Part 2
No aviation related activity will ever be completely safe but there are means to make it as safe as possible. The same applies to BVLOS operation of model aircraft. From pretty much the beginning of remote controlled model aviation the most common questions that have come from observers have been: (1) How much does it cost, (2)How high can it fly, (3)How far can it go, and (4) How fast can it go?. The answers to #'s 2 and 3 have always been "higher and further than I can see it". The answer to #4 is quite important if an event occurs where someone is struck by a model aircraft as it factors into the amount of damage that will occur when combined with the weight of the aircraft. It has always been accepted that if you can't see it you are no longer in control of it. The addition of a forward looking camera does not change that a bit as once it it out of sight you really don't know where it is going or what it will fly over during it's travels. You have no control over the people on the ground it will fly over and no means of warning them should something go wrong, and when (not if) things go wrong you will very probably have no means to mitigate the situation. "Hope" is not a word that should be used when aviating.
BVLOS operations can be made much safer to conduct using methods, equipment, and training than what the average RC or multirotor model operator has available to them to make use of. BVLOS UAV operations have been in practice for quite some time, and those that have been conducting such operations train their operators to pretty high standards. They designed and tested their equipment rigorously to assure it will function to very high standards. They utilize very high quality components in the command and control systems, as well as the aircraft. They generally have a flight safety program where both the operators and equipment are frequently reviewed to assure they are in compliance with equipment and operating standards. In effect, they "certify" that every aspect of their operations are in some form of compliance with a recognized standard, even if that standard has not yet been published and made available to the general public. More often than not that "standard" meets the requirements put in place by military agencies that submitted those standards to governments for approval, which is where the vast majority of BVLOS UAV operations have been conducted.
As of this writing there are absolutely zero published manufacturing, system maintenance standards, or component certifications for consumer drones. There are zero controls in place to assure our multirotors are "safe" for operation. The only "standards" for the average RC aircraft/drone operator are those noted in the AMA's safety guidelines, Part 333, Part 336, Part 107, and the most recent Part 349. None of them contain anything that causes the operator to demonstrate their proficiency or competency in operating their aircraft. Many that obtained a Part 107 certification did no more than memorize the test questions and therefore have almost zero understanding of the rules involving our national airspace system. In truth, they really aren't qualified in anything but a title to operate commercially. As for consumer level equipment, there are absolutely zero design certification standards either published or in use for any component used in our equipment. We have nothing to refer to for level of accuracy, design limitations, safe operating distance limitations, factors involving RF propagation, signal strength or interfering signal rejection, system reliability, and certainly nothing to assure us that the very limited type of failsafe's provided will function reliably and as advertised. Until those items and more have been addressed BVLOS operations by the average, and even more advanced modeler, are not in any way safe, or even reasonable safe. Because a manufacturer provides BVLOS capability does not provide any assurance such activities are safe, or that BVLOS flight safety was even a design consideration at all.
The law often uses the term "reasonable person" to establish legal applicability. I don't know if that term is suggestive of a "reasonably intelligent person" but a reasonably intelligent person should be able to recognize the difference between a "want", a "need", and "required". Nothing requires us to fly BVLOS, we typically only want to. None of us need to fly BVLOS, again, we simply want to. Even most commercial multirotor operators don't need to fly BVLOS, they only want to. If we can't get physically close enough to something in order to maintain visual contact with our aircraft while taking pictures we certainly don't "need" to be taking pictures of whatever we desired to take pictures of. Self and/or instant gratification are not needs or requirements. Rarely if ever will the common commercial operator be required to fly BVLOS, they may want to for convenience but when and where they are required they will be required to be using equipment certified for such operations and very likely to have proven their competency before allowed to operate a flight system.