ILLEGAL TO FLY DRONES IN CANADA UNLESS...

[raymo]

america is a free country. FREE

because that's not the role of government; to decide what hobbys the citizens should enjoy and which ones they should "control." some of us don't like having the government so involved in our personal business. understood some amount of rules and regulations are necessary but the way you make it sound, they're calling all the shots on who can play and who cannot. imagine if cars were under government control to the extent drones already are. you wouldn't like it.

once again i'm surrounded by a bunch of fellow drone pilots who are happy to call in the government to get "the situation" under control at any cost...when has the EVER worked?

can the people/industry at least try to police their own first? what problem(s) exactly do we have that we need to crack'd down on?

Ontario Chief Coroner's report on winter sports states that there were 45 deaths between 1991 and 2012. No testing of skiers/snowboarders by government has ever taken place. Hmmm!!!!

I understand the DOT minister wanting to maximize safety of the air, but it will continue to be an issue of trying to get thousands of existing Canadian UAV users to get tested. Guess we might see a lot of arrests in Canada. My cousin just got his basic testing completed and also questioned the relevancy of some of the items on the test. Our combined years of flying RC has been about 70 years. What may seem to be intuitive to us based on our experience may not be to new users of RC gear.

Personally, I have spent hundreds of dollars taking commercial training from a group in Medicine Hat, with Government of Canada radio certification and a certificate from the company that provided the training. We did all the study on weather, airspace restrictions and radio use in that course. It was exceptional. We did the course as we were looking to do commercial UAV flights for geological purposes using the SFOC (Special Flight Operations Certificate) course of action.

In order for everyone to really get up to speed, perhaps we should mimic the government's mantra that education is the key. Sooo, get a drone program introduced to high school in Canada, and then everyone will be careful and know all the rules. Just sayin'

In the meantime, as of June 1, I'm grounded until I take my test and get my license. Maybe I'll just take up basket weaving. Oh, they banned use of one-shot plastics, so that plastic basket is illegal!

 

[Jet skier]

How do you spell S.T.U.P.I.D.? And then to post online to leave a trail.
It’s why all the new rules are being made.

I would be surprised if he didn't get arrestedI

 

[Slim.slamma]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Unless its a Special Occasion apparently

 

[Nfhill]

Woa there.... So you're saying that flying your toy sUAS in the NAS is exactly the same as driving a car on the highway? NEGATIVE! Let's put that into a realistic perspective...

Let's say you want to drive your 1/4 scale R/C car/truck on the interstate just to have some fun and you put a camera on it so you could "Drive" FPV. Do you think that the DOT/Highway Patrol/LEO would have a problem with that? That's an accurate comparison not the one comparing sUAS to Driving a car.

Flying a toy drone in the NAS should be regulated not because we need more government but because without standardization and regulation the NAS is no longer a safe place.

I'm not an advocate for no rules, but your comparison to driving an RC car on an interstate highway is absolutely absurd! For the vast majority of the US and Canada, one can go months without ever seeing a manned aircraft at low altitudes. One is far more likely to be struck by lightning than to be in a close encounter with a manned aircraft as long as one stays away from the obvious places like active airports. To use your example, it's like driving an RC car/truck on a patch a dirt in the middle of nowhere and worrying about some real car/truck crunching you RC car/truck.

As to whether, or not, the NAS is safe is a matter of opinion. Every average day in the US, three to four manned aircraft crash and at least one person dies. This has been going on for decades and not one of the many thousands of crashes has involved an RC aircraft.

There has never been no rules for flying RC aircraft, but the current response by the aviation authorities is a gross over reaction,

Nick

 

[Thomas B]

I'm not an advocate for no rules, but your comparison to driving an RC car on an interstate highway is absolutely absurd! For the vast majority of the US and Canada, one can go months without ever seeing a manned aircraft at low altitudes. One is far more likely to be struck by lightning than to be in a close encounter with a manned aircraft as long as one stays away from the obvious places like active airports. To use your example, it's like driving an RC car/truck on a patch a dirt in the middle of nowhere and worrying about some real car/truck crunching you RC car/truck.

As to whether, or not, the NAS is safe is a matter of opinion. Every average day in the US, three to four manned aircraft crash and at least one person dies. This has been going on for decades and not one of the many thousands of crashes has involved an RC aircraft.

There has never been no rules for flying RC aircraft, but the current response by the aviation authorities is a gross over reaction,

Nick

However, flaunting the rules can only make it worse. That’s how the situation got to this point. FAA had a comments period some time ago.

 

[kensteele]

Woa there.... So you're saying that flying your toy sUAS in the NAS is exactly the same as driving a car on the highway? NEGATIVE! Let's put that into a realistic perspective...

Let's say you want to drive your 1/4 scale R/C car/truck on the interstate just to have some fun and you put a camera on it so you could "Drive" FPV. Do you think that the DOT/Highway Patrol/LEO would have a problem with that? That's an accurate comparison not the one comparing sUAS to Driving a car.

Flying a toy drone in the NAS should be regulated not because we need more government but because without standardization and regulation the NAS is no longer a safe place.

sorry i must have missed this thread/reply. if your rc car was restricted to driving only a residential street and must be 2 inches from the curb and cannot leave one city block on either side from your residence, i would say go for it and cops won't mind if they actually see one or two rc cars per week that can only operate 30 minutes at a time. this can't be your ordinary rc car but an advanced one...like our drones. all i am asking for is the government to carve out a piece of the nas for hobby fliers, whatever part they can spare and keep it safe. and you know...implement "hobby" rules.

 

[kensteele]

However, flaunting the rules can only make it worse. That’s how the situation got to this point. FAA had a comments period some time ago.

i'm sorry but i don't see yt drone videos are flaunting the rules. i see lots of cars and motorcycles and boats and bicyclists speeding and doing all kinds of crazy stuff and they are no more flaunting the rules than my neighbor who speeds off to work every morning breaking every speed limit sign.

you can't arrest over the internet. you "can" but i don't agree it; you know "due process" and all.

 

[Nfhill]

However, flaunting the rules can only make it worse. That’s how the situation got to this point. FAA had a comments period some time ago.

Depends on the rule and the time and location Let's take that 400' rule. The FAA has wanted to limit RC aircraft to below 400' for nearly 30 years, or so. But, manned aircraft are not required to stay above 400' except for fixed wing aircraft in densely populated areas. If I fly at 500' is a manned aircraft going to have a close encounter. In some locations, it could be a problem, but in the vast majority of the US and Canada the odds of a close encounter are so low no one can not even calculate the probability.

Many like to blame people flying where they shouldn't as the sole reason we have these new regulations. That's somewhere between absolute nonsense to wishful thinking. As I said, the 400' rule is something the FAA has wanted for decades. When the US congress tasked the FAA with integrating UAVs into the NAS, it wasn't because some were flying badly (yes, some were and do), it was because it had become clear that technology had made commercial use of UAVs economical, practical, and increasingly common.

The FAA says flying FPV without a spotter is too dangerous, and in some places and situations it is. But, for most of the US, a spotter is only slightly more likely to see a low altitude manned aircraft than they are to see a true UFO. A spotter is far more likely to keel over in a comma from boredom than they are to see a manned aircraft flying low enough to be a risk.

To use the highway analogy, the FAA's rules are like making driving rules appropriate for a school zone and then applying them everywhere.

Nick

 

[kensteele]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

question, does anyone here believe the drone flyer should be identified and prosecuted? if law enforcement can figure out who did this by witnesses who come forward or demanding flight logs or reviewing cctv footage (LOL) or basically going on tv and tell the flyer to turn himself in or else, should the yt footage be enough to convict him for [insert crimes here]?

personally, if i were on a jury, i would never convict this individual. perhaps a letter or warnings or maybe even a small fine and/or suspension but no one was hurt (to my knowledge) and to claim people were put in grave danger....that crowd was a danger.

just trying to get a feel for how the community feels about this.

 

[BigAl07]

I'm not an advocate for no rules, but your comparison to driving an RC car on an interstate highway is absolutely absurd! For the vast majority of the US and Canada, one can go months without ever seeing a manned aircraft at low altitudes. One is far more likely to be struck by lightning than to be in a close encounter with a manned aircraft as long as one stays away from the obvious places like active airports. To use your example, it's like driving an RC car/truck on a patch a dirt in the middle of nowhere and worrying about some real car/truck crunching you RC car/truck.

As to whether, or not, the NAS is safe is a matter of opinion. Every average day in the US, three to four manned aircraft crash and at least one person dies. This has been going on for decades and not one of the many thousands of crashes has involved an RC aircraft.

There has never been no rules for flying RC aircraft, but the current response by the aviation authorities is a gross over reaction,

Nick

Let's take this apart bit by bit...

I'm not an advocate for no rules, but your comparison to driving an RC car on an interstate highway is absolutely absurd!

It's almost apples to apples. RC cars are not allowed to operate on streets/highways where manned cars are because they can't operate together safely.

Drones are now being regulated (and it's going to get worse...) out of the majority of the NAS because over the last few years operators have proven time and again either they can't operate safely. How is an RC car on a main highway any different than an RC aircraft operating in the NAS? I would appreciate your explanation just how that's "Absurd".

For the vast majority of the US and Canada, one can go months without ever seeing a manned aircraft at low altitudes. One is far more likely to be struck by lightning than to be in a close encounter with a manned aircraft as long as one stays away from the obvious places like active airports.

Vast majority of US (I can't say for Canada) going months without seeing low aircraft? Have you even browsed the forum (this thread included) and seen the sUAS operators complaining about low aircraft operations? Do you know how many airports are in the US alone? If your situation was indeed the case then why in the world is our entire hobby industry so upset with the new regs disallowing Controlled Airspace operations because all of those are near/around airports. So long as you don't fly near an airport you have nothing to worry about (your scenario not the real world).

As to whether, or not, the NAS is safe is a matter of opinion. Every average day in the US, three to four manned aircraft crash and at least one person dies.

Man look at the statistics. Air travel is among the safest form of travel available and the US NAS is the safest in the world. Go ahead and look up the statistics and compare that to your "three to four manned aircraft crash and at least one person dies..."

Let's use your worst case example... 4 aircraft crash today and 4 people perish in each. That's roughly 16 people who died today in the US in an airplane accident (And that number is not accurate... way too high BTW). How many people do you think died today in automotive accidents in the US? Let me get you the stats for you:

U.S. Fatal Car Accident Statistics

In 2016, in the US, there were 37,461 total fatalities coming in at 102 per day.

This has been going on for decades and not one of the many thousands of crashes has involved an RC aircraft.

There has never been no rules for flying RC aircraft, but the current response by the aviation authorities is a gross over reaction,

Nick

I've been flying RC aircraft for many years (over 4 decades now) and our safety record is such because:

1) we SELF policed...you break the rules you are kicked out of the club (if repeated infractions)
2) we flew at a controlled field and did anything in our power to NOT fly where manned aircraft are flying. Some of our flying fields were/are literally on/beside airport properties. We are able to do this by NOT ignoring common sense and not flying where other aircraft could be.
3) most everyone in the RC Aviation industry learned the rules, how to build their aircraft, and how to FLY it. We didn't have Buy & fly so we all had a good bit of "skin" in the game. Since we were more "invested" we did more to protect our industry.

There has never been no rules for flying RC aircraft, but the current response by the aviation authorities is a gross over reaction,

See the comment just above this. We didn't NEED to be regulated because we did it ourselves and in a very controlled manner. Unfortunately this is no longer a possibility because so many want to refuse that there are rules and regulations they need to follow.

The current response is because our industry isn't taking care of business.

 

[Nfhill]

Let's take this apart bit by bit...



It's almost apples to apples. RC cars are not allowed to operate on streets/highways where manned cars are because they can't operate together safely.

Drones are now being regulated (and it's going to get worse...) out of the majority of the NAS because over the last few years operators have proven time and again either they can't operate safely. How is an RC car on a main highway any different than an RC aircraft operating in the NAS? I would appreciate your explanation just how that's "Absurd".



Vast majority of US (I can't say for Canada) going months without seeing low aircraft? Have you even browsed the forum (this thread included) and seen the sUAS operators complaining about low aircraft operations? Do you know how many airports are in the US alone? If your situation was indeed the case then why in the world is our entire hobby industry so upset with the new regs disallowing Controlled Airspace operations because all of those are near/around airports. So long as you don't fly near an airport you have nothing to worry about (your scenario not the real world).



Man look at the statistics. Air travel is among the safest form of travel available and the US NAS is the safest in the world. Go ahead and look up the statistics and compare that to your "three to four manned aircraft crash and at least one person dies..."

Let's use your worst case example... 4 aircraft crash today and 4 people perish in each. That's roughly 16 people who died today in the US in an airplane accident (And that number is not accurate... way too high BTW). How many people do you think died today in automotive accidents in the US? Let me get you the stats for you:

U.S. Fatal Car Accident Statistics

In 2016, in the US, there were 37,461 total fatalities coming in at 102 per day.



I've been flying RC aircraft for many years (over 4 decades now) and our safety record is such because:

1) we SELF policed...you break the rules you are kicked out of the club (if repeated infractions)
2) we flew at a controlled field and did anything in our power to NOT fly where manned aircraft are flying. Some of our flying fields were/are literally on/beside airport properties. We are able to do this by NOT ignoring common sense and not flying where other aircraft could be.
3) most everyone in the RC Aviation industry learned the rules, how to build their aircraft, and how to FLY it. We didn't have Buy & fly so we all had a good bit of "skin" in the game. Since we were more "invested" we did more to protect our industry.



See the comment just above this. We didn't NEED to be regulated because we did it ourselves and in a very controlled manner. Unfortunately this is no longer a possibility because so many want to refuse that there are rules and regulations they need to follow.

The current response is because our industry isn't taking care of business.

Point 1: RC car on a highway. There are places where manned air traffic is too dense for RC aircraft to be operated safely. If you live near one, you may see manned aircraft at low altitude almost all of the time. But, most of the US and Canada is no where near an airport. Once you are more than about 10 miles from an active airport, manned aircraft are rare. I live seven miles from my county airport, and only see a maned aircraft near my home about twice a year (probably less). If I'm near the airport, more often, but that's a very small area. The reason many people see lots of low altitude manned aircraft is they happen to be close to an active airport and are likely near, or in, an urban area. Most of the US and Canada is very lightly populated and not at all close to an airport. I know because I've been there.

Point 2: yes, auto travel is much more risky than air travel. However, if you look at the FAA accident statistics you will see that an average of three to four GA aircraft do indeed crash every average day in the US resulting in a death rate of over one person per day. The amazing thing is these crashes rarely kill anyone on the ground.

The current regulation is mostly because the FAA doesn't respect recreational aviation (manned or RC) and likes making up restrictive rules. The FAA can tell you what the risk of a twin engine airliner flying over water crashing is but they can't tell you what the risk of flying 500' agl is, or FPV without a spotter, and the reason is they just don't really care. The only thing that matters to the FAA is they don't like it and that's all the reason they need.

NIck

 

[Thomas B]

Point 1: RC car on a highway. There are places where manned air traffic is too dense for RC aircraft to be operated safely...

Point 2: yes, auto travel is much more risky than air travel...

The current regulation is mostly because the FAA doesn't respect recreational aviation (manned or RC) and likes making up restrictive rules. The FAA can tell you what the risk of a twin engine airliner flying over water crashing is but they can't tell you what the risk of flying 500' agl is, or FPV without a spotter, and the reason is they just don't really care. The only thing that matters to the FAA is they don't like it and that's all the reason they need.

NIck

I’ve been flyin drones for about five years and have seen a lot of changes.
Interesting reply you made. So point by point from your post:
Point 1: Agreed, near airports is one of them.
Point 2: Agreed, it is. The FAA rules are designed to keep it that way, not to wait until statistics on incidents prove the need for it in human lives or tragedy.
Point 3: Whether FAA or any drone flyer likes or dislikes the regulations, our elected officials have mandated the changes. The risks are known (Point2), again they don’t need to be proven through statistics before action to minimize human peril.

It doesn’t matter whether they (FAA) respect me. I don’t need validation from others. I do rely the government regulations to balance needs or desires of all parties.

There are countries that don’t even allow drones... I hope the problems are controlled before this country actually considers that in any serious way.

 

[kensteele]

yeah other countries that don't have drone laws at all, their drones are...what are you calling the drone hobby: "human lives or tragedy", "known risks", "human peril", "statistics" and those other buzz words that are always being used right before your rights are completely taken away due to safety reasons. thomas, there is none of that which you speak of in the drone hobby any more than it applies to bowling or golfing or volleyball. tell us about the country with no drone laws that is currently enduring great human suffering. LOL LOL

 

[deleted member 877]

because that's not the role of government; to decide what hobbys the citizens should enjoy and which ones they should "control." some of us don't like having the government so involved in our personal business.

Everything BigAl07 and Thomas B said above plus, you keep banging on about "hobby" as if because you believe drone flying to be one, no possible harm can be done. You're living in your own little "it's all about me" world.

And your irrelevant comparisons to, now sports such as bowling or golfing or volleyball are doing absolutely nothing to validate your argument. But let's play your little game anyway. Try taking a bucket of balls to the local park to practise with your 3 iron - you would be reported to the police in no time flat. Even if there were no people in the park at the time you would still be subject to a hefty fine.

 

[kensteele]

.... about "hobby" as if because you believe drone flying to be one, no possible harm can be done.

it is not i who has characterized recreational drone flying as a hobby. i didnt come up with that designation. do you disagree it is a hobby?

 

[kensteele]

Try taking a bucket of balls to the local park to practise with your 3 iron - you would be reported to the police in no time flat. Even if there were no people in the park at the time you would still be subject to a hefty fine.

not here in free america. but yeah i understand in the motherland uk and the her remaining colonies canada and australia...surely. or maybe not?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[deleted member 877]

it is not i who has characterized recreational drone flying as a hobby. i didnt come up with that designation. do you disagree it is a hobby?

No, of course you didn't "come up with that designation" - so far you haven't said anything original, or valid for that matter - but you keep using it ad nauseam like it's an excuse or justification to thumb your nose at the rules.

Whether or not I or anyone else agrees that drone flying is a hobby means nothing in terms of how the airspace regulators see it. That is all that really matters in the context of this thread and the future of the "hobby". Keep whining about the big bad government wanting to control your "hobby" if it makes you happy but please do it somewhere else away from the public domain.

 

[Meta4]

imagine if cars were under government control to the extent drones already are. you wouldn't like it.

Do you mean if they:
Forced you to pay registration and have insurance?
Told you what side of the road you must drive on and how fast?

Yeah ... that would be terrible.

 

[kensteele]

Do you mean if they:
Forced you to pay registration and have insurance?
Told you what side of the road you must drive on and how fast?

Yeah ... that would be terrible.

you conveniently left out "to the extent drones already are" part of the comment. imagine if you were told you cannot drive adjacent to passengers or you have to send a text message and get a government approval to start your route.

so you feel your cars are under government control with your examples (registration, insurance, side of the road, how fast) is that right? those "rules" indicate to you cars are under government control? i don't think so.

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

imagine if cars were under government control to the extent drones already are.

Yeah. It would suck if you had to register your car, put an ID plate on in (so THEY know who you are!), get a license to operate it, and follow all kinds of stupid rules about where and how you can drive it. I would not like that at all.