Canada drone law questions

[mryeje]

Maximum Altitude
901.25 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at an altitude greater than
(a) 400 feet (122 m) AGL; or
(b) 100 feet (30 m) above any building or structure, if the aircraft is being operated at a distance of less than 200 feet (61 m), measured horizontally, from the building or structure.

Does this mean that you can only fly 30m above a building or at least 30m but below 122m? I'm reading it as the former but its not intuitive.

Also what are the requirements to use a mavic for commercial use, eg wedding videography? I cant find anything specific from the new laws from june 1.

 

[Moose1967]

Only to 100 feet above the structure as long as you are standing and operating within 200 feet of that structure

My understanding is if you use for commercial purposes you must have the advanced course

 

[Tbredhed]

In Canada there are no limitations due to your license as far as commercial work is concerned. You are allowed to sell your drone footage all you want.
What you do need to be aware of is with the basic license you are not allowed to fly within 5.6 km of an airport and 1.8 km of a heliport.
Hope this helps.
Cheers

 

[mryeje]

In Canada there are no limitations due to your license as far as commercial work is concerned. You are allowed to sell your drone footage all you want.
What you do need to be aware of is with the basic license you are not allowed to fly within 5.6 km of an airport and 1.8 km of a heliport.
Hope this helps.
Cheers

Thanks, do you know if there is an insurance requirement for drones under a certain weight. I cant find if that changed since June 1st

 

[kingsnake11]

Hi, There is no insurance requirement per se...just suggestions that you do. The biggest problem you would have is if you plan to fly near people. The regulations are that with the basic certification, you can only approach to bystanders..ie people not directly involved in the operation no closer than 100 feet(30 meters):

901.26 Subject to paragraph 901.69(1)(b) or (c), no pilot
shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at a distance of
less than 100 feet (30 m) from another person, measured
horizontally and at any altitude, except from a crew
member or other person involved in the operation.

With the advanced certification, this restriction is reduced to 5 meters (16 feet)

(b) at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m) but not
less than 16.4 feet (5 m) from another person except
from a crew member or other person involved in the
operation, measured horizontally and at any altitude,
in accordance with paragraph 901.69(1)(b);

but keep in mind that you would have to meet all the other regulations if the flight is in controlled airspace....and the quad you are using is rated for advanced operations. For example, the DJI spark to Mavic Pro 2 are rated for both flight in controlled airspace and flights to within 5 meters of people. None are rated to fly over people.

As to your question about height, section 901.25 has generated a lot of debate until it was obvious that the word "or" is missing. Here is an example of what the regulation actually means . You're flying to within 200 of a 25 m tall building...what is your maximum altitude that you can overfly the building? Correct answer is (122 meters) 400 ft agl....that doesn't change as the height of the building (or structure) 25meters (75 feet) + 30 meters (100 feet) is less than the 122 meters (400feet) limit. Now, same scenario...but the building or structure is 350 feet tall, say it's a microware or radio/cell tower....what is the maximum altitude you can fly over this structure....the answer is 350 feet (102 meters) plus 100feet (30 meters) for 450 feet or roughly 132 meters...which is above the 400 ft, or 122 meters limit.

I'm a fully certified advanced drone pilot, having done the exam and flight review within the last month so some of this stuff is still fresh

 

[darylm1]

Would it be worthwhile to try the exam before any study or preparation just to get the feel of the type of questions that are on the exam and try out the set-up for writing the exam?

 

[EricJT]

Would it be worthwhile to try the exam before any study or preparation just to get the feel of the type of questions that are on the exam and try out the set-up for writing the exam?

I was going to study materials related to the basic licence, but decided for $10 it was worth it to get a feel for the types of questions. A lot of the answers to the questions could be figured out, while others were technical that needed some previous knowledge.

I ended with 88%, so that was that....saved myself some study time....if I hadn't passed, 10$ was no big deal to get a feel for the exam.

 

[kingsnake11]

The advanced exam is much, much more involved, and then there is the flight review which is much more than showing you can fly the machine. For the basic course, there are some very good YT video's that cover what you need to know very well. The basic exam is 35 open book questions that you have 90 minutes to complete with a 65% pass mark. The one thing you have to really study for the basic is the 900 section of cars...or have it near you. Most of the stuff can be found with google on another computer or screen. I used the video's from dondroneson YT channel and other freely available stuff. I had the philosophy of not just rigging to pass the test, but to actually learn the stuff. It inspired me to do the advanced certification. Guess it all depends on what you want to do.

 

[Hummingbird.UAV]

Maximum Altitude
901.25 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at an altitude greater than
(a) 400 feet (122 m) AGL; or
(b) 100 feet (30 m) above any building or structure, if the aircraft is being operated at a distance of less than 200 feet (61 m), measured horizontally, from the building or structure.

Does this mean that you can only fly 30m above a building or at least 30m but below 122m? I'm reading it as the former but its not intuitive.

Also what are the requirements to use a mavic for commercial use, eg wedding videography? I cant find anything specific from the new laws from june 1.

Statement (b) is for structures that are taller than 400'. The rule states that you can fly 100' higher than the top of the building but must stay withing 200' of the vertical edge of the structure.
If the (a) ended with "and" your interpretation would be correct, however is says "or". The US has a similar rule which drone pilots have used to fly really high next to transmission towers.

 

[kingsnake11]

Hey Hummingvird.UAV, thanks for your reply. Yes, it only applies within the 200 ft edge distance...consider it a 200 ft circle around the object, and indeed, the same thing happens here...it is a legal way of flying high next to a tall tower. For myself, flying within a 200 foot distance from a transmission tower seems like a dumb thing to do, but if done within the regulations it is legal. You are correct too that I meant "and" instead of "or" because the interpretation I presented is what is being taught by flight reviewers and aviation school course instructors and is, according to them, what TC actually meant. The aim of the regulation is to have a minimum 30 meter buffer over a building or structure and so it isn't just for structures taller than 400 feet. So, if the structure is 390 feet tall and you are going to fly over it...you can't fly at 400 ft as it would only clear the structure by 10 feet. Hence the 30 meter rule in part (b). I have to agree that 901.25 is badly written and as I said generated a lot of debate as to it's interpretation. In the TC presentations, the interpretation I gave is what they themselves present and I've included a graphic from their presentation. It will be interesting to see if there will be any language change in the future to 901.25 on the English side. On the French version of the rule there is an implied "and", the word "or" is missing. This is directly out of the latest published CARS (SOR/96-433 February 2019) that I have.

901.25 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), il est interdit
au pilote d’utiliser un aéronef télépiloté à une altitude
supérieure à l’une des altitudes suivantes :
a) 400 pieds (122 m) AGL;
b) 100 pieds (30 m) au-dessus d’un immeuble ou
d’une structure, si l’aéronef est utilisé à une distance
de moins de 200 pieds (61 m), mesurée horizontalement,
de l’immeuble ou de la structure.

 

[Hummingbird.UAV]

Thanks for posting the graphic Kingsnake11. Now lets head up to the roof hatch of the CN Tower in Toronto.
By the way I've seen the Rotor Riot guys do the antenna dive.

 

[mryeje]

Hey Hummingvird.UAV, thanks for your reply. Yes, it only applies within the 200 ft edge distance...consider it a 200 ft circle around the object, and indeed, the same thing happens here...it is a legal way of flying high next to a tall tower. For myself, flying within a 200 foot distance from a transmission tower seems like a dumb thing to do, but if done within the regulations it is legal. You are correct too that I meant "and" instead of "or" because the interpretation I presented is what is being taught by flight reviewers and aviation school course instructors and is, according to them, what TC actually meant. The aim of the regulation is to have a minimum 30 meter buffer over a building or structure and so it isn't just for structures taller than 400 feet. So, if the structure is 390 feet tall and you are going to fly over it...you can't fly at 400 ft as it would only clear the structure by 10 feet. Hence the 30 meter rule in part (b). I have to agree that 901.25 is badly written and as I said generated a lot of debate as to it's interpretation. In the TC presentations, the interpretation I gave is what they themselves present and I've included a graphic from their presentation. It will be interesting to see if there will be any language change in the future to 901.25 on the English side. On the French version of the rule there is an implied "and", the word "or" is missing. This is directly out of the latest published CARS (SOR/96-433 February 2019) that I have.

901.25 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), il est interdit
au pilote d’utiliser un aéronef télépiloté à une altitude
supérieure à l’une des altitudes suivantes :
a) 400 pieds (122 m) AGL;
b) 100 pieds (30 m) au-dessus d’un immeuble ou
d’une structure, si l’aéronef est utilisé à une distance
de moins de 200 pieds (61 m), mesurée horizontalement,
de l’immeuble ou de la structure.

View attachment 77795

Thanks for the graphic, that helps clarify things.

 

[mryeje]

Hi, There is no insurance requirement per se...just suggestions that you do. The biggest problem you would have is if you plan to fly near people. The regulations are that with the basic certification, you can only approach to bystanders..ie people not directly involved in the operation no closer than 100 feet(30 meters):

901.26 Subject to paragraph 901.69(1)(b) or (c), no pilot
shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at a distance of
less than 100 feet (30 m) from another person, measured
horizontally and at any altitude, except from a crew
member or other person involved in the operation.

With the advanced certification, this restriction is reduced to 5 meters (16 feet)

(b) at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m) but not
less than 16.4 feet (5 m) from another person except
from a crew member or other person involved in the
operation, measured horizontally and at any altitude,
in accordance with paragraph 901.69(1)(b);

but keep in mind that you would have to meet all the other regulations if the flight is in controlled airspace....and the quad you are using is rated for advanced operations. For example, the DJI spark to Mavic Pro 2 are rated for both flight in controlled airspace and flights to within 5 meters of people. None are rated to fly over people.

As to your question about height, section 901.25 has generated a lot of debate until it was obvious that the word "or" is missing. Here is an example of what the regulation actually means . You're flying to within 200 of a 25 m tall building...what is your maximum altitude that you can overfly the building? Correct answer is (122 meters) 400 ft agl....that doesn't change as the height of the building (or structure) 25meters (75 feet) + 30 meters (100 feet) is less than the 122 meters (400feet) limit. Now, same scenario...but the building or structure is 350 feet tall, say it's a microware or radio/cell tower....what is the maximum altitude you can fly over this structure....the answer is 350 feet (102 meters) plus 100feet (30 meters) for 450 feet or roughly 132 meters...which is above the 400 ft, or 122 meters limit.

I'm a fully certified advanced drone pilot, having done the exam and flight review within the last month so some of this stuff is still fresh

I wouldnt need to fly within 30m of anyone. I'd just use drone footage to establish the location for the wedding and some B-Roll. Another concern about flying commercially is for monetized youtube channels. I have an "adventure Vlog" YT channel where i travel to local beaches, lakes, waterfalls and vlog about them. At the moment I am not monetized nor am i close to meeting YT's requirements; however, if I did become monetized, Would i have any issues legally, I am assuming your above answer would cover this as well.

 

[kingsnake11]

Unlike the US where you would definitely need to have the part 107 certification for any type of commercial use...or benefit...and I'm told by my US friends that a benefit could even be increased traffic to your YT channel. So in the US, anything that is remotely interpreted as a benefit is deemed a commercial use. In Canada, you don't need special certifications for commercial use. So even with the basic certification, flying in G class airspace, you could garner a benefit..even commercial benefit, without a problem. Of course, the advanced certification would open up a lot more opportunities for commercial type of activities as you could then follow the procedures for work in controlled airspace.

 

[kingsnake11]

Thanks for posting the graphic Kingsnake11. Now lets head up to the roof hatch of the CN Tower in Toronto.
By the way I've seen the Rotor Riot guys do the antenna dive.

Great idea....let's use your expensive drone and I'll supply the cheers and moral support