RPC-L2 Should Not Be a BVLOS Free Pass— But It Should Let Pilots Practise BVLOSProperly

The arrival of RPC-L2 is an important step for the UK drone industry. It gives remote pilots a recognised pathway beyond standard VLOS operations and starts to build a more structured professional route towards BVLOS. But there is a danger that many people will misunderstand what RPC-L2 actually is.

RPC-L2 is not a licence to go and fly Beyond Visual Line of Sight anywhere. It is not a magic ticket that lets a pilot launch from any field, disappear over the horizon and claim they are now operating commercially BVLOS. That would be reckless, and it would undermine public confidence before the industry has even had a chance to mature.

However, the opposite extreme is also a problem. If RPC-L2 becomes little more than a certificate that sits in a drawer until an operator wins a complex CAA authorisation, then the UK will have created another paper qualification rather than a genuine pathway to competence.

BVLOS is not learned in a classroom. It is learned by flying, monitoring systems, managing lost-link procedures, understanding telemetry, dealing with changing weather, making command decisions without direct visual reference to the aircraft, and building trust in procedures rather than eyesight. If we want safe BVLOS pilots, we have to let them practise BVLOS in a controlled way.

That is why RPC-L2 should come with a limited, supervised local BVLOS practice privilege.

A sensible model would allow RPC-L2 remote pilots to conduct BVLOS training flights within 5 km of their take-off and recovery point, subject to strict conditions. This would not be commercial BVLOS anywhere. It would not be permission to fly over towns, roads, crowds or sensitive airspace. It would be a defined, local, low-risk skills-building environment designed to create better pilots.

The aircraft could be flown beyond direct visual line of sight, but only within a pre-planned local operating area. A competent observer, or visual airspace monitor, would be present to monitor the sky for crewed aircraft and other hazards. The point of the observer would not be to pretend the flight is still VLOS. The point would be to provide an additional airspace safety layer while the remote pilot practises genuine BVLOS command and control.

This distinction matters. Too often, drone regulation dances around the issue by stretching VLOS, EVLOS or “visual mitigation” until nobody is quite honest about what is really happening. If the aircraft is not being flown by direct visual reference, call it BVLOS. Then manage it properly.

A 5 km local BVLOS allowance would be a realistic training envelope. It is far enough to take the aircraft outside normal visual range and force the pilot to rely on telemetry, mission planning, procedures and situational awareness. But it is still close enough to remain manageable, recoverable and locally controlled. It allows the pilot to practise the actual skills needed for infrastructure inspection, agricultural survey, emergency response, security patrols and future logistics operations, without pretending they are ready for unrestricted airspace integration.

The current pathway risks creating a chicken-and-egg problem. The industry needs experienced BVLOS pilots, but pilots need BVLOS hours to become experienced. If every meaningful BVLOS hour requires a full bespoke operational authorisation, many smaller operators will never build the experience needed to progress. The result will be a handful of large companies controlling BVLOS development while the wider professional drone sector is left behind.

That is bad for innovation. It is bad for competition. And it is bad for safety, because a shortage of practical experience does not make the industry safer; it simply pushes capability into paperwork, theory and consultancy reports.

A controlled 5 km RPC-L2 practice privilege would create a bridge between qualification and operational maturity. It would allow pilots to build hours, refine procedures and demonstrate competence before moving into higher-risk work. It would also give the CAA and industry better evidence about what actually works in the real world.

The privilege should come with sensible limits.

Flights should be daylight only unless specifically authorised. They should be outside congested areas. They should avoid known aviation hotspots, aerodrome traffic zones, parachute sites, gliding sites and military low-flying activity unless properly coordinated.

Maximum height should be conservative, and routes should be pre-planned. The aircraft should have reliable command and control, live telemetry, return-to-home, lost-link procedures and a documented emergency plan. The pilot should log each flight, including distance, duration, system performance, any warnings, and any airspace conflicts or abnormal events.

There should also be a requirement for the remote pilot to brief the observer properly. The observer must understand the operating area, expected aircraft position, emergency calls, abort triggers and the difference between monitoring the drone and monitoring the sky. A person standing in a field with no briefing is not a mitigation. A trained visual airspace monitor with clear duties is.

This would not remove the need for operational authorisation for proper commercial BVLOS.

It would not bypass UK SORA. It would not allow delivery drones to start crossing cities or enable long-distance autonomous corridors by the back door. The purpose would be narrower and more defensible: to allow RPC-L2 pilots to maintain and improve BVLOS competence in a low-risk, local environment.

In fact, this would support the regulatory system rather than weaken it. A pilot applying for more advanced BVLOS operations would be able to show real logged experience, not just a certificate. Operators would be able to demonstrate that their remote pilots have practised lost-link events, telemetry-based navigation, containment management and emergency decision-making. The CAA would receive applications from pilots and operators who understand BVLOS in practice, not just in theory.

That is exactly what the industry needs.

The UK has spent years talking about BVLOS as the future of drone operations. BVLOS is essential for infrastructure inspection, emergency services, environmental monitoring, security, agriculture, ports, energy sites and many other sectors. But the future will not arrive if pilots are unable to build experience in a proportionate way.

There is also a fairness point. Crewed aviation has long understood the need for progressive privileges. Pilots do not move from zero hours to complex commercial operations overnight. They build experience through structured training, supervised practice, logged hours and increasing responsibility. Drone pilots should be treated in the same mature way. Not as hobbyists who must be restrained at every step, and not as cowboys who can be trusted with anything, but as professionals who need a pathway. RPC-L2 is the right place to introduce that pathway.

The CAA should not turn RPC-L2 into a general BVLOS licence. That would be unsafe and politically impossible. But it should not create a BVLOS qualification without a practical route for pilots to use it. A limited 5 km local BVLOS practice allowance, with a visual airspace monitor and strict operating conditions, would be a sensible compromise.

It would be controlled. It would be logged. It would be auditable. It would build competence. And most importantly, it would help create the experienced BVLOS remote pilots the UK says it wants.

If the UK is serious about routine BVLOS, then it must stop treating practical BVLOS experience as something pilots can only get after they already have it. RPC-L2 should not be a free pass. But it should be a genuine stepping stone.