Definition of Building(s) from Transport Canada

[Sloth469]

So awhile ago I queried TC for a more definitive definition of building(s) wrt the latest act and this is the response:

Please note that the new rules apply only to the recreational use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Rules surrounding the commercial use of UAVs remains unchanged. The new rules for recreational UAV use are now in effect and are available here.

In regards to your inquiry, “Built-up areas” are considered areas with groups of buildings or dwellings, including anything from small hamlets to major cities. Anything larger than a farmstead should be considered a built-up area. Note that two or three buildings alone would not constitute a built-up area but the stand-off distances of 100 ft (for 1 kg or less) and 500 ft (for greater than 1 kg) would have to be respected to stay away from buildings, structures, vehicles, etc.

This distance was based on the risk of “flying away” due to command link problems and inadvertently straying into adjacent built-up areas. To fly closer to a built-up area, the operator must apply in advance for a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC).

I trust that the foregoing has addressed your questions. Should you need other information on civil aviation matters, please feel free to contact us via email at [email protected].

Again, thank you for writing.

I guess the rule now is no closer than 100ft for a Mavic not 75 meters as it states in the act...

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Insane stupid rules. Absolutely idiotic. Dumb.

I applied for an SFOC a few weeks ago, and they asked for amendments 2 weeks ago. Out of 25 items that need compliance (their checklist) all that are left are:

1. Proof of insurance
2. Emergency plan (site specific)
3. Site Survey/Op plan (site specific)
4. Security plan (site specific)
5. The "application form" filled. (site specific).

So just waiting for the first two site "go aheads" from the clients to kick that off. Also trying to find better insurance than that quoted to me to date.

 

[raymo]

This response by TC generally adds to the confusion caused by poor laws and the confusion internally at TC. Our units are metric (SI units) in Canada, yet international air regulations are in ft, knots etc. This leaves decision-making at a discretionary level, in other words, you are going to have to decide, or someone will, whether you are 75 metres from buildings, or 100 ft from buildings or ... It just goes on and on, and this confusion is what will create more than a fair amount of grief, as TC staff try to decide what is what, as police try to decide, and as you try to decide. So did I fly 90 ft from the building, or was that 110 ft., or make that 70 metres or 80 metres from the building? In taking the CCUVS course in Medicine Hat, it became clear that there is a move to using programable software systems so that the freewheeling manual flying is minimized, especially for SFOC applications. This allows more precise evaluation of flight paths and the proximity to buildings etc. - arguably, better control. Start manual flying, and you really don't know where you might end up at at any given point in time. With respect to confusion, remember the Gimli Glider!!!!! Ultimately, I think TC would just as soon see all recreational use of drones outlawed, except on MAAC approved sites. Watching a Youtube video of interaction of a UAV user in Florida flying WITHIN controlled airspace (inside the 5 mile limit) is revealing for U.S. users. Once he found the right person, he was told he was good to go. It's just that easy. But no, Canada, has to make things regulatory and entirely complicated. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. I suspect we're a long way from the final solution on this one. ATC in any given country needs to find a way (just like rental cars work) to have a 1-800 number to call to notify, get clearance etc. for flights within controlled airspace (which is just about everywhere). As in the Florida case, the registry number for a given user should be all that is needed for identification. But like most government agencies, they are about 70 years behind the times on most technical systems and they will tell you they just can't do it. I keep telling people at various agencies, we need to get into the 21st century. Sad, but true. Sorry for a bit of a rant, but I'm a baby-boomer who has seen a bit of life.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

This response by TC generally adds to the confusion caused by poor laws and the confusion internally at TC. Our units are metric (SI units) in Canada, yet international air regulations are in ft, knots etc. This leaves decision-making at a discretionary level, in other words, you are going to have to decide, or someone will, whether you are 75 metres from buildings, or 100 ft from buildings or ... It just goes on and on, and this confusion is what will create more than a fair amount of grief, as TC staff try to decide what is what, as police try to decide, and as you try to decide. So did I fly 90 ft from the building, or was that 110 ft., or make that 70 metres or 80 metres from the building? In taking the CCUVS course in Medicine Hat, it became clear that there is a move to using programable software systems so that the freewheeling manual flying is minimized, especially for SFOC applications. This allows more precise evaluation of flight paths and the proximity to buildings etc. - arguably, better control. Start manual flying, and you really don't know where you might end up at at any given point in time. With respect to confusion, remember the Gimli Glider!!!!! Ultimately, I think TC would just as soon see all recreational use of drones outlawed, except on MAAC approved sites. Watching a Youtube video of interaction of a UAV user in Florida flying WITHIN controlled airspace (inside the 5 mile limit) is revealing for U.S. users. Once he found the right person, he was told he was good to go. It's just that easy. But no, Canada, has to make things regulatory and entirely complicated. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. I suspect we're a long way from the final solution on this one. ATC in any given country needs to find a way (just like rental cars work) to have a 1-800 number to call to notify, get clearance etc. for flights within controlled airspace (which is just about everywhere). As in the Florida case, the registry number for a given user should be all that is needed for identification. But like most government agencies, they are about 70 years behind the times on most technical systems and they will tell you they just can't do it. I keep telling people at various agencies, we need to get into the 21st century. Sad, but true. Sorry for a bit of a rant, but I'm a baby-boomer who has seen a bit of life.

I've never had trouble with mixed units, so that's not an issue to me.

The silliness begins with the 1 Kg differences (I have an MP and P4P ... one is under, one is over).

Then they assume that all drones are capable of flyaway (true enough) but that all drones don't have mitigation systems such as RTH in the MP (and P4P). To be sure these systems have to be clearly understood by the user to be effective and safe.

(The Gimli glider is a good example of where the metric system should never have been used - I agree).

The current rules are because there are no rules. So TC has come up with a set of rules informed by the MAAC who philosophically are not drone oriented people. They are nuts for pilot-in-the-loop and flyaway is always a concern. Since they're whispering in the ears of TC we end up with the MAAC worldview of "it's bad for you!".

And no, controlled airspace is not just about everywhere. It is G airspace just about everywhere. And that's where a lot of uncontrolled small airports are located. So one guy in the west Island of Montreal has a private helicopter that he uses once a week (maybe) and he locks up 254 square km of airspace against drones 100% of the time. In areas where he would never be below 500 feet.

As to more elaborate control systems, if you're aiming for a compliant SFOC, then the whole application process becomes richly complicated - as you've no doubt learned at CCUVS.

 

[raymo]

Alan, you're right on the Class G airspace. I'm afraid you are correct too on your analysis of MAAC influence as well. Unlike myself, many of my fellow MAAC members are almost totally unfamiliar with UAS and this results in what we have. So rather than challenging TC, our representatives coddle up to them and agree, I assume out of ignorance. When I wrote my MAAC headquarters, the response came back essentially, "I hope that's not what the rules mean." I was asking about "animals" and the possibility that it included birds and maybe gophers or squirrels. They simply did not know. That's what I am talking about. A nebulous ruling makes nebulosity for everyone. I appreciate your comments and observations as always. Keep up the great work!

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Alan, you're right on the Class G airspace. I'm afraid you are correct too on your analysis of MAAC influence as well. Unlike myself, many of my fellow MAAC members are almost totally unfamiliar with UAS and this results in what we have. So rather than challenging TC, our representatives coddle up to them and agree, I assume out of ignorance. When I wrote my MAAC headquarters, the response came back essentially, "I hope that's not what the rules mean." I was asking about "animals" and the possibility that it included birds and maybe gophers or squirrels. They simply did not know. That's what I am talking about. A nebulous ruling makes nebulosity for everyone. I appreciate your comments and observations as always. Keep up the great work!

I just wrote a missive to TC (hope it doesn't find my SFOC file! - different e-mail address) about the G airspace airports and flyaway mitigation. I neglected to ask for clarification on "animals". A mosquito is an animal. The seagulls that circled my MP w/o invitation are animals. The Northern Harrier hawk (that I stayed the F away from the other day) is an animal - why isn't TC protecting me from him?

Just added another e-mail requesting a definition of "animal" for the purpose of the rules.