allowed!