DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Canadian drone law

According to the CCUVS instructor we had in 2014, they charged on average $3,000 CDN for doing an SFOC for clients. They are experts and that's how much effort goes into doing an SFOC, with no guarantee that it will pass. This is like you thinking you can do a lawyers job. Good luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookedinlh
I understand that . . I was being a bit over the top . . There is a lot to learn just to have a bit of fun, so I agree those new "interim" rules are just as much over the top. The Mav is only 746g but can go miles away so Transport Canada (TC) is over reacting on small commercial companies like mine. I've tried to suggest though my contacts there, that there has to be a better (more rational) size/weight boundary like maybe 1kg because a machine that size just does not pose the same threat as one of 2-3kg but has all of the capability needed to conduct a large chuck of commercial ops.

I'm working on paperwork not to achieve COMPLIANT OPERATOR and it's even worse since you have to have a "compliant machine" and right now DJI has not been interested in submitting to the process and providing paperwork to TC, even for their best machines. We're all in the same boat on REGS.

My suggestion is file a complaint directly to TC (Marc Garneau) HERE . . I have . . . Call his office and give them a message (they have to write it down and record it) or email at least . . . or join COPA if you are a serious recreational flyer .. or even a small commercial operator and keep up the pressure now because without any opposition TC will just circle the wagons and pass bad laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: niclariv
According to the CCUVS instructor we had in 2014, they charged on average $3,000 CDN for doing an SFOC for clients. They are experts and that's how much effort goes into doing an SFOC, with no guarantee that it will pass. This is like you thinking you can do a lawyers job. Good luck!
I know several places in Ontario that charge half that to teach you how . . if you want to learn how to do it for free call me through www.inskyphoto.com (text msg to the phone number there is fastest) . . . I'll help you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: niclariv
I know several places in Ontario that charge half that to teach you how . . if you want to learn how to do it for free call me through www.inskyphoto.com (text msg to the phone number there is fastest) . . . I'll help you.
That's great. After we went through the CCUVS course, you can write your own since you have a much better idea of what is required. It may take a few iterations and a phone call or two, but you can do it. The cost mentioned is pretty well that CCUVS does the whole preparation for you.

On another note, it's amazing, when I think of it, that we used to fly (1970s) off an abandoned airfield, the old Shepard Airfield in Calgary, where it was feasible to still land and take off light aircraft, and in fact was a training area for light helicopters like Bell 47s, Jet Rangers and Hughes 500s. How many times we were flying and those pilots showed up. We NEVER had an incident. We just respected each other's airspace. In fact, on one occasion, a Jet Ranger pilot landed, came over to see how we were doing, then offered to take several of us for a ride along the Bow River bottom. This was the CRAMS/MAAC club, and we had many friends in that club who were commercial pilots. Some of us flew many airshows with the likes of Bob Hoover, Art Scholl (super Chipmunk which is now in the Smithsonian) and other airshow greats. Not sure that that could ever happen now. Thos were the "good old days".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookedinlh
Re the NEWEST federal regs for recreational drone flights, there seems to be a "loophole" here. Please correct me if I am wrong ... Please see the attached web page (direct link below) displayed below, and note the areas in red text. Another question ... Are consumer drones eg the Mavic/Phantom considered "Model Aircraft" or "Unmanned Air Vehicles" ?? It looks as tho the restrictions apply to Model Aircraft and NOT Unmanned Air Vehicles.

Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft - Transport Canada

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft
Whereas the annexed Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to aviation safety or the safety of the public;

Whereas the provisions of the annexed Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft may be contained in a regulation made pursuant to section 4.9Footnotea, paragraphs 7.6(1)(a)Footnoteb and (b)Footnotec and section 7.7Footnoted of Part I of the Aeronautics ActFootnotee;

And whereas, pursuant to subsection 6.41(1.2)Footnotef of the Aeronautics ActFootnotee, the Minister of Transport has consulted with the persons and organizations that the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances before making the annexed Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft;

Therefore, the Minister of Transport, pursuant to subsection 6.41(1)Footnotef of the Aeronautics ActFootnotee, makes the annexed

Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft. Ottawa, March 13, 2017

Le ministre des Transports,
Marc Garneau Minister of Transport

Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft
Interpretation
Definitions
1 (1)
The following definitions apply in this Interim Order.

model aircraft means an aircraft, the total weight of which does not exceed 35 kg (77.2 pounds), that is mechanically driven or launched into flight for recreational purposes and that is not designed to carry persons or other living creatures. (modèle réduit d’aéronef)

Regulations means the Canadian Aviation Regulations. (Règlement)

restricted airspace means airspace of fixed dimensions that is so specified in the Designated Airspace Handbook and within which the flight of an aircraft is restricted in accordance with conditions specified in that Handbook, or airspace that is restricted under section 5.1 of the Act. (espace aérien réglementé)

unmanned air vehicle means a power-driven aircraft, other than a model aircraft, that is designed to fly without a human operator on board. (véhicule aérien non habité)

visual line-of-sight or VLOS means unaided visual contact with an aircraft sufficient to be able to maintain control of the aircraft know its location, and be able to scan the airspace in which it is operating to decisively see and avoid other aircraft or objects. (visibilité directe ou VLOS)

Interpretation
(2)
Unless the context requires otherwise, all other words and expressions used in this Interim Order have the same meaning as in the Regulations.

Conflict between Interim Order and Regulations
(3)
In the event of a conflict between this Interim Order and the Regulations, the Interim Order prevails.

Designated Provisions
Designation
2 (1)
The designated provisions set out in column 1 of the schedule are designated as provisions the contravention of which may be dealt with under and in accordance with the procedure set out in sections 7.7 to 8.2 of the Act.

Maximum Amounts
(2)
The amounts set out in column II of the schedule are the maximum amounts of the penalty payable in respect of a contravention of the designated provisions set out in column I.

Notice
(3)
A notice referred to in subsection 7.7(1) of the Act must be in writing and must specify

1. (a) the particulars of the alleged contravention;

2. (b) that the person on whom the notice is served or to whom it is sent has the option of paying the amount specified in the notice or filing with the Tribunal a request for a review of the alleged contravention or the amount of the penalty;

3. (c) that payment of the amount specified in the notice will be accepted by the Minister in satisfaction of the amount of the penalty for the alleged contravention and that no further proceedings under Part I of the Act will be taken against the person on whom the notice in respect of that contravention is served or to whom it is sent;

4. (d) that the person on whom the notice is served or to whom it is sent will be provided with an opportunity consistent with procedural fairness and natural justice to present evidence before the Tribunal and make representations in relation to the alleged contravention if the person files a request for a review with the Tribunal; and

5. (e) that the person on whom the notice is served or to whom it is sent will be considered to have committed the contravention set out in the notice if they fail to pay the amount specified in the notice and fail to file a request for a review with the Tribunal within the prescribed period.

Application
Recreational Purposes

3 (1)
Subject to subsection (2), this Interim Order applies in respect of model aircraft having a total weight of more than 250 grams (0.55 pounds) but not more than 35 Kg (77.2 pounds).

(2) It does not apply to

a. unmanned air vehicles;
and

b. model aircraft operated at events organized by the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada (MAAC) or at airfields located in a zone administered by MAAC or a MAAC club.
 
This will create doubt in courts of law all tickets fines will be thrown out you can bank on that.
 
Re the NEWEST federal regs for recreational drone flights, there seems to be a "loophole" here. Please correct me if I am wrong ... Please see the attached web page (direct link below) displayed below, and note the areas in red text. Another question ... Are consumer drones eg the Mavic/Phantom considered "Model Aircraft" or "Unmanned Air Vehicles" ?? It looks as tho the restrictions apply to Model Aircraft and NOT Unmanned Air Vehicles.

On the same page you quoted, please have a look at the Definitions section. According to that:
model aircraft means an aircraft, the total weight of which does not exceed 35 kg (77.2 pounds), that is mechanically driven or launched into flight for recreational purposes and that is not designed to carry persons or other living creatures.

unmanned air vehicle means a power-driven aircraft, other than a model aircraft, that is designed to fly without a human operator on board.

So, they're saying that if you have a >35kg "flying thing without human", then it's not recreational - which is pretty reasonable. >35kg is pretty heavy - you're talking about something the size of a 10-year old child. At that size you're talking about something commercial/industrial, or military.
 
Does TC provide a NFZ map for Canada?

Using the NoFlyZone and Hover app I get 2 different results for where I'm looking at flying.
I would hate to use one of these apps and have bad information because it missed a small heliport and get a fine because of it.

If TC provides this, then there are less chances of flying in a restricted zone even when one tries to follow due diligence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookedinlh
Does TC provide a NFZ map for Canada?

Using the NoFlyZone and Hover app I get 2 different results for where I'm looking at flying.
I would hate to use one of these apps and have bad information because it missed a small heliport and get a fine because of it.

If TC provides this, then there are less chances of flying in a restricted zone even when one tries to follow due diligence.
Here is what I use Canadian Airspace Viewer
Just select AT OR BELOW and 700ft from the selections on the left and then zoom to you r area of interest. There is no chart I know that will give you every hospital and private landing place . . or police helipad
 
Here is what I use Canadian Airspace Viewer
Just select AT OR BELOW and 700ft from the selections on the left and then zoom to you r area of interest. There is no chart I know that will give you every hospital and private landing place . . or police helipad

AirMap.io

This seems to do a good job of showing most of the aerdomes around. It even has the Helicopter repair facility near my house.

chris.
 
Does TC provide a NFZ map for Canada?

Using the NoFlyZone and Hover app I get 2 different results for where I'm looking at flying.
I would hate to use one of these apps and have bad information because it missed a small heliport and get a fine because of it.

If TC provides this, then there are less chances of flying in a restricted zone even when one tries to follow due diligence.

Personally I prefer the NRC's UAV Site Selection Tool.
 
Ya I like that one as well. Interestingly it has a different radius for the heliports (at least the one near my house).

Ya it seems the NRC's site has a 5KM radius for helipads and 9KM for airports.
Airmap has 9km for both.

chris.
Lots of discrepancies wherever you look . . . I tend to take each one as "Best info available" and check more than one . . they don't change all that often. For Canada airmap.io is good too
 
Ya I like that one as well. Interestingly it has a different radius for the heliports (at least the one near my house).

Ya it seems the NRC's site has a 5KM radius for helipads and 9KM for airports.
Airmap has 9km for both.

chris.

There used to be a difference between the two (3 nautical miles for heliports, instead of 5 for other aerodromes). Weird that it hasn't been updated yet...
 
Here is what I use Canadian Airspace Viewer
Just select AT OR BELOW and 700ft from the selections on the left and then zoom to you r area of interest. There is no chart I know that will give you every hospital and private landing place . . or police helipad
The other problem is that helicopters can land just about anywhere, as we have seen OFTEN. Emergencies occur where fixed wing aircraft land just about anywhere as well. Back in the day, I knew of a light aircraft landing in a school yard after an emergency. You do what you have to, even with well maintained aircraft, just ask any commercial pilot. My friend had a hydraulics emergency on his A319 and was over the ocean. He made a decision to come back to land and successfully landed it. This could have put homes and industrial buildings in jeopardy, but they weigh the risks and rightfully save as many people as they (the pilots) can. It all just seems common sense. The Sioux City crash was an amazing example of pilots taking risks, potentially putting others at risk, but saving as many as they could, even though flying a severely crippled L1011 (rear engine blew up and took out tail hydraulics). Some passengers were lost, but the risk was worth it. Apparently, Marc Garneau feels the risks with multicopters are too great, so just ban them all by making ludicrous laws. As a member of MAAC, have been in touch with headquarters, and they cannot define what is meant by animals, nor can anyone else except Marc Garneau apparently. So what happens now?
 
The other problem is that helicopters can land just about anywhere, as we have seen OFTEN.

For the purpose of the legislation at hand, the fact that an aircraft could land somewhere is irrelevant. The only locations that matter are those listed/registered in the NAVCANADA Canada Flight Supplement and/or Canada Water Aerodrome Supplement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sloth469
If you haven't done so already, there is a facebook group page called "Organization for Canadian Drone Users, Park Flyers and Other RC Aviators", go over and join the group. some reallt great discussions being had about the interim order, plus we are together working as a group to take actions to change the laws to be a bit more reasonable. Please check it out!!
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,994
Messages
1,558,709
Members
159,982
Latest member
PetefromNZ