1
What We Heard Report
Lower-Risk BVLOS NPA
Consultation Overview
The Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) industry continues to grow and expand into new sectors of the Canadian economy. Along with this growth, stakeholders have reported that the lack of beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) regulations presented a barrier to economic growth for the industry. Transport Canada (TC) has recognized this and has worked on incremental regulatory development starting with Part IX RPAS regulations and moving onto lower-risk beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) regulations to enable more complex flights and operations in Canada, expanding how RPAS can be used. The TC RPAS Task Force received funding in Budget 2019 to accelerate the development of first
generation BVLOS regulations.
TC published a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) on lower-risk BVLOS RPAS operations on April 23rd, 2020 with a 60-day written submission period. Stakeholders were also informed of these consultations through the April edition of the Drone Zone newsletter and an online notice on the Canadian Aviation Advisory Council (CARAC) website. The NPA was distributed to over 630 stakeholders for comments using the Task Force’s distribution list and was also sent to CARAC members. The NPA will remain online after the conclusion of the comment period through both the CARAC portal and TC website. The Task Force received about 230 comments during the comment period from a wide range of stakeholders. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, stakeholders were provided a longer comment period as TC understood the competing priorities that stakeholders are facing.
During the consultation period, TC also organized a series of targeted stakeholder presentations with groups of manufacturers, training providers, commercial and recreational users as well as the broader aviation community (airline pilots, general aviation, etc.). Each session consisted of a 30-minute presentation provided by members of the TC RPAS Task Force, followed by an hour for questions and comments. These sessions provided stakeholders with an additional venue to review the information in the NPA and ask TC official’s questions. The sessions were well attended with six to fifteen individuals attending each presentation.
The Proposed Regulatory Framework
The NPA put forward a framework for proposed regulations that will be risk- and performance-based. The proposal seeks to expand routine RPAS operations and enable further innovation while maintaining aviation safety and the safety of people on the ground. This is expected to be the first proposal in a graduated approach to developing BVLOS regulations, addressing lower-risk operations first and then moving towards higher-risk operations over the longer-term.
2 The objective of the NPA is to enable routine lower-risk BVLOS RPAS operations in Canada without the need for a Special Flight Operation Certificate (SFOC), and expand the existing Part IX Visual Line Of Sight (VLOS) framework. The scope for the NPA covers lower risk operations, including: delivering supplies to remote communities; first responder operations; natural resources and wildlife surveys; and
infrastructure inspection.
The proposal is centered on the 3 P’s: the pilot, the product (the aircraft) and the procedures. Each of these P’s will build on the existing regulatory requirements found in Part IX of the Canadian Aviation Regulations with additional requirements that reflect the increased risk of BVLOS operations. The NPA also included economic and security considerations for stakeholder input.
Overall the proposal seeks to strike a balance between maintaining the safety of the broader aviation community while also developing rules that don’t impose unnecessary cost and compliance burdens on the emerging RPAS sector, including those for small organizations who want to enter the RPAS industry.
Comment Overview
For the purposes of this report, the comments have been organized to follow the outline of the NPA and consultation presentation. Below are the main themes of the comments and what we heard on each:
RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC)
o General support of ROC implementation due to the risk management practices it requires within organizations
o Questions about the level of planned TC oversight of Organizational Proficiency Check’s (OPC)
o Questions about the economic burden a ROC could have on smaller organizations looking to use RPAS
Pilot
o Support for the expansion of the Advanced Pilot Certificate with the localized BVLOS approach
o General support for an additional certification level
Discussion on the continued use of a self-declaration process for RPAS training schools;
Some support for moving towards a certified system of RPAS training schools
o Suggestion to introduce designated BVLOS training and testing areas
o Discussion on the appropriate age requirements for the pilot
Product
o Considerations for the increased weight thresholds for RPAS and the use of weight vs. kinetic energy
3
o Broad support for the implementation of DAA (detect and avoid) for all BVLOS operations
Need for clarification on DAA solutions and their implementation
o Support for the future implementation of remote identification
Questions about privacy implications of remote identification
o Support for the Declaration and Declaration Plus approach
o Discussion about the level of planned TC oversight in the declaration process
Procedures
o The need to mitigate mid-air collision risks where BVLOS operations are integrated in areas where other aircraft fly
o Questions about how the proposal considers both air and ground risk
o Analysis about RPAS operating in Class G airspace below 400 feet and the unease from traditional aviation about the increased risk of a mid-air collision
o Ideas on how to reduce air risk such as:
Carving out airspace/RPAS fly zones and corridors
Alongside these comments, many stakeholders answered the economic framework questions that were part of the NPA. These comments along with those regarding the expansion of the drone management portal and drone site selection tool will be highlighted at the end of this report.
RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC)
Stakeholders were largely in support of the implementation of the RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC). They saw it as a way to maintain safety, risk management and other processes to address risks within their organizations. The addition of having a Chief Pilot or a more qualified individual on site was also supported although, with some reservations from smaller organizations about whether this would be an administrative burden and whether certain business models could exist that contract out a Chief Pilot role on an as needed basis. Stakeholders saw the ROC as a positive step to main control of pilot operational envelopes but raised questions around its implementation and the criteria that would be used to trigger the requirement for a ROC.
The main feedback provided by stakeholders within the ROC related to the Organizational Proficiency Check (OPC). Stakeholders saw the OPC as something that could become an economic burden for small to medium-sized organizations who are trying to conduct RPAS operations.
Another consideration stakeholders had regarding the OPC was the level of oversight by TC, which was perceived as too limited as proposed. They saw the OPC as a way for organizations to conduct their own safety reviews, which in their view, decreases safety and accountability on TC’s part. Some stakeholders expressed a preference for TC to conduct OPCs, while others were tentative about having a third party administer the OPC due to the knowledge they would require to do so. They remained unsure as to how this would affect their privacy interests. Similarly, they recommended that OPCs be scheduled at regular intervals throughout the year by TC, to ensure organizations are maintaining their safety standards when operating RPAS.
4 Comparisons were drawn to the existing flight review process but stakeholders were uncertain about the role of the OPC and its objectives. Additional comments pointed the perception that there are increased burdens that would disproportionately impact smaller RPAS that pose a lower risk than some of the larger RPAS covered by this proposal.
Overall, stakeholders were largely in support of the ROC with their feedback centered around needing to identify criteria to trigger a ROC and the objective(s) and administration of the OPC proposal.
Pilot
Many stakeholders were in agreement with the pilot certification scheme for lower-risk BVLOS. Some supported the idea that those with an advanced pilot certificate could operate RPAS BVLOS, which they saw as requiring a satisfactory level of knowledge. Stakeholders further supported the expansion of privileges under the advanced pilot certificate to allow for localized BVLOS. However, stakeholders suggested that pilots who operate larger RPAS in localized environments (e.g. under a certain altitude, within a certain distance from any building or structure or, capable of monitoring the airspace to avoid a collision) only be required to have a basic certificate, rather than an advanced pilot certificate.
Stakeholders questioned the rationale for increasing the minimum age of the pilot from 16 to 18 years old. They highlighted how pilot experience such as flight hours or length of time that a pilot has held an advanced certificate could be used as a more suitable pre-requisite.
Stakeholders perceived certification requirements for RPAS operating BVLOS in the lower weight class (250g – 25kg) to be excessive. Along similar lines, stakeholders were split regarding whether the status quo (no pilot certificate required) should be maintained for RPAS weighing less than 250 g or whether a pilot certification should be introduced. Suggested alternatives to pilot certification for RPAS less than 250g included the signing of a waiver or other simplified ways of informing the pilot what their responsibilities are when operating an RPAS.
Some stakeholders raised questions surrounding the knowledge requirements for the exams as well as the availability of study materials. They suggested that knowledge requirements be set for each level of pilot certification and that the exam then tests against this knowledge. Stakeholders also requested for improvements to be made to the existing Advanced Pilot Certificate exam such as clarification about what subject areas are to be tested. Overall, stakeholders were pleased with the proposal for pilot certification, however they continue to express a desire for continued TC oversight in the pilot certification process.
Most stakeholders were largely supportive of additional training requirements associated with low-risk BVLOS operations. A distinction existed between the broader aviation community stakeholders and RPAS stakeholders on how much more training should be required for pilots who operate RPAS BVLOS. Stakeholders in the aviation community highlighted that these training requirements were inconsistent with what was expected of pilots in the rest of the aviation community and could lead to situations where risk to other aircraft in the airspace is increased. To counter this, traditional aviation stakeholders suggested that RPAS pilots be part of mandatory training on Canadian airspace rules and air law, to
5 increase their general airspace knowledge. This would include how RPAS pilots should deal with
traditional aircraft when encountering them in the airspace to decrease risks of collisions.
RPAS stakeholders questioned the inclusion of mandatory ground school training as they saw this as overly burdensome. Some stakeholders suggested that rather than having schools be “self-declared”, there should be a network of schools that are “certified” by TC to increase oversight and ensure that all schools follow the same set of training procedures established by TC. Along with these schools,
stakeholders suggest that there be established BVLOS training and testing areas where pilots can practice without being a risk to other aircraft. It was suggested that these spaces be accessible to training schools so that they can conduct pilot testing in a safe controlled environment.
Smaller organizations were uncertain about the introduction of mandatory ground school to training requirements and suggested that if schools were to be certified, then ground school should no longer be required. Stakeholders of larger organizations were also apprehensive about having mandatory ground school as they saw it as repetition of requirements they already had in place.
Stakeholders in the broader aviation community were encouraged by the inclusion of the requirement for pilots to have liability insurance when operating RPAS BVLOS. They were, however, unsure as to whether liability insurance should be required for all operators or only in some cases, as stated in the NPA. RPAS stakeholders requested further clarification as to when liability insurance would be required. To further increase safety and responsible flying, stakeholders suggested that all pilots who plan to operate BVLOS be required to submit flight plans.
Product
Stakeholders in the broader aviation community questioned the new weight thresholds for RPAS. They felt that RPAS weighing up to 650kg, which are heavier than small aircraft, would pose a risk to other airspace users. To mitigate this risk, stakeholders suggest that upper weight limit should be lowered and only be increased when significant technological advancements have been made to limit the risk of mid-air collisions. Furthermore, some stakeholders suggested that kinetic energy be used to determine weight thresholds as this takes into consideration not only the RPAS’s weight but also what its weight is depending on its speed. Regarding the lighter weight categories, stakeholders suggested that the 25kg-150kg category was too large and would allow for relatively large RPAS to operate with too few restrictions. They propose that this category be changed to include sub-categories that have different restrictions depending on the weight.
Many stakeholders were very supportive of the introduction of DAA requirements for RPAS operating BVLOS. They believe that all RPAS operating BVLOS should be required to have DAA functionality, and that BVLOS operations should be limited before RPAS have DAA. Some stakeholders were uncertain on how DAA would be implemented and requested that more information on implementation moving forward. Stakeholders were also unsure of the difference between VLOS and DAA performed by a visual observer.
6 Stakeholders from the RPAS community were largely supportive of the manufacturer self-declaration model. They perceived it as a positive step forward that declaration-plus requirements were higher compared to a standard declaration, while a performance-based approach was still maintained.
Stakeholders saw having more than one means of compliance as positive as this would enable flexibility at an organizational level. Some questions were raised regarding details within Standard 922 and whether it would be revised to reflect the new requirements for BVLOS operations. Some stakeholders from the broader aviation community perceived this new model as a decrease in TC oversight that may increase air and ground risks.
Most stakeholders were supportive of Remote ID but recognized that Canada is exploring how it can be applied in a Canadian context and whether it should be mandatory for RPAS of all sizes. Stakeholders suggested that Remote ID use standard aviation wavelengths to provide positional information to increase aviation safety. Stakeholders raised questions related to privacy, cost implications for smaller RPAS and a higher barrier to compliance for RPAS, as compared to traditional aviation.
On privacy, stakeholders were unsure about who would have access to Remote ID information and how much would be broadcasted from the RPAS. They suggest that all information be kept in secure
locations and encrypted to ensure privacy. First responder stakeholders asked for feedback about whether the broadcast of Remote ID information could be suppressed when conducting public safety operations.
Regarding smaller RPAS, stakeholders questioned whether Remote ID could be added to smaller RPAS without increasing costs significantly. It was suggested that Remote ID only be required for larger RPAS. A number of stakeholders also suggested that ADS-B out be used as a means for RPAS self-identity. Along with this suggestion, stakeholders highlighted that general aviation should also have ADS-B out so that RPAS don’t have a higher standard for compliance.
Stakeholders requested that there be greater clarification on rules applying to RPAS weighing less than 250 g, and that these rules be highlighted to operators, as some operators may think that RPAS less than 250 g operate outside the scope of all RPAS rules. Some stakeholders suggested that all RPAS devices (even those under 250g) be registered to increase accountability on behalf of the manufacturer and the pilot.
Procedures
The broader aviation community questioned the use of ground population density to determine isolated and non-isolated airspace. They highlighted how in isolated areas determined by the metric of ground population, airspace traffic still exists at low level altitudes. RPAS stakeholders suggested solutions to help in mitigating this perceived air risk in isolated areas. This included the creation of airspace corridors that would regulate where RPAS and other aircraft could operate. The aviation community questioned the limited visual scope RPAS pilots would have when operating BVLOS and suggested that they should have similar visual flight rules (VFR) rules to operate safely.
7 Stakeholders had mixed views on RPAS operations in controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Some proposed that even in uncontrolled airspace RPAS should be equipped with all avoidance systems while others proposed a more scaled approach as to what was required depending on the airspace an RPAS is operating in.
Implementation
The broader aviation community suggested that the drone selection tool be updated to include the information of all unregistered airfields as well as hang gliding and paragliding launch sites to increase awareness of potential aircraft traffic. In conjunction with this, stakeholders suggested the
implementation of high frequency flight areas to the site selection tool so that operators have a better idea of airspace traffic in their operation area.
Most stakeholders supported the leveraging of the Drone Management Portal (DMP) to deliver services as this maintains TC oversight. They also continued to support the use of the DMP to reflect regulations and operational rules to pilots who utilize the portal rather than forcing pilots to look for this important information elsewhere.
On enforcement of the safety regulations, stakeholders highlighted the importance of educating law enforcement officers on the regulatory framework so that they can stop unsafe RPAS activity in the field.
Security
Stakeholders recognized the security risk that could be posed by unlawful use of RPAS and the need for future solutions to maintain the security of the airspace. Stakeholders believe that through exploring and implementing future technologies that help to detect and remove RPAS threats, illegal use of RPAS can be reduced.
Economic Framework
Many stakeholders provided answers to the economic framework questions that were posed in the NPA. Stakeholders had mixed views as to whether RPAS merited a different legal framework governing their economic regulatory framework. One suggestion was to make a distinction between RPAS that can carry people versus ones that cannot in future RPAS regulations. Some thought that due to the future possibilities in the RPAS industry, they should remain as part of the same legal framework as traditional aircraft.
A majority of stakeholders suggested that the economic framework apply dependent on the RPAS activity. Stakeholders agree that RPAS operators should be subject to different licensing requirements compared to other aircraft.
8 Stakeholders from Canada supported the maintenance of the 49% ownership threshold, while those from outside Canada supported its removal. Those in Canada favored the protection of small RPAS businesses to enable domestic growth of the RPAS industry. Stakeholders generally agreed that RPAS industry development should be monitored until more predictable growth occurs and then ownership limits can be revisited. Stakeholders within Canada expressed the importance of maintaining a strong domestic RPAS industry for the time being due to high pressures from external stakeholders to
globalize. All stakeholders recognized the pressures to globalize the RPAS industry in Canada, however if this is done it should be in a way that continues to enable domestic growth of the Canadian RPAS industry.
Conclusion
Overall, the NPA was received positively by stakeholders in the RPAS industry and generated much discussion with the broader aviation community. As part of TC’s commitment to collaboration, a wide array of stakeholders were consulted including operators, manufacturers, training schools, the aviation community and public safety agencies. This enabled for a variety of comments to be heard each from a unique viewpoint. Stakeholders reacted positively to TC’s approach to developing this proposal,
recognizing the importance of advancing safety as a priority, while supporting innovation in the industry. For the next steps in the regulatory proposal the Task Force will use the comments to inform regulatory development. The Task Force is targeting pre-publication of the regulations in CG1 in fall 2021. Before this, the Task Force is aiming to have a fee proposal by early 2021 to support the regulatory package.
