I checked with a (Canadian) lawyer friend.
He said that the legal reasoning/justification for requiring higher qualifications for commercial operators was that they will be doing the activity a lot more, so what is a small risk of an accident for someone flying for an hour a week becomes much greater for someone flying multiple hours a day.
An enthusiastic recreational flyer could just as well be outside flying every day, whereas an unsuccessful commercial flyer could maybe find a paying job only once a month.
It's like saying that driving on highways is dangerous. The more often you do it, the greater your exposure. So it makes sense to always drive as fast as you possibly can to limit your exposure time. ?
Also that there is a duty of care to passengers (which obviously doesn't apply to drones).
In the manned aviation world, duty of care is the big reason. There's certainly a difference for a commercial pilot or airline ferrying several hundreds of passengers on each flight, compared to the smaller risk of a private pilot killing only themselves and possibly a handful of friends or family passengers. The government has to be seen as "doing something" to protect the public at large.
But, as you said, this "obviously doesn't apply to drones". Whether you're flying your drone for fun, or whether you're flying it for any sort of beneficial purpose has negligible effect on the safety of the flight.
I'll note that when I got my first drone Canada didn't require a licence to fly recreationally (in very limited locations) but did require one to fly commercially. I think the current system is an improvement, but we once did what America is still doing.
Correct. In the not so distant past, Canada did have a similar distinction between recreational versus commercial flying. It was because of the definition of "model aircraft". Like every aircraft operating within Canadian airspace, even "model aircraft" were subject to the Canadian Aviation Regulations. And, similar to the current situation in the USA, the Canadian regs included a specific exemption for model aircraft.
The only applicable requirement was that model aircraft must never be flown in a manner that interferes with manned aviation or puts persons on the ground in danger. This is the exact same requirement that today applies to sub-250gram remotely piloted aircraft.
The kicker was that, at the time, the definition of "model aircraft" included the bit about them being flown only for recreational purposes. If you wanted to fly for any commercial purpose, you needed permission from Transport Canada via a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC). The process for obtaining an SFOC was cumbersome, requiring a detailed application submitted a month before the planned flight. Then Transport Canada might take much longer than that before approving and granting the SFOC. It was a ridiculous system.
Responsible professional flyers complained bitterly that this onerous process was forced on them, whereas irresponsible and ignorant recreational flyers were given free rein to cause increasing havoc with their drones.
When Transport Canada eventually issued the current set of new drone regulations, they removed the distinction between recreational versus commercial operations. Quite rightly, they ruled there is no valid justification nor any significant safety difference in distinguishing between a drone flight conducted for recreational purposes compared to one conducted for commercial reasons. As a result, the only thing that matters now is the
weight of the drone and
where it's being operated.
We have a sub-250g micro category, which doesn't need to be registered and only must not interfere with manned aviation or be a hazard to people on the ground. We have a 250g-25kg category which must be registered and requires the pilot to hold either Basic or Advanced certification. And we have a greater than 25kg category which still requires the full SFOC.
The difference between Basic or Advanced has
nothing at all to do with whether you're flying recreational or non-recreational. It's purely about
where you're flying. Basic is not permitted within controlled airspace, period. For that, an Advanced certificate is required.
While I firmly believe that our system makes better sense than yours, ours still doesn't go far enough. It's questionable whether a small drone weighing just over 250 grams should be treated exactly the same as something weighing nearly 25kg (25,000 grams). And, I fear that someday there will be closer attention focused on the sub-250 category.
However, we have the FAA to thank for the sub-250g category. It was the FAA that first chose this number in
November 2015 as defining the dividing line between what was considered heavy enough to present a threat of fatality to people on the ground, versus what was light enough that the threat was so minuscule and negligible that not even registration would be required.
The proof of that has been demonstrated by the fact there have been
no fatalities attributed to sub-250 gram drones [
or even any greater than 250 grams] since or before that November 2015 report.
In effect, sub-250g drones are defined as "safe", whereas greater than 250g are considered "dangerous". That principle was cast in stone by the FAA and was quickly accepted and copied by most other countries around the world, including ours [
except Japan chose 200g, and Europe determined that anything carrying a camera is a greater danger].
