Ottawa toughens rules for operating recreational drones

[Static8]

Just saw this video posted on one of the Facebook groups:

It's a good deconstruction of the order (from an American) that opines on what is reasonable and what is not. True enough, a regulation in line with the FAA's would make more sense.

So start writing your letters to Marc Garneau and explain to him where this interim order fails.

Excellent, I will ask him if we can use his video on the petition...awesome thanks

 

[Static8]

Signed the petition. Nothing to lose....except my entire hobby. Also taken down nearly all my youtube videos, dozens, rather than shining a light on myself. This law will force the sport literally under the radar when it should be supported and developed in a safe productive way. Maddening beaurocratic overreach.

Don't take your videos down and keep flying...video record eveything. I highly doubt any police officer will charge you as he law can easily be attested as the can't prove the distance your are from Person, animal, etc...Like speeding they need radar, as many can fight in court of law. My personal thoughts Garneau is trying to frighten us and he's doing a good job but he's frightening the wrong people the responsible operators , law breakers will continue to break the law and guidelines. Unless your videos are flying over an airoport or helipad, which I hope not lol...keep them...We can't stop because they will have won..The law is not permanent yet...this is our window of opportunity so keep doing what you have been doing..just my recommendation otherwise the politicians will win and laws will be enacted without a fight.

 

[Frits]

Just saw this video posted on one of the Facebook.....So start writing your letters to Marc Garneau and explain to him where this interim order fails.

I did send a message with my discontent to Transport Canada.
The unfortunate thing here is that - simply put - we have no voice. A petition with a few hundred names or messages like mine won't impress these so-called public servants.
The only way to get their attention is via a strong lobby. Like a petition with many thousands of signatures, well established user groups with many thousands members.
We don't have the above. They will have zero sympathy for us and just follow a spaced-out politician (pun fully intended!) with his whimsical plans.
We're screwed.

 

[Static8]

I did send a message with my discontent to Transport Canada.
The unfortunate thing here is that - simply put - we have no voice. A petition with a few hundred names or messages like mine won't impress these so-called public servants.
The only way to get their attention is via a strong lobby. Like a petition with many thousands of signatures, well established user groups with many thousands members.
We don't have the above. They will have zero sympathy for us and just follow a spaced-out politician (pun fully intended!) with his whimsical plans.
We're screwed.

I agree but its a start and its getting Canadians thinking that the dont have to sell their quads and take this law lying down I am expecting this petition will get more than just a few hundred signatures, we are close to 400 now and expect 1000 or 2000 once it goes viral., just need everyone's help across the country to send the link...and we will get the thousands There are also many people already lobbying their local MP's and Ottawa..so its just the beginning.

 

[RWalrond]

For those thinking of selling up, I'd say take some time to see how affected you are. I've just spent some time in Google Earth just drawing the 9 km no fly zones around the various airports (around Winnipeg):

View attachment 8728

So much of the city is under the 9 km coverage except for the south-west corner. But there's still a variety of parks that I can fly in and the river is 150 m across for the most part, so I can still be in compliance with the regulation and not have to travel too far afield.

I'll keep a printed copy of the regulation and a map, similar to the above so I can demonstrate that I am in compliance.

Remember this map only shows you the restrictions in the air. Parks are usually included in the restricted places on the ground where an aircraft/drone can take off from.
You pretty much can only fly over private property outside of NFZ with permission from owners.

 

[bigboy]

So does this mean I can't fly my drone inside my own house?

 

[Static8]

So does this mean I can't fly my drone inside my own house?

Haha...give it some time and dont let this ignorant law prevent you form enjoying responsible flying. It will change, as there will be huge fallout from Multi Billion dollar industry. If DJI took the time to send a letter to the minister , then you know things will change. I have the petition if you havent' already signed, we are close to 500 and will be much higher be the end of next week. I'm originally from Winnipeg and to see these circles in Red is ridiculous , basically can't fly anywhere in the city, including your backyard...

 

[phaeton]

Parks are usually included in the restricted places on the ground where an aircraft/drone can take off from.
You pretty much can only fly over private property outside of NFZ with permission from owners.

Depends on who is administering the park. In our case, the city of Winnipeg administers most of the parks in the city. The city is currently looking into a by-law on the sell and use of UAV's but nothing has been put forward yet. So the interim order is what would govern at the moment and you could still fly within these parks and not contravene the prohibitions of the order.

In terms of provincial parks, you would need to consult your province's department for parks. Manitoba has nothing at the moment on the use of UAV's within their parks.

 

[Static8]

Depends on who is administering the park. In our case, the city of Winnipeg administers most of the parks in the city. The city is currently looking into a by-law on the sell and use of UAV's but nothing has been put forward yet. So the interim order is what would govern at the moment and you could still fly within these parks and not contravene the prohibitions of the order.

In terms of provincial parks, you would need to consult your province's department for parks. Manitoba has nothing at the moment on the use of UAV's within their parks.

How can you still fly legally in the parks ,the interim order is national no matter what rule is in place by the city unless it is mentioned in this new law. ONly exemption is MAAC fields

 

[videolester]

Excellent, I will ask him if we can use his video on the petition...awesome thanks

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

Referring to what this U.S. fellow mentioned in his video .... 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.

 

[bigboy]

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

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)

I think the Mavic is electrically driven?

What's the definition of a living creature?

 

[Static8]

I think the Mavic is electrically driven?

What's the definition of a living creature?

Haha. .that's why the law is full of BS. , it would include every living creature your drone can encounter, so in other words, you would be flying illegally every time you take off no mater where you are, bird flies by..oops thats within 75M, a ground hog , etc etc...just plain stupid...So by all means , don't stop flying responsibly like nothing has changed because they will never be able to enforce what they have now...problem is when June arrives they will have new permanent law, changes need to happen now!

 

[Kate]

Newsman: [trying to interview GIs returning to base after a hard day of fighting] Hey, word down at division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact Senator Kennedy insists you guys haven't got a chance at all.

Sgt. Frantz: [glares at Newsman for a few seconds] You really like this ****, don't you? It's your job, a story, wait here like a ******* vulture for someone to die so you can take a picture.

Newsman: [becoming angry] It's my job...

Sgt. Frantz: I got more respect for those little bastards up on the hill. They take a side, you just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own *******!

Newsman: What?

Sgt. Frantz: You listen to me. We're gonna take this ******* hill, Newsman. And if I catch you on top taking pictures of any of my people, I will blow your ******* head off. You haven't earned a right to be here. *You got that?*

 

[Static8]

Newsman: [trying to interview GIs returning to base after a hard day of fighting] Hey, word down at division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact Senator Kennedy insists you guys haven't got a chance at all.

Sgt. Frantz: [glares at Newsman for a few seconds] You really like this ****, don't you? It's your job, a story, wait here like a ******* vulture for someone to die so you can take a picture.

Newsman: [becoming angry] It's my job...

Sgt. Frantz: I got more respect for those little bastards up on the hill. They take a side, you just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own *******!

Newsman: What?

Sgt. Frantz: You listen to me. We're gonna take this ******* hill, Newsman. And if I catch you on top taking pictures of any of my people, I will blow your ******* head off. You haven't earned a right to be here. *You got that?*

WTF?

 

[Kate]

woops, a little cut and paste snafu there.

 

[phaeton]

Found this lovely little gem in the Aeronautics Act (Section 7.91):

Burden of proof
(4) The burden of establishing that a person has contravened a designated provision is on the Minister.​

So evidence that you have contravened any of those prohibitions will be upon TC to provide. For them to prove you were exceeding the measurement limits they have outlined will be impossible without some calibrated measurement tool (e.g. radar/laser measurement).

 

[Mustaine4prez]

I just got this message. Didn't get it yesterday.

What setting did it actually update exactly, does anyone know.

As far as I can tell, this message pops up when you change country's..

 

[Static8]

Found this lovely little gem in the Aeronautics Act (Section 7.91):

Burden of proof
(4) The burden of establishing that a person has contravened a designated provision is on the Minister.​

So evidence that you have contravened any of those prohibitions will be upon TC to provide. For them to prove you were exceeding the measurement limits they have outlined will be impossible without some calibrated measurement tool (e.g. radar/laser measurement).

I agree but if you are withing 9 KM range I'd any aerodrome that is easy to nail you with and that's why they have included so many out rageous laws , they just need one In fraction to charge you

 

[phaeton]

I agree but if you are withing 9 KM range I'd any aerodrome that is easy to nail you with and that's why they have included so many out rageous laws , they just need one In fraction to charge you

How does TC measure this though, proving to you that you were withing 9km? Perhaps a sworn affidavit from L.E. that indicates where you the operator was at the time. But the position of the craft can't be reliably measured.

I think the regulations need to be more in line with the FAA's, which seem reasonable. That's what we should be pushing TC to strive towards for the final regulations.

 

[Steve1966]

I just got this message. Didn't get it yesterday.

What setting did it actually update exactly, does anyone know.

As far as I can tell, this message pops up when you change country's..

Have you tried to fly over the 300 ft or farther then 500m away. I will be shutting off my WiFi on my tab so it will not be updating any more. I seen in last update they increase speed for active track so I am sure they can stop it from being a great drone also. I hope dji just leaves everything the way it is and a message box just pops up taking their responsability away same as when you change max hight above 400ft. Or I will be selling my favorite possession