IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

1. What kinds of strategies, tools and requirements should Transport Canada use to improve safety in the drone sector?

about 2 months ago

  1. Focusing on pilot knowledge and training
  2. Strengthening outreach, education, and awareness (i.e. social media, public service announcements)
  3. Increasing enforcement measures

Consultation has concluded

rh45 9 days ago
Please consider the following suggested changes to the proposed legislation:1) No pilot age restrictions, provided an adult is present. There is no reason children should be excluded from the hobby if they are properly supervised.2) Raise the weight classification of very small drones to 500g - 2kg, and small drones to 2kg - 25kg. The majority of drones used by hobbyists for aerial photography are just over the 1kg limit, but should not be categorized with aircraft weighing 25kg. Also, raising the 250g limit to 500g would allow pilots to fly more reasonably-sized aircraft at their local park without heavy restrictions, yet still doing so safely.3) Allow drones to be flown within the 5.5km radius around airports, but at lower altitude, perhaps 25 metres.4) No personal contact information on any class of drone, only a license number so that third parties can only contact the pilot through Transport Canada.
Alex 9 days ago
Dear Transport Canada and honorable MPs,I, call upon the Minister of Transport to consider how the deletion of the definition of Model Aircraft and prescriptive regulations proposed in the draft regulations for drone use in Canada (NPA UAV) affects the varied pursuits of Model Aircraft hobbyists and that the regulations be adjusted to allow recreational Model Aircraft hobbyists to reasonably continue their activities in a safe manner that is not a risk to aviation safety or contrary to other federal and local lawsModel aircraft hold tremendous promise for professionals and hobbyists. However, these new draft rules published in Canada Gazette are too onerous to allow for us to enjoy many opportunities that we were once able to. Please create a policy that's both reasonable and allows for safe skies.Consider these points;• The recreational model aircraft community will be negatively impacted by the proposed regulations, effectively criminalizing many activities that have a long safety record;• Model Aircraft do not pose the same associated risks as commercial UAVs;• Recreational users shouldn’t have to buy a $100,000 liability insurance policy. Recreational drones do not warrant this expense.• Recreational users and Commercial users should not be grouped together under the same set of regulations; they fly for different reasons and have different risk factors. A simpler and clear set of rules for recreational users will help promote compliance and safety. • Drones are a great way to get kids interested in STEM, so children under the age of 14 should be allowed to fly under the close supervision of an adult. Small drones should be allowed to be used by schools in urban areas to teach students about technology.• Privacy shouldn’t be put at risk every time they fly their drone. Transport Canada needs a better solution for identifying downed drones than requiring the pilot’s name and contact information being placed on their drone.• Small drones (under 1 kg) should remain very lightly regulated because they pose little or no threat to people and property.• Restrictions on flying anywhere near aerodromes, near people and property, and within controlled airspace (which covers most cities) will continue to make it nearly impossible for responsible drone pilots to fly drones anywhere near where people live.• Other countries, like USA and Australia, are getting the balance between the freedom to fly and safety right, and Transport Canada should be looking at these countries as an example of how to make good regulations that encourage safe and responsible drone use.Sincerely,Alex McCumber
Drone Lady 12 days ago
I bought my Phantom 3 Professional drone with the plan to start a business. That was almost 2 years ago. TC has successfully prevented me from doing so by leaving me in limbo in regards to their ridiculous rules. I have studied the requirements of the US and would be able to pass their 107 test but I still can't take pictures of homes for sale or help the neighbour with his crops. The gravel pit owner asked if I could map out his pit and give him accurate measurements of each kind of fill. I said I could, but I can't. I have the capabilities but TC won't allow it. TC has successfully prevented entrepeneurs from growing their businesses because of ridiculous rules that have been plucked out of the air with absolutely no data to back up claims. To think that I would have to be able to fly a Cessna airplane (in theory) before I could legally fly my drone commercially is preposterous! Transport Canada has fostered fear and ignorance that has become rampant among the public. I am actually afraid to fly my drone anywhere now without fear of someone yelling at me. The looks I get from passers-by could kill. Shame on you Transport Canada. As far as education, it is realistic to expect commercial pilots to acquire licenses just as they do with vehicles. If you spend more time in a delivery truck, there is a greater chance you will have an accident just due to the number of hours in the vehicle, compared to someone who drives 20 minutes to work each day. It's just a numbers thing. Commercial vehicle licenses require more knowledge, so should commercial drone licenses. As for insurance requirements, recreational drone pilots should be held accountable for any damage they do, just as the person who hits the baseball through the window. The baseball player should pay for the window, as should the drone pilot pay for damage incurred. But neither the baseball player, nor the recreational drone pilot should need insurance. As far as commercial pilots, the insurance should match the weight of the drone and the expected damage it might do. A 1.3kg drone will not do nearly the same damage as a 25kg drone! To have such a HUGE spread in weight is unrealistic. To include the most popular recreational drone in with large drones used in cinematography is uncalled for. 2kgs - 25kgs would make more sense. And from the data I have read, it is the 4kg, metal armed drones that can cause damage to windscreens of planes, so I think 2kgs is being generous. Having flown for 2 years now, I can tell you vlos is a joke! It is impossible to tell how close you are to an object by vlos. You can't tell if you are going up or you are moving away. If you watch for a few seconds, it will eventually become clear, but by that time, it's too late! By using fpv and reading the telemetry on the screen, implementing sensors AND looking up from the screen occassionally, you are much less likely to have an accident! Why not use ALL the tools available instead of just your eyes that can trick you. I am all for registering commercial drones with specific numbers with the contact information being held by TC. You are making me vulnerable to attack by the same public you have created with your fear mongering. And if I choose to be safe and not put on my name, address and phone number, you are forcing me to break the law. It's a non-win, non-win situation. Possibly the commercial pilot's license number is the number that is on the drone?In summary, regulate and educate the commercial pilots with levels of education that are applicable to flying drones, not planes. Have insurance for commercial drones by weight. Increase the minimum weight of small drones to 2 Kgs from 1 Kg. Get rid of the vlos rules. You don't expect plane pilots to only use their eyes to stay safe! And stop requiring us to put our contact information on our drones where it could become dangerous to do so in the wrong hands. And leave the recreational pilots alone. With the exception of some general safety information which most pilots will follow. The rule breakers will always be there. So don't over orchestrate to the good guys!
niclam 10 days ago
If you as a small business owner can't navigate the rules, hire someone who can. We were in your situation. A quick google search found us someone who did the paperwork for us. At a fee, but there's costs associated with starting business. Now we know how to do it ourselves. And business is good.
martinfly 11 days ago
Proposed new drone rulesNO LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR RECREACTIONAL USESRSFor recreational drone flyers the new proposed rules added some extra regulation that absolutely give no additional safety. I do not believe that requiring liability insurance on a recreational drone would in any way increase safety but would in fact make owning a drone prohibitively expensive. If you look at how much actual drone use the average recreational user uses it, it is very small. Sure it might be a big attraction when the owner gets the drone but after a couple of years use is extremely small. At $80 a year signing up for a club that provides insurance is extremely expensive or buying it is too expensive. There is no statistics showing that having insurance would decrease the number of accidents. This is purely created by a lobby group for the insurance industry. I don't see anybody gaining except the insurance industry from having mandatory insurance. When the drone gets in an accident that person still can sue the person flying the drone. In a commercial setting insurance can easily be covered because the drone makes money and usually is used a lot. But recreational drones don't get a lot of flight time and with already so many restrictions on where it can be flown I don't think it's going to be a huge problem. As it stands `this will kill the drone industry for rec users. It will not increase safety in any way, there will be still the same number of accidents with or without insurance. This proposed rules want to create a cash flow for the insurance industry not protect the rights of recreational drug users.VERY SMALL DRONE FOR REC USERS SHOULD BE 250g to 2KG (NOT 1KG LIMIT)I also believe that a very small drones should be from 250 g to 2 kg. This would essentially cover most of the recreational drones. Currently the 1 kg limit proposal would limit 80% of the drones for recreational use.
Bashir Khan 27 days ago
Some great discussion here. I think its really important looking 2-3 years into the future that the current regulatory framework allows for autonomous drones in the service sector to really flourish. There is a lot of talk about pilots but the reality is that pilots will not be nearly as efficient, skilled, or safe as the machine learning flight algorithms that have/are being developed. Whether its delivery drones like what (lucidelivery.com) is doing, or sky guys, fly guys, etc. The economic impact drones will have for the good in our society needs to be seen from the high and low levels, then enacted upon. As long as the government is open to working with businesses and innovative companies- then drone safety will not be an issue. We want to work with the government. Insofar as rules are concerned, the current proposed regulations are pretty good, except that for commercial and urban landscapes, the 30 meter distance from cars and people should be significantly reduced. We don't have any such laws for thousands of tons worth of metal rushing by us on the sidewalks every day. 10 meters is enough. Also that should be clarified as a distance needed for when the drone is actually in flight, when it lands the distance can be 2-3 meters safely, no issue.
WilliamT 22 days ago
I think the 30 meter distance should either remain the same or be raised to at least 50 meters. People have the right to privacy, and to not be disturbed. Especially for drones that's have cameras.
Bashir Khan 22 days ago
William I wish we had our privacy to begin with, but we don't. we carry double sided spy machine cameras in our pockets pointing them at the world for tech giants to gather data. The age of privacy is dead, and has been for a long time. As long as its clarified that at take off and landing it doesn't need to be 50 feet away from people thats fine, otherwise it might be tough for pilots to see the drone, and rarely will there ever be landing space for commercial/emergency activity. Some autonomous UAV's don't even need cameras, and can be turned on specifically to capture emergency situations. Though I agree with you privacy is important, addressing it through distance regulations is far more detrimental than simply mandating software processes that prevent privacy from being breached, i.e. flying at least 50 meters above houses, limiting zoom capacity on camera's to specific stages of take off, flight, and landing. There are better ways to skin the cat :)
Oshawapilot 22 days ago
William, a 20m difference is going to make no difference for operators who willingly decide to intrude on other peoples privacy regardless - you could say 100m and operators with no respect are just going to disregard the rule as a whole anyways. This is the argument that most of us here are making - overzealous regulations only punish those who are flying drones safely and respectably to begin with, but will have little or no effect on those who don't, and won't follow overzealous new regulations anyways. And please don't just assume that everyone with a drone is doing nothing other than "intruding on other peoples privacy" - 99.99% of us have no interest in filming your backyard, we are trying to film ourselves, our events, or our families, end of story. To just assume that every drone you see is somehow a scary surveillance/privacy invading device is just feeding into the media paranoia, it's not fact.
WilliamT 21 days ago
Well it's not easy to find solutions that suit everybody. And I know that most people are having harmless fun. And that its not likely that anybody wants pictures of my back yard, I'm not that paranoid. But there are issues that would come from somebody flying over my yard. What I found it falls and the person doesn't have insurance? Or think about this, somebody in their own yard, swimming or tanning, the yard is fenced or trees around. What happens it crashes down? And yeah it's far fetched or rare, but murder is rare, we have law to protect against it. The day of privacy in public is over. But at home, we are entitled to it. Perhaps there should be laws regarding flying over private property and outlawing it completely. In the mean time, it's good to hear that most people are flying responsibly. So keep it up, give it a good name.
Diver808 21 days ago
Mostly agree, however you appear to compare/equate a drone crash to 'murder'. Murder is far from rare btw :) If a drone falls and damages someones property AND they do not have insurance...you take them to court to be compensated...that is if the operator doesn't do so out of pocket anyways. How many thousands of windows are smashed by baseballs every month/year...noone has insurance for that?? If someone is seriously impacting your privacy with a drone, document it and report it to the authorities as there are laws already on the books for that. We don't need more laws on this wrt drones.
Oshawapilot 21 days ago
Your argument about a higher altitude to minimize injury in the case of a crash is counter intuitive - by your logic having drones fly *lower* would minimize potential crash injuries as it would reduce the drones terminal velocity as it falls.It goes to show you that there is no perfect scenario for any of this. In the end, realistic rules need to apply, not theoretical ones based solely on trying to regulate the tiny portion of irresponsible owners who won't follow said rules anyways.
Drone Lady 12 days ago
The days of privacy in our own home is also long gone. Take for instance the Samsung Smart TV that listens in to your daily conversations with it's microphone. Or your iPhone with "Hey Siri". Your iPhone is listening to every word you say and if you don't think they are keeping information, then you are living in the past.
Diver808 21 days ago
30 m is crazy high in my opinion. 20 m is more reasonable as this guarantees a drone will clear any house by a wide margin including surrounding trees. No drone operators give a crap about spying on people. It should be common sense not to bother people with the sound of a drone; even for the brief 4 sec that it MAY ocurr, by ensuring flights if at all possible avoid flying over houses needlessly. But 30m or higher greatly restricts the operator and is unnecessary and perhaps even adds risk to the equation. People need to except the fact that in society today, the use of cameras are widespread/common and that will never change. With that being said, if I had a neighbour that complained to me honestly about being bothered by frequent fly-overs, I would certainly raise my altitude and be a good neighbour/citizen. But their are SO MANY things that offend certain people that are just part of urban life, that drone activities are honestly a non-existent issue.
Bv1971 about 2 months ago
I think an online test is sufficient, insurance for me personally is unfair and over the top, I own a .5lb styrofoam drone and even living within 5km of an airport due to the runway positions it's physically impossible for me to be a danger. And with the cost of it; it is never out of line of sight or over 50ft. I think it's unfair to make it a mandatory insurance demand for a toy
#GameOfDrones #TheDroneGuy 26 days ago
Yours may be a styrofoam toy but the next guy could be a 5 lb rocket. Insurance is good. We have to insure our boats, bikes, etc
Diver808 26 days ago
Insurance should not be mandated for UAVs. Certainly not until it is actually made available to the public. Requiring insurance when it is not commercially available is akin to outlawing UAVs entirely. How can the public even meet this requirement? Are we required to have insurance for when we ride our bicycles at 10/20/30/40 km/h (or greater)? Do we need this when we swing at a baseball (and how many deaths per year from getting hit from a ball??). More deaths than UAV's. More risk from sport in general than any risk from any UAV flight. Insurance is good and reasonable, but for UAV use it should not be mandated by TC. Perhaps at some point in the future, but not now, and only if it is available and reasonable cost.
Candroneco 13 days ago
Insurance is commercialy available, I know because I had to find it to be up to date with what transport Canada required. It's not cheap and it doesn't cover the drone. It's purely liability insurance.
Diver808 13 days ago
Thanks, I could not find it. Also TC said in their public forums that insurance is avail for $78/yr or some ridiculously low amount...sounds like TC not being untruthful as for many months I search for insurance and all I could find was "Commercial Liability"; i.e. only if you have a business flying drones...no liab. insur. if you are flying "Recreational". Where may I ask is you insurance with and how much? You said above 'commercially available'; I assume you mean just 'available' as 'commercial' = business insurance in this context...thanks.
mah4ever 13 days ago
The Canada Gazette entry that described the rationale for the proposed regulations estimated 15$/year for 100,000$ liability insurance.
Candroneco 13 days ago
I got the insurance through lloyds aviation insurance. It's $100,000 liability insurance and it covers two pilots for the cost of $650 a year all in. So each pilot pays $325 a year. That was the best deal I could find at that time which was feb of last year. I do agree that people just flying recreationally would have a hard time paying that as they can never recoup the cost.
Flyt 16 days ago
If that’s the case then kids playing ball hockey, baseball, driving ranges, kites, shopping carts and bicycles should all be insured. Where does it stop?
Diver808 13 days ago
SHOW YOUR VOTE HERE! How many here in this forum, are either greatly concerned that or believe that upon expiry of TC's 'period of public feedback' that TC will proceed with actions that reflect clearly minimal consideration of this input (relative to other Stakeholders)??? Yay or Nay?!?
AlFred334 20 days ago
Folks - lots of constructive comments here. Note - it is not clear if Transport Canada will consider any of this feedback. Apparently the 'official' way of providing feedback is to send email to carrac@tc.gc.ca (see quote below). So I encourage you all to do that - and be as constructive as possible. "This online discussion forum is an additional way for Transport Canada to hear from stakeholders outside of the official Canada Gazette regulatory process, and beyond the work of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC)(https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/affairs-carac-menu-755.htm(External link)). To comment on the proposed regulations on drones, you can read about the proposed rules here(http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/proposed-rules-drones-canada.html(External link)), and submit your feedback in writing to carrac@tc.gc.ca(External link)". This means that the official way to have your comments heard is to send them to the given email (carrac@tc.gc.ca(External link))"
Diver808 13 days ago
SHOW YOUR VOTE HERE! How many here in this forum, are either greatly concerned that or believe that upon expiry of TC's 'period of public feedback' that TC will proceed with actions that reflect clearly minimal consideration of this input (relative to other Stakeholders)??? Yay or Nay?!?
Oshawapilot about 1 month ago
As both a licensed pilot and a drone/RC aircraft owner I do see this from both sides of the fence and appreciate what some of these regulations are designed to accomplish, but I feel that they are still over reaching, punitive, and simply unrealistic in some aspects. Although I am supportive of the regulations that are designed to keep drones clear of potential aircraft conflict (although I was glad to see a more realistic 5.5KM airspace limit vs the overzealous 9KM previously), I struggle with some of the other regulations for the >1KG class, specifically the 75 meter requirement - this makes it difficult if not virtually impossible for the recreational drone user to film the very things most choose to film - friends, family, and events. Although I understand the underlying safety aspect behind such, the 1 thru 35KG range lumps FAR too many drones into this category, and unfortunately also lumps in the most common consumer friendly DJI models which are in the 1.2-1.5KG range, yet pose dramatically less risk vs a 35KG drone. Putting the two together in a single group is akin to comparing a huge SUV to a bicycle and suggesting that they present the same level of risk to a bystander, when the reality is anything but.It seems to me that there should be a new (perhaps 1 thru 3-5KG?) category that would safely encompass most consumer and prosumer drones that are being used recreationally, but are FAR less risky from a safety standpoint vs a 35KG (Clearly professional/commercial drone) they are being lumped in with. The distance regulations in such a "lower middleweight" class of drones could safely be relaxed to a more realistic 20-30 meter range which would fit the needs and requirements for most owners at that point and would foster adherence vs abhorrence.In short, horribly overzealous and unnecessary limitations on the classes of drones that are most often ending up in the hands of the "average" consumer are going to be result in the limitations simply being ignored by many because they are simply unrealistic, the same as how the requirement for liability insurance will also inevitably be widely ignored, as it too is simply unrealistic for the average consumer who might fly their drone once or twice a month. As another commenter mentioned, there doesn't even appear to be any insurance underwriters even offering such coverage at the consumer vs commercial level, and a casual consumer drone owner is not going to take out a commercial policy to take drone video of their kids birthday parties, or their family on the beach - it's not going to happen!On the other hand, realistic and easily attainable requirements on the other hand will foster engagement and adherence by a much wider percentage of the public.
SparkEE about 1 month ago
Two points...1. The 5.5km vs 9km airspace restriction is really misleading as it will only apply to uncontrolled rural airports. The proposed regulations still only allow flights in class G airspace, so for most cities the restriction will still be 9km or more, depending on the airport and the size and shape of their controlled class C airspace.2. According to TC (from their information seminars) the weight division was created from wind screen strength requirements for manned aircraft. The requirement is that a wind screen is to withstand a 2kg bird strike without penetration at a certain speed. However a bird is "soft and squishy" and a drone is "hard and crunchy". Some other study showed that the mass should be reduced by half for "hard and crunchy" objects to meet the same wind screen specifications. This is the reasoning behind the 1kg mass division for drones.
mah4ever about 1 month ago
Do you have a reference to where this study was published ? Dividing by exactly half, again, seems arbitrary. More importantly, this simply ignores the very sophisticated automatic collision avoidance capabilities in the 1.3kg Phantom 4.
SparkEE about 1 month ago
No, I don't know anything about the study. This is what the Transport Canada officials at the Calgary information seminar explained as to where the 1kg mass division came from. The collision avoidance system is irrelevant because they are also worried about a manned aircraft colliding with a drone, instead of a drone colliding with a manned aircraft.
mah4ever about 1 month ago
But, that does'nt really make sense. There is no difference between the proposed 250-1kg and 1k-25kg categories with respect to the factors that would suggest risk of manned aircraft collisions - i.e. both proposed categories suggest a maximum height of 90m, and no flight within 5.5km of an airport, or 1.85km or a heliport.
SparkEE about 1 month ago
According to TC, the height of 90m is because 90m is the maximum height of a structure that does not require markings, so pilots of manned aircraft are aware of an increased risk when flying below 90m. However, there is no rule or law restricting manned flight to a specific altitude in Canada, unlike the US (500ft). Also, according to TC, the distance of 5.5km from an airport was determined from the glide slope of a runway approach to which the manned aircraft would be above 90 m. The important factor is that a collision with a drone with a mass greater than 1kg has a greater possibility of penetrating the wind screen and injuring or killing the pilot.
AlFred334 about 1 month ago
Don't think you are catching his point. Let me try: those are the factors in the classifications that are related to manned aircraft proximity. But, they are the SAME in both the 250-1kg and 1kg-25kg classifications. So, calling out risk of manned aircraft collisions as the reason for the differentiation does not make sense.
SparkEE about 1 month ago
The difference between the classifications is in the proximity to "built up areas" for which each class will be allowed to operate. A "built-up" area will have a greater density of manned aircraft compared to a rural location. However, the original point to this discussion was the reasoning behind the 1kg mass division between the classes, which accordingly to TC, has to do with with wind screen strength.
AlFred334 about 1 month ago
You are saying the reason transport Canada wants to restrict drones in the 1-1.5 kg category like the Phantom from urban areas, is because: i) they think it is more likely a manned aircraft will be flying below 90m in urban areas vs rural areas even if >5.5 km from an airport, and ii) the damage of a collision with such a drone is judged to be more significant than a collision with a 2kg bird - according to 'some study'. This all seems unreasonable, and arbitrary to me. If transport Canada is referring to 'some study' they should actually site it so that its methodology can be examined.Further, if the main reason for placing the 1-1.5kg drones into the 1kg-25kg category is ensure they only fly in rural areas, why is there the additional requirement that they stay 75m away from people/vehicles (as opposed to 30m for smaller category).
SparkEE about 1 month ago
No, I am simply stating what Transport Canada (TC) has explained in their information seminar about the reasoning behind separating the drones into <1kg and >1kg classes, which is entirely based on the wind screen specifications of manned aircraft. According to TC, their regulations are supposed to be risk based. This means more risk equals more restrictions. I am not stating that I agree with TC because, in my opinion, there is no evidence that any of these regulations are justified based on any actual risk study to begin with.
AlFred334 about 1 month ago
I appreciate your attempt to convey what they described in the meeting. But, the net of it appears to be some assessment of increased risk of damage when hitting a manned aircraft, as I tried to summarize. Again, my point here is: let's see the details of this study. The closest I could find is a study by the FAA about falling drones, which indicated that "UAS are flexible during collision and retain significant energy during impact" and therefore are far less likely of causing a head injury that non-flexible objects, when dropped from 50ft. They even tested a Phantom 3 (about 1.3kg) and stated the chances of head injury are 0.01 to 0.03 % vs near certainty for a wood object of the same mass. More here: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/may/01/report-details-drone-risks.
Diver808 21 days ago
"According to TC, the height of 90m ..."This is not true, but close. It is 300' max and not 400' max as it is in the USA for this reason (in otherwords TC is lazy not to raise it to 400' b/c they don't want to be bothered figuring out how to fix this in the regulations and give Canadians the extra 100' like they have in the US)."there is no rule or law restricting manned flight to a specific altitude in Canada, unlike the US (500ft)"- TC in their info sessions is uninformed in this. Their is a 500' min rule in Canada. It happens to be one of the top regulations that pilots violate...funny TC got this one wrong :)"Also, according to TC, the distance of 5.5km from an airport was determined from the glide slope of a runway approach to which the manned aircraft would be above 90 m."If TC said this...***SHAMEFUL***. TAKE TRIGONOMETRY AGAIN PLEASE. :) An aircraft is not even at Final Approach until half this distance! And even if they were put into a holding pattern by ATC- they'd be required to fly a min of 800 - 1000' AGL (or 500' for helis b/c they are special).
Steven about 1 month ago
Even with that information, I don't understand why the same regulations apply to all drones between 1 kg and 35 kg - surely does not make any sense. I agree with the original post wholeheartedly. The only thing I can add, is the straightforwardness, and effectiveness of the drone policies used in USA, and Ireland. Canada's proposed policies would not be innovative, but would effectively keep my drone in my travel suitcase.
Diver808 13 days ago
Numerous studies have calculated (based on over 25 years of bird-strike data for which it is estimated to be over 10 billion birds) that the probability of a drone strike against an aircraft causing injury is literally ZERO. In fact, this would occur once every 185 years (approximately). :). These recent published studies all appear to be ignored by the regulatory authorities. Regulatory authorities in some cases are commissioning their own studies to support their mandates and in some cases (google many news stories) refuse and/or hide conclusions that go against their opinions. I support the intention to develop some sound regulation to ensure this 'new' tech is properly integrated into airspace but unfortunately their is too much (?) lack of transparency and actions such as this, even with our TC. TC needs to work harder to ensure our regulatory process is not tainted by such things. A clear way to provide this is for TC to publish a clear-language 'commentary' to supplement any current and proposed regulations. This will improve stakeholder involvement and transparency/accountability as so far this has been a sham.
Diver808 21 days ago
Just Google 'bird impact screen test'. The most recent research/reports are from Sept 2017. You will find that preliminary research indicates that drones less than4 Kgs generally do not pose an impact that would exceed the specification for aircraft windscreens that are certified against this threat (e.g. designed to withstand impacts). This could suggest that any mention by TC that this is their reasoning for the 1 Kg weight class...is entirely bullcrap :) My theory (and I think I am correct), is that TC has purposefully and with prejudice (!) chosen to frame their requirements to be greatly restrictive against the most common group/class of consumer drone out on the market...the DJI Phantom class. If they did not have this bias then their would only be a need to heavily regulate 'commercial drone's of the 2Kg ++ upto 35Kg class...and this wouldn't provide the massive monetary payout they are looking to achieve which is the imminent TAX GRAB in the form of drone registrations etc. The FAA has been attempting to do the same, so far unsuccessfully. Public Safety is a real important issue, but unfortunately the picture that is being painted points to $ being the true motivation for the so-far unrealistic drone regulatory framework.
AlFred334 20 days ago
Diver808 - interesting - could you post a URL of the reference you're referring to ?
Diver808 20 days ago
Certainly AlFred334. There are multiple studies indicating drone strikes art not a threat until the 4kg weight is reached. I'll reference a few below. Also note that the test requires the drone impact the airplane at altitudes upwards of 10,000! (in order that the speed of collision is very high/typical of max airplane flight speeds that only occur at these altitudes).https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cockpit-windshields-resilient-to-typical-drone-strik-439581/..and this one is 'interesting':https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/27/drone_test_results_wont_be_released_dft/http://clearvisionsecurity.co.uk/drone-collision-study/when I find the MOST recent north american study, I'll post it
Oshawapilot about 1 month ago
SparkEE, I'm not sure where you've got the impression that there is some sort of differentiation between airports - the regulations read as follows:• at least 5.5 km from aerodromes (any airport, seaplane base, or areas where aircraft take-off and land)• at least 1.8 km away from heliports or aerodromes used exclusively by helicopters outside of controlled or restricted airspaceAll aerodrome/airports are treated the same for the purpose of fixed wing aircraft, and helicopter pads outside of controlled airspace (IE, hospitals, etc) are even less restricted.As for the "hard and crunchy" nature of drones, IMHO until some actual studies are done to show that there's some scientific basis behind the assumptions that simply halving the weight of a 2KG bird makes a 1KG drone equivalent it's a dubious assumption, and little more.Ultimately, as mentioned, no amount of regulations in the world will stop some people from flying their drones in an unsafe manner no matter what, so it's better to make the rules straightforward in an effort to achieve a higher level of education and hopefully adherence, vs making the rules so foolishly overzealous that many just discount them right out of the gate.It's also important to not just assume that every drone owner out there is an automatic danger to aviation - the overwhelming majority operate safely and conscientiously - do not penalize everyone for the actions of a few. To do so is the equivalent of telling every car driver that they have to follow hundreds of crazy new laws and regulations simply because a small percentage of car drivers operate their cars foolishly on public roads.
SparkEE about 1 month ago
Here is the text of the proposed legislation... "Authorized Airspace 901.04 Despite sections 601.06 to 601.09, no person shall operate a very small unmanned aircraft in airspace other than Class G airspace." This is contained in Sub-part 1 for Very Small Unmanned Aircraft and is repeated in section 902.09 in Sub-part 2 for Small Unmanned Aircraft. With regards to the "hard and crunchy" nature of drones, Transport Canada is saying they already have a study done to justify this differentiation based on mass. This was stated in TC's information seminar in Calgary.
AlFred334 about 1 month ago
The proposed text seems to list two different if not contradictory requirements. In addition to section 901.04 which you quoted above, there is also section 901.09 (1) : "No person shall operate an unmanned aircraft system under this Subpart if the aircraft or control station is less than three nautical miles from the centre of an aerodrome, other than a heliport, that is listed in the Canada Flight Supplement or the Water Aerodrome Supplement."
SparkEE about 1 month ago
They are complementary. Section 901.04 covers large airports with control towers and defined controlled airspace. and 901.09 covers rural uncontrolled airports that are located in class G airspace.
mah4ever about 1 month ago
How is that? Is it the case the the aerodromes listed in the Canada Flight Supplement or the Water Aerodrome Supplement are only rural uncontrolled airports?
SparkEE about 1 month ago
No. All airports are listed. Only rural uncontrolled airports will be located within class G airspace. Rule 901.09 does not negate rule 901.04 just because it's an airport/helipad located within a class C airspace. Of course there is an airport inside a class C airspace; it is the reason for the class C airspace to begin with...
mah4ever about 1 month ago
OK then, at the very least, they should clarify that 901.09 is referring only to airports that are not covered by 901.04. The way it is currently written is confusing. More important: the summaries of the proposed rules in http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/proposed-rules-drones-canada.html mention only '5.5km from airports' and '1.8km from heliports'. Based on what you are saying, this appears to be understating the requirement and is very misleading.
SparkEE about 1 month ago
Yes it is very misleading, an IMHO intentionally so. I find it interesting that the reduction in distance from an airport is prominently presented in all of their promotional bulletins, but nowhere (that I have seen) do they mention "only class G airspace", which makes the distance reduction moot for the majority of Canadians.
mah4ever about 1 month ago
Well, I usually try to err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt. I.e. perhaps 901.04 was something they intended to remove but forgot to? But, if you are correct, and they intend to hide it, that is extremely devious, and would undermine the feedback process they (at least seem) to be trying to conduct. Not to mention even the 5.5km/1.8km restriction is quite severe for so many people.
SparkEE about 1 month ago
Not likely. The class G airspace limitation was printed on a single slide of TC's information seminar presentation to emphasize the point... TC is not hiding it (it is all right there in the proposed text of the regulations), they are just not bringing it to the attention of the majority of the public who didn't attend the seminar and/or do not fully understand the implication.
mah4ever about 1 month ago
Yikes. Not good. Certainly did not expect this sort of deception.(Anyways, thanks for clarifying all of this - I thought I read it all carefully, and I was certainly misled.)
Oshawapilot 22 days ago
After just responding to another post here in the discussion, I would like to add a strong suggest that TC *STOP* demonizing drones to the public, and STOP spreading (or indirectly reinforcing) the sentiment to the public that the goal of every drone operator is to fly over peoples backyards to peer at them, or hover next to a window to look inside. The reality is that 99.99% of drone operators operate respectfully with regards to privacy, and a flight in a public places that just happens to capture an indirect view of someones property should be treated no different than someone in a small aircraft flying overhead, or heck, the satellite imagery available in a few clicks by any member of the public via Google Satellite for that matter! In the end, adding more regulations to try to prevent unscrupulous operators from invading other peoples privacy won't accomplish anything regardless (they will of course just ignore them) except to punish or complicate enjoyment of the hobby for those who are operating within common decency guidelines to begin with.
Flying Cowboy 20 days ago
There has been a lot of valuable discussion here with regards to the nature of the regulations, and so I will keep my thoughts on the topic of regulations brief and aimed at responding to the question posed at the beginning of the thread.Firstly, the current regulatory structure is not the best way to improve safety. The reason is in abundant evidence here: people do not think that the proposed regulations are reasonable. For any regulation or law to function, the body politic must believe that the regulation is reasonable, does not impinge unduly on their lives, does not intrude on their privacy, and is not unduly strict.When a regulation does not appear to be well-thought out or in tune with the values, liberty, or privacy of the regulated, then the regulated will disregard the law. Consider alcohol or drug prohibition as examples: Canadians refused to cooperate en masse on alcohol prohibition, creating a culture of both underground drinking, and a culture of bootleggers and organized criminal groups that engaged in black marketeering both in Canada and to the United States.Or perhaps for a more salient example, consider how unsuccessful attempts at controlling skateboarding, street racing, or urban explorations have been in Canada’s urban centres. I still hear street racers every Summer night in my neighbourhood, despite the increasingly restrictive and punitive laws in Ontario.And for that matter, skateboarding is also serves a example in a very positive manner. In urban areas where skate parks are introduced, the skaters stop seeing the local government as unreasonable, begin using designated areas, and skateboarding nuisance complaints tend to go down.So long as the regulations proposed by Transport Canada seem unreasonable punitive to drone and model aircraft pilots, there will be many bad actors who would be compliant, even to fairly tough regulations, so long as those regulations appear to be reasonable and built in the spirit of cooperation with the stakeholders.In that regard, I am afraid that Transport Canada has to work hard on two very different fronts. The first is developing regulations that are rational, reasonable, and based on evidentiary assessment of risk, rather than what often appears to be a highly subjective one. The other front is making sure that Transport Canada has a rapport with the industry and the pilots, both professional and recreational.For the regulations, I think that the basic structure is salvageable, but a number of tweaks (many of them already proposed by others) would be valuable.1. Raise the unregulated weight category from 250g to 750g. This allows almost all selfie drones, home-made micro quadcopters, larger toy quadcopters, and a few of the smaller photography platforms like the Parrot Bebop 2 and the DJI Mavic Pro and DJI Spark to be used without worrying about complex regulations.2. Raise the Very Small class to 750g - 2200g, in accordance with the current accepted science. This also allows people already owning popular camera platforms like the DJI Phantom series, Yuneec Typhoon, 3DR Solo, or the XK Detect to continue using their aircraft with relatively little restriction. This will put you alongside several countries, like Australia that have very effectively integrated and fostered growth within the Drone Industry. It also makes the minimum safe distances set in the size classifications seem more sensible.3. Lower the minimum age for flying Very Small UAS so that parents can share the hobby with their children. Perhaps allow children aged 7 or 8 up to 14 to fly so long as their parent is supervising and is capable of overriding. Trainer ports are a wonderful thing!4. Split the Small class into multiple classes to better reflect Trade Canada’s stated intention of creating a risk-based series of regulations.5. The $100,000 liability insurance is the same amount that is required to be carried by owners of small manned aircraft, This fails to acknowledge that the risks are considerably less to the public at large than a small manned helicopter falling out of the sky. Consider reducing the minimum requirement to $25,000 for Very Small and Small UAS, and then raising it incrementally for larger classes of aircraft.6. Insurance estimates placed in the gazette seem fairly unreasonable, especially in a sluggish and over-regulated marketplace like insurance. Unless Transport Canada itself is planning on selling this insurance, there is no way to guarantee that TC can keep the costs down to a non-punitive level.7. Many UAS pilots see the requirement to post their personal address on their aircraft as a personal risk and invasion of their privacy - which it is. Replace it with a registration system that issues a pilot an identification number that can be put on all of their very small and larger aircraft.8. FPV systems need to be treated separately from other BVLOS piloting methods (I will discuss the reasons later)9. The more that the licensing program can be made to resemble the American Part 107 licensing, the more resources will be available to Canadian pilots who want to study, prepare, and understand the license.This may put a larger number of drones in the air, especially in urban areas, but it will also ensure that you are regulating in a way that reduces the likelihood of bad actors. You will see minimum safe distances, distance from aerodromes, and registration respected far more.I strongly suggest that an agent of Transport Canada peruse popular drone-related vlogs discussing Canadian drone regulation (start with xjet) and look at the comments made by Canadians: the number of Canadians who openly discuss refusing to follow the regulations because they are unreasonable is alarming.I would also suggest that this will make better pilots out of the good actors. In order to be safe in the air, pilots need to continually practice their skills and get to know the technology that they are using. Preferably, they should be able to fly without guidance systems or collision avoidance technology, in case of interference or radio failsafe. If pilots are at leisure to take a standard-sized quadcopter out to the park regularly they will refine their skills. And if the combined costs of regulatory compliance are not crippling, they will be able to do so using an affordable training quadcopter where the guidance systems can be turned off (or aren’t there in the first place.)The second task may be more difficult. Especially after the #NoDroneZone campaign and the circumstances around the issuance of the original Interim Order regarding the Use of Model Aircraft (i.e. the lack of stakeholder consultation, the confusing language, and abruptness), the relationship between Transport Canada and drone pilots is widely seen as adversarial.I believe that fora like this, and the public information sessions have been a step in the right direction. However they also present a hazard, because the trust between Transport Canada and the drone communities is currently very low; if these fora turn out to be simply “going through the motions” and meeting a minimum standard for community engagement, they may serve to permanently alienate the regulators and the regulated. These fora must result in some positive change, or I fear that a great many drone operators may simply choose to become bad actors.Outreach and education, rather than regulation and enforcement are going to inspire drone pilots to educate themselves, fly safely, and comply with regulations. That means lowering the focus on bad actors and instead focusing on cooperation with the community and manufacturers to make Canadians aware of the Industry’s positives and what it could do for them.I envision a series of advertisements that show Canadians how drones are working for them - showcasing projects like the Brampton emergency response defibrillator drones, how NDVI scanning improves crop yields, some dramatic search and rescue stories, or even profiling Canadian drone racing athletes. The ad series would end with a statement like “drone technology is making Canada a [insert richer/safer/healthier] country. To learn more about drones - and how to use them responsibly - visit [website.]” (I am for hire!)This can get people not just interested, but also get them to your website where you can explain how to fly safely before people go out and by their drones.I think that, again, we can look at the USA’s Part 107, and the study guides that the FAA issued for it to be a very good guide as to how to ensure that pilots are educated. Part 107 spawned hundreds of online study guides and programs, standardized educational programs, and most importantly, got drone pilots thinking about the regulations and how to comply with them.If we base the knowledge test required for piloting Very Small and larger aircraft on 107, and issue study guides that speak to the average drone pilot to their level of experience, then you can create the same level of community engagement.On a more metacognitive level, I want to recommend that Transport Canada experiment with a cultural shift that should inform the way they consider regulations and public engagement alike: Drones have been a highly disruptive technology. TC was put in the unenviable position of trying to figure out how to integrate a whole new form of aircraft safely into their airspace with the lowest risk to the public. It was very easy to err on the side of caution and enact as strict a set of regulations as possible while still meeting the mandate of integration. Even if it meant stifling the industrial- and constricting the recreational- uses of drones. After all, it feels like the best way to save resources and lives…...However this is a potentially life-saving and resource-multiplying technology. So many extremely dangerous jobs, like windmill inspection, roofing inspections, marine surveying, search and rescue, commercial aerial observation, crop dusting, etc. can be made safer by keeping the humans on the ground and letting the drones serve as their eyes. Millions of dollars can be saved by replacing helicopters with quadcopters and delta wings for surveying power lines, pipelines, and resource roads. So many more resources can be discovered safely with mapping drones. This technology, if it is allowed to flourish, may save more lives and more resources than it could ever possibly imperil.It does not serve the Canadian people to be too strict in regulating these technologies. Trying to create the bare minimum or regulations to ensure that the population at large is safe, while giving maximum latitude for people to experiment with the technology is the best way to serve us all.Being a government bureau comes always with a peculiar moral hazard: It is always easier to delay a new technology from reaching and being widely used by the populace than it is to let it go forward. No one is likely to blame Transport Canada for the four men who die or become permanently disabled this year working on cell towers, even if drones could have prevented their falls. But if a drone were to fall on someone and hurt them on a city street, then people are likely to demand to know why, and point to Transport Canada for not doing enough… and write to their MPs. I can empathize with TC and see why they have erred on the side of caution when creating these regulations. I hope that engagement with the community about the potential of the technology will help Transport Canada see the potential benefits that come from balancing caution with optimism/I finally want to address the topic of FPV flight. I have not seen anyone else on this forum talk about it extensively, and I am possibly the only participant so far who has a racing drone and cares about the sporting component of the hobby.Firstly, I want to challenge the notion that FPV flight is innately less hazardous than flying VLOS. It is possible to lose sight of a quadcopter even in open sky if there is a sudden change in wind, light, or an emergency on the ground. Flying VLOS subjects pilots to a number of hazards such as losing orientation, having no clear access to telemetric flight data, and the basic problems of depth perception when trying to avoid obstacles.FPV combined with an On-Screen Display (OSD) allows a pilot to have instant access to telemetry, instant augmented reality guides to aircraft orientation and location, a clear and immediate view of the aircraft’s surroundings, and a far better idea of its position relative to obstacles.As the technology has advanced over the last year, having binocular vision with 20/20 depth perception in HD, and the ability to move the field of view instantly are now relatively simple and affordable to add to any aircraft in the Small size category. Even the affordable cameras used in racing and sporting aircraft are now reliable, offer excellent peripheral vision, and quickly adapt to changing lighting conditions.FPV is not the restrictive tool it was even in 2014. In many circumstances it may be as safe - if not safer - than flying VLOS. It should be understood in terms of trade-offs to the pilot’s awareness rather than an inhibition to it. at altitudes above 50m, a distance of more than 30m from the pilot or a visual observer, or for long-duration flights using VLOS for take off, inspection, and landing, but FPV during flight may well be a safer option.The sports of drone racing and drone freestyling are not just frivolous entertainment - they have been major drivers for the evolution of drone technology; until last year, most racers still designed, built, modified, and programmed their own drones, and a majority still do. They have pioneered much of the flight control software, failsafe methods, and design conventions that were taken up by commercial producers. Racing drone model kits predate the first consumer drones (such as the Parrot AR.Drone and DJI Phantom ) by nearly two years.Drone sports are engines for innovation. Restricting racing and freestyling (competitive aerobatics) by setting maximum speeds and having strict blanket restrictions on aerobatics for all size classes won’t just prevent people from learning the sport, but also from developing the skills and innovating with the technology that often accompanies the sport.Making room for aerobatics and high-speed flight in the very small class, or at least raising the threshold for regulation to 500g or, ideally, 750g will help foster creation and innovation within the industry, which in turn will continue to enhance the safety of the technology. It also invites what is rapidly becoming a multimillion dollar ancillary industry to invest in Canada.For what it’s worth, the FPV community has been very welcoming to, and attracted quite a few young women, and has incredible potential to help interest young women in STEM, which is in line with many existing government programs and mandates, as well.
Flying Cowboy 20 days ago
I also think that we need to address a matter of jurisdiction here. As it is, in the Durham region where I live areas where people could otherwise fly are often blocked by city bans either on all remote control vehicles, or on drones specifically.This is often a matter of banning flights in Parks, bike trails, or along City maintained paths. I respect the right of the city to ban activities that may cause harm to a person in a public area. However, I think a clarified regulatory jurisdiction is in order. It is one thing to ban someone from flying an aircraft below the tree level where it might hit someone, but another to fly well above the park where it can't do harm to persons using it. As we don't have a law determining the safe flight of aircraft, and the altitude at which people have a right to ban aircraft from their property as they do in the United States thanks to the a 1946 Causby decision there is a real question of to what height can a city ban in aircraft?I believe we need to clear regulations on this matter. At what altitude am I no longer flying "in the park" if I take off from outside of it but fly over it? If Transport Canada has the jurisdiction to regulate flight at all altitudes in Canada, do municipalities even have the right to regulate their airspace?
mah4ever 20 days ago
A very articulate and thoughtful set of comments ! (Too bad this site does not allow formatting of paragraphs, etc for more easy reading).At any rate, I would suggest you email this to : carrac@tc.gc.ca as that appears to be the official way of providing feedback to TC.
Flying Cowboy 20 days ago
Thanks! I really appreciate the feedback! I was pretty frustrated that this turned into a wall of text. I plan on commenting on every question on the Forum, then copy-pasting it all into a single document, arranging it with some section headers, and sending it on in.
Diver808 13 days ago
"A very articulate and thoughtful set of comments ! (Too bad this site does not allow formatting of paragraphs, etc for more easy reading)."Soooo true! How can we efficiently discuss and provide feedback using this site- it is a useless design and actually impedes all of our ability to communicate on this important subject. TC: I highly recommend that the tools we are provided to discuss and provide feedback to you allow for proper formatting, indexing by subject, highlighting etc and not this current system that is a jumbled mess. If users can't provide or organize the content with a higher standard, I'm sure TC cannot use this information as best possible...
journey 19 days ago
Fantastic points! a lot of great opinions here. I am a FPV enthusiast and would also like to see FPV looked at in a different way because in my opinion (like your own ) it gives you much more awareness of the surrounding area than LOS. I agree with the 500g to 750g unregulated increase as a farther of three boys the age limit would restrict most farther and son time together because when kids reach the age of legal flying 14 that time for bonding is over by then. I have heard of many people reflecting on times with the farther flying RC models as pivotal memories in their lives. I also like the way you paired racing and freestyle with skateboarding, a lot of similarities there.
Flying Cowboy 19 days ago
I suspect that it would be very easy to get objective evidence of the value and risks of FPV for safe flight, especially in obstacle-rich environments, and get relative assessments of how different formats and configurations of FPV gear can improve drone safety at different stages of flight. I already have a pretty solid research design in my head.Partnering in research to evaluate the relative safety of the technology, and then using that research to develop both regulations and guidelines for pilots on how to fly safely would probably be one of the best things that Transport Canada could do to ensure that the Drone industry is safe.
wmsTO about 2 months ago
I have been an UAV pilot for about 2 years now. Prior to actually flying my first flight, I took the opportunity to participate in UAV ground school at a cost of $200, which included passing an exam. After spending close to 50+ hours in the ground school, plus studying time – I achieved 93% on the exam.When I look at the new rules, I am concerned that the efforts I put into my learning will now cost me more, and to be honest, I don’t find that fair. For responsible pilots, we shouldn’t have to go through another round of testing just to continue to enjoy our hobby. At the very least, Transport Canada should accept any UAV Ground School accreditation as an exemption of the knowledge test component (especially for the Very Small and Small Limited Operations categories). My next issue is with insurance.I flat out laughed by the positioning the researcher took when providing facts on the cost of insurance on the details laid out in the Gazette to be roughly $15/year for $100k in coverage. The true reality is that 95% of all insurance companies require at least a million-dollar policy to obtain coverage. Premiums that I have been quoted have ranged anywhere from $800 up to $2,600. I have yet to find any reasonable quote for the amount close to what was quoted in the Gazette. Further to this, majority of the quotes I have received have stated that the yearly premiums must be paid up front. How is anyone at the lower end of the age group (ie 14 or 16) going to be able to afford those premiums? In most cases, they would likely be declined coverage. Unless the government is willing to couple the requirement of liability insurance with strict limitations on premiums (perhaps matching the suggested premiums from the Gazette), then I think you will find that it will be nearly impossible to have all pilots have coverage. It simply isn’t practical. Removing this requirement for Very Small and Small Limited Operations would be more practical. Even the FAA doesn’t have this requirement.Many pilots have spent thousands of dollars to get into the hobby, asking them to continue to run a significant cost of insurance year over year, is only going to turn people away from the hobby.My third issue is with placing my identification on the drone. It’s ridiculous. I don’t place my name, address, and telephone on my car, or on my boat, why would I need to stick it on my drone? If you want to move to a licensing system, where I have a generic ID (similar to Complex Operations) affixed to my drone – fine, but I refuse to put my personal information on the drone. It isn’t safe, and it’s against my privacy rights.Finally, my last concern, like many others, is the limitations on boundaries. I get that Small Complex introduces the ability to fly in more closer proximity to what is listed in the smaller categories, but the smaller groups makes up a large majority of pilots. Transport Canada has essentially grounded everyone in the GTA, forcing pilots not to showcase our beautiful city, but to go north (or to the Bluffs). This isn’t practical.I am disappointed by the lack of consultancy of actual groups of responsible pilots. This is something that is an ongoing battle, when all responsible pilots want to do is showcase our gorgeous country.
rwmac 28 days ago
Collecting from a $100,000 insurance policy would likely be next to impossible. Most damage caused by an accident with a <2-3 kg drone would likely be under the deductible. Anything significant, such as a collision with and aircraft, would likely cost much more that $100,000. The policy probably wouldn't pay out anyway, citing collision with an aircraft as being the result of an unlawful act, hence no payment.
Diver808 26 days ago
TC lied to all Canadians when they said that you can get insurance for $15/yr. Otherthan this fact, this poster unfortunately does not know how insurance works...sorry
Candroneco 13 days ago
I agree big time here is what I was quoted for a phantom 3 pro. Hi I have a couple of numbers for you. If interested I can send you detailed break down on the coverage offered. $500,000 Liability would be $750 annual $1,000,000 Liability would be $850 annual. Please let me know what you think. Thank you,Kathy
Diver808 13 days ago
Thanks- yes those numbers are what I was seeing for 'commercial liability' which I'm sure you agree are ludicrous for the average recreational operator :). Have you found insurance available for the minimum 100,000 liability? This is all one needs as $800 is more than the $2mil in liability I get with my car insurance :) seriously.
Thompsonrh 18 days ago
I’ve seen video, almost certainly flown illegally, over the affluent neighbourhood of Westmount. If the drone fell out of the sky onto a $6 million house, you may be hard pressed to cover cost of the resulting fire with $100k even if you were successful in making the claim.
WilliamT 22 days ago
Your name and address are in your car, in your folder with your insurance and registration. Your car also has a license plate on it. Drones SHOULD have all of that. We need accountability in case something goes wrong. This is very comparable to driving cars. Also by your statement about young people affording insurance. Well there are MANY young people including 16 year olds who can afford car insurance for one reason, they want to drive. If you want to do something bad enough, you will find a way to be responsible and buy insurance. $800 insurance a year = 59hrs of work. Slightly more than 1hr of work per week. And within 1 year that will change so to 53hrs of work @ minimum wage. If somebody can't afford insurance, how will they afford the cost of damage to property or to a person. What If an un insured drone falls on a baby or small child? What if it lands on an expensive car?
journey 19 days ago
I really doubt that if a drone caring insurance information collided with a aircraft, that there would be anything left to find the person and hold them accountable. It just doesn't make sense. Did you see the drone collide with the black hawk last week? how would his name on the drone be able to help. The only thing left was one motor. as for the young people able to afford paying for car insurance. They don't buy a car for fun they buy it so thay can make money driving to and from work and school.
mah4ever 19 days ago
I think it's reasonable to have some sort of registration number on a drone that can be traced to the owner. But to have the owners name and address in the clear on a drone is comprising the owner's privacy and perhaps security. (eg. drone is stolen, and leads the crook to the owner's home where there could be other expensive gadgets). Name and address are kept secure inside a car (or rather, on your person). Regarding, insurance - IMHO it is not reasonable to require 100$ (let alone 800$!) insurance for a recreation of this sort, especially when the proposed regulations outlaw operations over people, buildings, vehicles. That said, I do agree in principal that some insurance would be a good thing. TC should work with the insurance industry to foster the creation of such insurance at reasonable cost, as opposed to mandating it's requirement before that is widely available.
B 18 days ago
Your vehicle does not publically have your Name, Address, and Phone number on it. A police officer can request your registration and you can present it. There is a large difference between the two. As most posters have said, a displayed license number, just like a licence plate on a car, would do exactly the same thing - keep people accountable while still maintaining a level of privacy. Just like driving a boat, a car, a plane, a helicopter, and a number of other similar vehicles and devices. There is no need for a stranger to know where I live because I fly a drone.
Bugbones 17 days ago
TC You need to look at your list of (acceptable ) commercial drones. and include some of the most widely used small drones such as DJI and alike drones.
Candroneco 13 days ago
I agree, it seems like there's a group of people in this industry that think we all need $15,000 dollar uav's to be able to safely operate a drone business. This is not true, Dji makes plenty of safe and afordable drones that can and should be allowed to be used. You can't force the drone industry to buy certain makes and models to be compliant. I have a $2000 drone made by dji that is perfectly safe to operate. Remember that small operations should not be forgotten or squeezed out by the "big guys" in the industry.
Candroneco 13 days ago
Pilot knowledge and training should be standardized across Canada. It should be a 5 day course and it should be affordable. Pilots will have a drone pilot licence and with this licence they hold the same responsibilities as vehicle drivers. Also pilots should be able to graduate and take the course from home via online schooling so people in remote towns and areas can easily access the schooling and become pilots. Enforcement measures need to be lightened and not so many fines.
sled 14 days ago
No, we’ll have to step back a minute and remember when Transport Canada said to fly and have fun that was six months ago, now we’ve gone from sublime to the ridiculous, people are talking about Insurance who’s doing the risk factor are you going to leave the Risk Factor up to the Insurance Companies… I’ll bet you they’ll know how much to mark that up… You think that someone that has the license to fly a drone is someone that’s more capable than one that has no license to fly a drone, like driving a car for example does the drivers license make you a better driver…. I don’t think so, personally I think MoreTime needs to go by first, let’s see what this drone thing is all about, maybe it’s going to be like CB's were years gone by, you needed your license then imagine to talk on the CB, maybe folks don't even remember them let's all just step back a minute. let time figure some of this out. Remember, is it a boy or a girl? We haven’t got a name for it yet, myself I like Drone for under 2kg…
AlFred334 17 days ago
Folks, apparently feedback needs to be sent in HARDCOPY to Transport Canada before Oct 13 and citing "Canada Gazette, Part I, on July 15, 2017". Here is a quote from an email I just received from them in response to an earlier email I sent:"I encourage you to participate in this consultative process and provide your views and concerns on the draft regulations until October 13, 2017. All representations must be made in writing citing the 'Canada Gazette, Part I, on July 15, 2017', and sent to the following address: Ms. Marie-Anne DromaguetChief, Regulatory Affairs (AARBH)Civil Aviation, Safety and Security GroupTransport CanadaPlace de Ville, Tower C 330 Sparks Street Ottawa ON K1A 0N5"
AlFred334 17 days ago
This is a rant, so feel free to disregard it. But, I'm very disappointed in this entire process. We have this forum, which seems to be a bit bucket that no one from TC is looking at. So, I send a thoughtful email with specific recommendations to TC, and I get a form letter in response more than 2 weeks later. The form letter assumed I was commenting on the original 'Interim order', when in fact I was commenting on the new proposed regulations from the Canada Gazette. Had they actually read my email, that would have been obvious. Now in the email they say all feedback needs to be sent hardcopy by Oct 13 - leaving very little time to actually ensure that occurs through regular mail, at any rate. Sigh.
robdrew 28 days ago
just purchased a drone 2 months back and i am starting to feel it was a complete waste of money. i own 600 acres of land no where near an air port or any type of flight path which is 4 hours away from the city. so what your telling me is that i have to buy insurance to fly it on my own property, if i fly through my own window thats my problem. stop trying to make a big deal out of something so small. keep the drones out of the city for all i care just dont stop people from flying them on their own property or in rural areas where there is lots of space for error if needed. in my opinion your whole insurance this is another money making scam like everything else the government decides to do. keep your old rules and keep them simple. people 14+ should not have to take courses, pay fines, pay insurance, and write exams for a simple little toy!!!
Thompsonrh 18 days ago
Try COPA ins. or join MAAC which includes ins., they’re cheaper.
journey 19 days ago
One thing that would not improve safety and possibly work against the interests of the public would be to crack down with regulation. I personally know people that will absolutely disregard the rules if they had to pay for liability insurance for their racing drones. regulation is not the answer - education is. The more rules you impose, the more people will be likely to break them. If the rules were simple and allowed for people to have fun doing what they love more people would follow them and respect them. I have and issue with the age restriction. As a farther of three boys the age limit would restrict most farther and son time together because when kids reach the age of legal flying 14 that time for bonding is over by then. I have heard of many people reflecting on times with the farther flying RC models as pivotal memories in their lives. The unrestricted weight class should be raised to at least 500g to allow recreational flyers to have fun building and flying their models without having to spend hundreds of dollar on liability insurance to fly in a boring field. It feels like the goal is not to increase safety but to decrease enjoyment. let the people have their fun and regulate the rest of it.
dbeale 20 days ago
An online written test is good for fun & recreational users. For professional use with small drone (under 1 KG - which I'd love to see under 1.6 KG) for that small drone, a professional certificate should be available as a written test at any Service Canada office that can be completed for free and sent away for scoring - your suitable for framing certificate would be emailed to you if you pass - if not a "please read this and try again" email could be sent. These small drones can be used by photographers who want to sell a print - by the rules this makes them professional even if you only sell a couple of prints per year. Lets not make that hard.
Bashir Khan 21 days ago
In some ways this really is putting the cart in front of the horse. In order for pilots to be able to fly more, and for there to be effective enforcement, beyond line of sight regulations for autonomous UAV's need to be tackled in tandem with piloted UAV's. They both have their distinct and necessary use cases.
Bashir Khan 21 days ago
1. In terms of pilot knowledge, there should be a process similar to getting a license. With knowledge of drones, air space law, and safety tested for. Then another step for commercial pilots that is practical.2. In terms of awareness and outreach, work with the private sector. 3. For enforcement measures, the government will need its own drones in the sky. Like traffic officers on the ground, but for the sky, ensuring drones fly in an orderly, safe, and responsible fashion.
#GameOfDrones #TheDroneGuy 26 days ago
This was all handled incorrectly from the get-go. It is the retailer and the manufacturer that should have provided training to those selling the product. TC should implement from the POS for the consumer to prove by way of training certificate/licence etc (similar to hunting/fishing/boating)Most users, recreational as ignorant to the rules and again, the blame should go to the retailer. A couple years ago, I went into a Best Buy...asked the kid where I could fly...his response "anywhere". I said are you sure, he called over his manager and his manager replied anywhere except Algonquin Park! Seriously!Yes the rules need to be stiffened, but, who is going to police it? The current rules don't work, because they are not policed. Local 5-0 do not want to handle calls about someone flying a drone over their backyard pool.
Diver808 26 days ago
You can't expect the retailer of a mega-store to have fully competent sales people for all the products they sell. They buyer is mostly responsible to do his research. How can the typical salesperson be well trained on such a new technology as UAVs and their associated regulations that are either non-existent or in a state of flux. 2 years ago....the Best Buy guy would have been 99.9 % correct BTW. I think TC did a good job with informing the public to consider pending regulation/rules of flight with their brochures that were made available at the POS at many stores. Unfortunately these were based upon the crazy Interim Regulations at the time and probably confused more than they helped...
WilliamT 22 days ago
It's hard to get employees that even care enough to try. But retailers (especially chain stores) could at least have brochures or cards that's lead people to a website that teaches proper rules. But ultimatly these rules are not policed and they should be.
LC about 1 month ago
I think this forum is just window dressing for all the Quadcopter operators out there who are flying safe. I watched a TC Consultation otherwise is them telling us how its going to be and our input is pointless! Unions have to be formed and bring forth a Club that has its own agenda not stuck in some backfield somewhere,where nobody wants to fly! My Local MACC club is about 1 NM from the Airport so how is this??? Why is it not shutdown?? These are the things that really get me about these so called Laws! Watched some guy respond to how the drone motors are much more dangerous than a large bird! Show Us the Slow Motion Simulation of a Actual Quad that most people are Using, how it was done and with what size and type of Quadcopter?? these weight classes are as stupid as the laws. Where's the scientific studies and hard data to be analyzed that are behind TCs platform!!
Skippy905 about 1 month ago
Youy local MACC club also carries insurance to cover everyone who is part of the club. They also have regulations that they have to follow. Yes, it is close to the airport, but when this club formed, there was no drones that could fly 5km away using FPV.I agree that it is window dressing for those flying safe. However, the problem is more about those who aren't flying safe.
LC about 1 month ago
Irregardless the field is still about 1nm or less from the airport in complete contradiction to the Laws! I can fly 9kms away from anywhere that is pointless as long as the quad is under 300 and the plane is at 400 no incident will occur ,which i do not see them follow when training or doing touch and go 1km out and there flying overhead homes at 200 feet when they should be climbing to a higher altitude! also watch this done 5.5kms out as well.
LC about 1 month ago
I did not by a 2000$ quad with a camera to take pictures of a field and have little interest in planes anymore even though i still enjoy my heli once in a while. ,I bought it to take pictures around my city and home,usually below 100 feet. I have gone to 240 gram now and thats all i need. Bye DJI.
RobP about 1 month ago
The vast majority of drone videography and recreation is done at less than 30M high, which is also about the altitude of a child's kite. Why draw these enormous rings around aerodromes. If an aircraft or even a helicopter is that low at 5.5km from an airport, he has bigger problems than the possibility of kites and drones. Put on a 40M altitude cap and let people fly in back yards, parks and school yards. If you are going to fly above that, then make sure you are 5.5km away.
WV 30 days ago
Absolutely! There should be a full "Backyards and Parks" exemption for flight limited to <30 m up and 50 m out with small drones/RCs <3 kg. (And I'll just mention that TC needs to enforce its long existing regs. for GA aircraft on altitude minimums!)
Diver808 26 days ago
TC in Vancouver (it's all on youtube folks) forum said that they do not have any altitude minimums for aircraft! :) And these are the experts that are in charge of writing and enforcing the UAV regulations...:)
WilliamT 22 days ago
The 5.5km away rule is very important to keep. As for back yards in that space, they still should be following the rules. I would think maybe if the back yard was fenced and they stayed below the top of the fence, that might be ok. Some people live within those zones on purpose for reasons of privacy and don't want drones flying around them.
Chaosrelic about 1 month ago
Yes... the problem is with those who are not flying safe... and adding on heavy restrictions will do nothing to improve safety as those who opt to not follow common sense and current restrictions will definitely not follow heavy restrictions either.
Ianbburns 22 days ago
Hello.I am glad that transport Canada has opened the topic of UAVs up for a townhouse round table. For reference and to give this “memo” a little credibility I think that its proper to give you a little information about myself: I have been working with subsea robotics for the O&G sector for a decade and have a BSc Engineering in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, and I am currently an avid amateur drone pilot who plans on starting my own business once the legislation allows. I like to think that this makes me more than a simple hobbyist with a few opinions on the matter of re-legislation of UAV’s in Canada. • Regulations centered on safety and security of personnel and property need to be of upmost importance, and the safety and security of people and properties need to be foremost in the in the mind of all that operate a UAV. It does not matter whether they are amateur drone enthusiasts or commercial professional safety is always the top priority. • A standardized guideline needs to be set to enable the industry to grow without fear that the governments regulations has been unable to keep up with the pace of the industry. Case in point the current list of drones that are transport Canada compliant (while I like that they are all manufactured in Canada) lists drones that are too costly and have less technological capacities then drones that are manufactured abroad. Just one example is the newly released DJI Matrice 210RTK which has a market price of approximately $23000. Similar in price is the Draganfly Commander (which is Transport Canada Compliant), but the Commander only has 1 gimbal so only 1 set of data can be collected at a time as well as not having RTK capabilities and or being IP43 ingress level of water resistant to enable it to function in rain and snow. • Currently regulations state that all drones must be flown within the line of site of the operator but that is an unrealistic expectation of drones and not on par with the direction the global industry leaders and manufacturers are taking. Drones that are able to be flown out with line of site are inevitable and the future of the commercial UAV industry which will rely on the technology for them to be flown from a central point without having the operators watching them with their naked eye. Amazon Prime Drone Delivery, Domino’s Pizza and UPS have all invested vast resources into drones that will be able to be flown out of the line of site of the operator. Keep in mind that all UAV’s have visual feedback onboard via various cameras systems thus where they are flown the flights can always be logged and the data saved for insurance and security purposes thus line of site operation of commercial drones is no longer necessary to ensure safety. Also keep in mind that UAV distances are limited to battery capability so they cannot fly indefinitely and have to land and get a new charged battery. Also even if a drone is flown in the line of site of an operator, if a fault happens that causes the drone to fall to the ground and cause damage then the only purpose of the line of site operator is direct accountability, something that can be taken off a black box style recording. • Security measures to ensure that drones won’t fly into aircraft, cars or people need to be at the top of the list of Transport Canada’s priorities. Commercial UAVs are expensive so measures like parachutes to keep them crashing to earth when they do fail. Cars have airbags and drones need similar measures. • The inevitable goal of all companies is for drones be fully autonomous and to conduct operations without the pilots interference. Already most survey drones already have that feature which enable more accurate gathering of data, the pilot is doing nothing more than settling a legislated need for someone to watch it while it conducts its pre-programmed task. Autonomous drones for security, data recording are already a reality and need to be addressed with special dispensation for certain areas, such as mines, pipelines, power plants and Oil and Gas refineries and areas out with the normal scope of a urban area• If trends in the industry remain true to the predictions then the number of drones that will be used globally in the next 4 years will more than triple, meaning that guidelines for flight control have to be set up, commercial drones should be regulated with obstacle detection and avoidance software and hardware to reduce the risk of mid-air-collisions. I hope that the new regulations for commercial UAV use in Canada are set up to properly address the changes that will happen in the industry in the future and that Transport Canada takes the industry seriously enough to realize the market potential and be willing to allow it to grow with the trends and maybe be a trendsetter globally.Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my Opinion. Ian B
Khal Drono 26 days ago
Transport Canada should be wary of overregulating the drone industry. Creating a more open regulatory environment encourages entrepreneurs to innovate upon existing drone designs, to implement greater safety protocols within the drone space. Moreover, exposing students throughout Canada to drone tech at earlier ages should create a safer environment for drones to flourish.
Jake 23 days ago
I have to agree here. Over regulating by government eg: T.C. is only a knee jerk reactionary response to something that has not yet proven worthy of such concern.It is good that "they" are seeking input though.We need to keep costs in check as we don't need another long gun registry boondoggle. Industry driven regs are the proven way to go with big brother following up with the nec laws.This is the proven and responsible approach. Also teaching is of utmost importance here. I understand U.B.C. has/or is going to offer courses regarding drone flight and safety as well as regulation. I am in agreement with this.We here in Canada should be world leaders when it comes to U.A.V. advancement and regulation.I really hope intelligent people make the right decisions!
OneMatt 24 days ago
My feedback, as a hobby user:Training: for recreational users an exam similar to the boat exam is a great idea. Simplified knowledge test with the rules and recommended pilot best practices is needed to ensure safety for general aviation, and the public. Categories: as many have said, the range is too wide. It should be split as less than 2kg for Very Small, and more than 2kg for small. This split will encompass the majority of commercially available hobby drones (such as DJI products), but also home built hobby aircraft. As it stands right now, grouping a 300g drone with a 25kg drone is akin to saying a moped is as dangerous as a semi-truck.This change will also give hobby users and photographers the ability to fly in more places, not limited by the rules defined in Limited and Complex Operations, as they safely do now. Insurance: the requirement for insurance on small hobby drones is rediculous. As many have pointed out, the cost estimate in the Gazette is comically low. With rates currently at $800+, it means I will never fly, nor make purchase again, my $500 drone. It is doubtful that the rates will drop from current levels by any meaningful amount that wouldnt harm or destroy the hobby industry. I support insurance for professional users, but that is just good business practice.Personal info: i refuse to put my full details on the aircraft for privacy reasons. A valid email or phone number is sufficient, or other government ID number that can be verified by investigating authorities (provincial driver license, maybe?). My privacy is as important as anyone elses, and no other form of hobby or transportation has such a requirement. Again, changing the Very Small category to <2kg will solve this.The risk of “fly away” loss of control is minimal. The bulk of these have been shown to be user error, flying in an environment unsafe to fly to begin with, ignoring warnings given by the aircraft. While some fly aways are not pilot error related, those are very rare. In 500 flights, I have had 1 such instance, and no harm came to anyone. The estimates of 1 in 3 or 1 in 40 are high. And looking at internet forums for stats is just poor research. Most people post only online to ask about problems, not to say everything is fine. As a compromise, have the knowledge test include a part about pre flight check lists and magnetic interference to ensure pilots are aware of the causes.Communication with drone users can be done either with a website, or an app, similar to the FAA’s B4UFly app. Perhaps partner with them, as our residents do travel between each country often.In summary, it is my opinion that for recreational/hobby users, there should be written “boat exam” type test for all. Those same users when flying an aircraft below 2kg, should be exempt from insurance requirements, limitations as outlined in Limited/Complex environments, and aircraft identification details. The technical reliability and safety features of modern consumer drones are such that the risk of technical faults are minimal, and risk can be further mitigated through proper pre flight checks.
Coolchap 25 days ago
More education through various channels such as social media, Radio, newspaper and TV ad etc. Forcing hobbyist to buy ins. Liab will add to the onerous cost of owing a drone and discourage ppl to buy one and innovate. Also providing free educational materials and tools( online, pamphlet) to drone owners about airspace safety and different class of airspace.
AlFred334 about 1 month ago
Here are the specific changes I recommend to implement a set of regulations which are i) practical, ii) recognize common usages of recreational drones, and iii) do NOT compromise safety: 1) Remove the requirement for liability insurance. Revisit this requirement once such insurance is commonly available to individuals at reasonable cost. 2) Remove the requirement to place one's name and address on the drone. Replace this with a requirement to place a registration number on the drone. 3) Change the boundary point between very small and small from 1kg to 2kg (or at least 1.5kg) - thus including, rather than discouraging, use of common consumer drones with the most advanced safety systems (such as the DJI phantom). 4) Harmonize the proximity limits of the small class to be the same as the very small class (30m). 5) Remove the requirement that no drone can fly in non-class G space. Rationale below for these changes: 1) Such liability insurance is not widely available to individuals today at reasonable cost. 2) The current proposed requirement to place ones name and address on the drone would introduce a security and privacy risk in itself. 3) The rationale for excluding drones in the 1-2kg class described in the RIAS is very weak. It states: "For the analysis, the probability of a UA fly-away occurring is taken as 1 in 40, but some Internet searches found reference to UA fly-away probability as high as 1 in 3." With all respect, using such dubious statistics to derive critical regulatory legislation is irresponsible. I myself have conducted hundreds of drone flights, and know many other flyers that have also. Not once have I, or my aquaintances, experienced a 'fly-away'. In my experience, advances in drones in recent years, particularly advanced drones like the DJI Phantom, have made fly-aways a thing of the past. If you must base this on fly-away probabilities, surely there is more complete data available - perhaps from the manufacturers themselves. I think you would find the drones in the 1-2kg class have among the lowest probability. I've also come to understand that another reason for the current boundary to be proposed at 1kg, was some unspecified 'study' that suggested that a plane colliding with a drone of Xkg, would have a similar effect as a plane colliding with a bird of 2Xkg. The 2x factor stems from some unspecified 'study' that claims division by 2 is necessary to account for the differences in structure between a drone and a bird. Such a division by half seems arbitrary. Surely we can base key decisions like this on more factual data. Where are the details of this study ? Further, it seems to contradict a key finding of a recent FAA study which concluded that falling drones in the Phantom class (eg. 1.3kg) have negligible probability of causing serious injury to people, precisely because of their flexible structure. It also seems to ignore other elements of the proposed legislation which limits drone altitude to 90m, as well as proximity to aerodromes to 5.5/1.8 kms, thus further decreasing chances of planes hitting drones. 4) The current 75m limit for the small class is excessive, and creates unecessary complications in the proposed regulations. 5) The other restrictions re. 5.5km and 1.8km boundaries around aerodromes are more than sufficient.
JJ White 28 days ago
I was 'sort of' with you right up until your claim that DJI had made 'fly aways' a thing of the past.
AlFred334 28 days ago
Well, I probably should have left it as my experience only - i.e. I've never had a single fly-away with a DJI phantom - I've used the P2, P3, P4, P4P. Nor have any of my flying friends. This accounts for several hundred flights. Main point though is, if they are using the probabilities for a fly-away to disqualify drones in the 1-1.5kg range from urban areas, they really ought to be more scientific with measuring that (vs. the anecdotal 1/40 or 1/3 probabilities), and as well, take into account the latest advances.
Diver808 26 days ago
TC used the example of 'fly-aways' as a cheap scare-tactic to encourage the ill-informed public to support such regulation. Add things like the CBC News showing fake/doctored footage of drones crashing into airplanes (and TC believing it) and now you start to have a general public that will support crazy regulation like we've been seeing.
Diver808 26 days ago
I agree entirely- this post I can verify is based on a lot of verifiable facts. If you do your research as he has done (and I have as well) you would understand that the points and opinion made is quite reasonable.Shouldn't this one statement as an example prove all these points? Example: " "For the analysis, the probability of a UA fly-away occurring is taken as 1 in 40, but some Internet searches found reference to UA fly-away probability as high as 1 in 3." With all respect, using such dubious statistics to derive critical regulatory legislation is irresponsible. "***TC absolutely made these assertions and the OP is correct- using such dubious statistics to derive critical regulatory legislation is irresponsible.
AlFred334 25 days ago
Right. To illustrate more,... let's just consider this 1 in 40 probably they have presumed. I'm out flying my phantom at least twice a week in July and August, probably twice a month in May, June, Sept, and once a month every other month. On each outing, I do at least 3 flights. That's at least 87 flights a year. Perhaps I'm a more active flyer than most. So, if a more typical flyer flies half that much , that would be 43 flights per year. If the probability of a fly-away (drone flies away, with no operator control) is 1/40, then on average EVERY drone user would loose their drone (or find it crashed and likely damaged) within 1 year of buying it. If that were really the case, I do not think DJI would be in business right now. That's just a simple thought experiment. DJI keeps flight records. TC should ask for them, if they want to make very important decisions affecting significant investments that Canadians have made, based on fly away probabilities.
G_Daigle about 2 months ago
Firstly, you should reconsider what is the risk associated with flying model aircraft. I don't believe that the weight classifications are reasonably reflective of the risk that is being placed onto them, evidence certainly doesn't support it. Second, why is there a distinction being made between drones and model aircraft? And finally, please consider that there are different types of model aircraft communities that will have different opinions and needs regarding any new regulations that are seemingly, only in small part, meant to improve safety rather than create another bureaucratic employment opportunity.
rwmac 28 days ago
The 250 g to 35 kg range is too broad (a factor over 10 X) to cover with one regulation., which seems to be designed to assume that all drones would cause as much damage as the upper limit of 35 kg. What is needed is some experimental data regarding the potential damage as a function of drone mass so that more reasonable restrictions could be developed.
Diver808 26 days ago
except that it is a factor of over 140x ...your factor of 10 is off by a factor of 10... :)
Marshablack about 1 month ago
The one thing that gets me is the weight class Most people I know Have drones in the 1.2 to 1.3 kg in weight. The class should be 1.5 or 2 to 25 kgThe ceiling height should be 500 feet as the lowest an aircraft can go in special VFR is 500 (bad weather conditions) Most times min 1000. As to marking the drone a Valid phone number should be enough.. Name and address is opening up problems with thief's and crackpots...
LC about 1 month ago
A DL or Provincial ID # is all that is needed as only Government and Police can use the database. 300 feet is all i have ever gone too and dont need more except for 1 time was trying to get up a mountainside and topped out halfway. a personal transponder that is lightweight and can transmit 5-7 miles in the air could be made very small for extra precaution. Scanners tuned to local air frequencies should be carried and apps like live 24/7 show air traffic coming and going!
Diver808 26 days ago
It is absolutely inexcusable for TC to mandate our personal information be displayed. Can you imagine if your name/# and address were required to be on the side of your car?????? TC here is mandating something that would be a violation of the Privacy Act (in that TC required this info be displayed, but TC cannot protect the privacy of the information in the same way that they are required to by law if they should be in possession of this same personal info).
rwmac 28 days ago
Should your ceiling height be adopted it would be prudent to put in a separation gap of, say 100 feet, between the maximum drone height and the minimum aircraft altitude.
LucasM about 2 months ago
I strongly believe that TC should continue efforts in education by providing materials online and at the point of sale to better inform pilots on rights and responsabilities. However, increasing enforcement measures in a hobby/industry that is already remarkably safe has me somewhat puzzled. Perhaps TC hasn't been transparent enough with us about the "true dangers" of drones and what they are doing to our skies, but to my knowledge no such accidents involving UAS have occurred over Canadian soil. Therefore I must ask, is all the enforcement and extra insurance really necessary?
#GameOfDrones #TheDroneGuy 26 days ago
POS is hitting the nail on the head....and joe blow retailer is selling UAS....this is where the situation has become out of hand.
Diver808 26 days ago
Most of what I've heard and read in the media related to UAV use in Canada is very focused on enforcement and scare tactics. Even our RCMP has hosted 'information' sessions on UAV Regulations and purposefully (and incorrectly) stated many things that are not correct as per the proposed Regulations. This is being done to build fear in the UAV industry and this must stop. Transport Canada must focus on CLEAR communication of the issues and play a strong role in curbing this over-reach of policy authority. UAV use has been remarkably safe as discussed above. However, TC often does not make a distinction of the difference between a THREAT and a RISK. I believe the Interim Regulation itself was initiated under false pretenses by our Minister of Transportation. To this day I have not seen any evidence that TC has competently evaluated UAV risk. I certainly believe that clear and simple regulation is needed but for the greater part of 2017, TC went entirely and needlessly overboard including several requirements that appear to be not based on any sound or reasonable judgement (or scientific basis). Case in point: the 30m rule (75m for >1kg). Another seemingly random requirement is in the 250g to 1kg classification; 250g comes from projectile physics from rocket debris and/or explosion debris; not relevant to UAVs! The 1Kg limit has also been recommended by the research authority (that the FAA listens to) to be increased to 2.2 Kg (eg. current scientific analysis of UAV safety risk indicates UAVs under approx. 2Kg may be appropriate as an 'unrestricted' classification). Certainly under 1Kg would be reasonable. However since the majority of recreational UAVs are in this category, it is doutful that TC would even consider that!!!
#GameOfDrones #TheDroneGuy 26 days ago
I can only imagine the cost of new UAS that meet TC specifications...$10k, $15k and up! I get it for incredibly complex urban flights in controlled airspace perhaps DJI and other companies need to up their safety game (which is already top notch)It's the pressure from the media that is causing this as well.A few months ago, I got a call from a fellow realtor:I understand you are the drone expert he says, can I ask you a question?Sure, go ahead."I hired a drone photographer and he crashed his drone that went rogue, into a car"I asked him if he was certified and insured. Guess what?! NOPE.I've been after our real estate regulator to get after our members that are also flying these UAS illegally or hiring non compliant operators. Put in place simple rules for real estate, prove you got the aerials via legal means, or you can't use aerial photos in your marketing. Simple, as that would take care of thousands of illegal drones in one sector.
mah4ever about 1 month ago
I'm a very experienced drone user and deeply appreciate the need for strong safety. However, the proposed regulations have significant flaws which will actually compromise safety, as well as creating an environment which prevents responsible users from enjoying their recreation in a reasonable way. The first issue is the classification of drones over 1kg for limited/rural use only. This immediately excludes one of, if not the most, safe recreation drone on the market today - the Phantom 4, from the more less limited classification. This drone has complete redundancy of critical systems, and the most complete collision avoidance system of any drone in its class. It weighs 1.3kg. So, under the proposed rules, this drone would not be usable in the more open recreational category. As such, this will encourage use of drones with less sophisticated safety and redundancy, compromising safety. What was the original of the 1kg limit? Were studies done re. 1kg vs 2kg for example? It seems arbitrary. Surely, an increase to, say 1.5kg would be worth the inclusive of this highly safe drone. Or alternatively, the rules could be enhanced to allow a slightly heavier drone, that has appropriate safety measures. Secondly, the requirement for liability insurance seems impractical. I have checked several home insurance agencies, and have failed to find one that will provide such drone insurance. Also, given the new proposed rules the prohibit flight anywhere near people/buildings, why would such insurance be necessary? This seems like an unnecessary hurdle that is not really required. For what it's worth, I'm in strong favor of the requirement to pass an exam or otherwise demonstrate knowledge of safe drone operations.
SparkEE about 1 month ago
According to TC (from their information seminars) the weight division was created from wind screen strength requirements for manned aircraft. The requirement is that a wind screen is to withstand a 2kg bird strike without penetration at a certain speed. However a bird is "soft and squishy" and a drone is "hard and crunchy". Some other study showed that the mass should be reduced by half for "hard and crunchy" objects to meet the same wind screen specifications. This is the reasoning behind the 1kg mass division for drones.
mah4ever about 1 month ago
That is exactly where the collision avoidance technologies in the Phantom 4 would come into play. I have direct experience with it - it works extremely well.
Steven about 1 month ago
That is another factor for them to consider. Anyone who has flown a DJI Drone, know that these are extremely advanced technological machines (also cost a pretty penny): They don't just fly, they have a beginner mode, great tracking, incredible obstacle avoidance, and more.
rwmac 27 days ago
I would like to see data from 2 kg drones striking windscreens to see what damage they might do. They may be "hard and crunchy", but their mass is spread out over a large area, ~1500 cm2 for a Phantom 3, so the pressure during a collision should be lower that if it hit at a point. If the drones are kept below 30-40 m it is hard to see how they would collide with an aircraft in the first place.
T. Todd Hennig 27 days ago
I have no problem with Transport Canada wanting to keep the skies safe for all Canadians. I have a problem with Transport Canada demonizing all UAV pilots. With the tens of thousands of current UAV pilots, those who are problem pilots will continue to be problem pilots no matter what measures are taken. Transport Canada refuses to enforce similar restriction on any other category under their jurisdiction.
AlFred334 29 days ago
Is anyone from TC actually reading and thoughtfully considering this constructive feedback ?
SparkEE 27 days ago
To quote from the home page of this forum... "This online discussion forum is an additional way for Transport Canada to hear from stakeholders outside of the official Canada Gazette regulatory process, and beyond the work of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC)(https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/affairs-carac-menu-755.htm). To comment on the proposed regulations on drones, you can read about the proposed rules here(http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/proposed-rules-drones-canada.html), and submit your feedback in writing to carrac@tc.gc.ca". This means that the official way to have your comments heard is to send them to the given email (carrac@tc.gc.ca).
ChrisM 28 days ago
TC should enforce their current laws and not put unrealistic and overbearing laws in place. The simple fact that you can no longer fly inside the City of Toronto (I'm referencing the original city, I am aware Scarborough is outside the no-fly), is ridiculous. Some drone manufacturers have firmware updates that use the GPS position and a map of known no-fly zones so you can't even take off inside your own home! The fact that I can't legally fly 6 feet off the ground inside of my own backyard is outrageous. I now have to rent a car and drive an insane distance outside of the city just to practice my flight skills. This isn't even touching on the fact that the new rules they want to bring in are vague and horribly defined; among other things wanting a 14 year old to have liability insurance lol. DJI and other manufacturers have done tests and with a drone that weighs less than 2Kg, you can't cause any real damage or bodily harm, that's even with the drone reaching 60Km/h! Have these people ever done any real research or are they just sitting in a room with no windows screaming out whatever comes to their mind?
Alex about 2 months ago
Please allow a carve out in the new regulations that allow RC aircraft modelers the ability to build and fly.The new regulations do not recognize the various pursuits of RC aircraft modelling and would be make many disciplines of RC modelling either illegal or impractical to continue. TC also needs to recognize that MAAC is not an available option for many citizens.For instance; Tow Gliders, Slope Gliders, Hotliners, SAL Gliders, DLG Gliders, Scale Model Aircraft, Dynamic Soaring, Bungee Launch Gliders, Amphibious Models, Rotary Aircraft, 3D Models, Aerobatic Flying - all are either illegal or impractical outside of a MAAC sanctioned field. AN MAAC does not accomodate all these types of flying.Also the age restriction for model aircraft is far too old - my five year old son is an excellent RC pilot under my supervision.
Sawyer about 1 month ago
Thank you for all your very valid points. Thank you also for involving your young son in such a wonderful hobby. It is so refreshing to hear verses the kids that don't go outside anymore and just watch TV, talk on the phone and play video games. I'm retired and have 30 something Airworthy fixed wing rc aircraft. Former member of MAAC and don't belong to one of their clubs. I have not yet flown this year because now I'm a perceived unsafe rc flyer and a criminal. Needless to say like many in this country I'm very unhappy with Transport Canada. They have, in co operation with MAAC have destroyed the model aviation hobby in our country. MAAC has basically implied to TC that the only safe RC aircraft flight takes place by MAAC members at a MAAC sanctioned club. I suspect MAAC membership fees will be on the increase as well as the MAAC sanctioned club fees. If the good old boys will allow you to join that is because of what you fly.Another comment I'd like to make in regards to TC analogy of Soft and Squishy vs Hard and Crunchy to derive at their weight category's. Revisit the whole make up of these regulations or apply it to all, including MAAC without discrimination to anyone. No exemptions period. A MAAC membership will not make it Soft and Squishy. A MAAC sanctioned club within a couple of miles from the airport will not make it Soft and Squishy. And finally Insurance will not make it Soft and Squishy.
ThorGuy about 1 month ago
Agree in principle with the above but some of the details of restrictions are onerous and based on old information. Today's consumer drones are much safer and more reliable than they were 10 years ago. This does not seem to have been taken into account in the final proposed regulations.I would like to see the following:For recreational flyers who have passed relevant testing:1) Increase the 1kg category to 2kg2) Remove the requirement of compliant vehicles to fly within 1km of built up areas.3) Reduce the registration cost4) Simplify the restrictions. There are too many confusing restrictions based on too many variables. 5) Have a simple process in place to get waivers where reasonableFor recreational flyers, having the same requirements to fly as commercial operators, I believe, will not achieve the stated goal of increased safety.If you make it too difficult and expensive to comply, both the bad actors and the responsible flyers simply won't bother trying.Thank you.
lhow2000 about 1 month ago
Please let me use my drone in peace. I use my drone responsibly and would never think of putting people or property in jeopardy. Even though some idiots drive under influence of alcohol and drugs we don't take all vehicles off the road. Same with drone users, there will always be idiots who do stupid things.
ian about 1 month ago
The question is: What can Transport Canada do to improve drone safety?The answer is simple: Nothing. "Drone sector" safety is already exemplary and the perceived potential danger is nothing but speculation without proof.Imposing rules and regulations, no matter how well intended, on a practice that is already extremely safe will not result in making it any safer. Please remember that these rules also apply to all RC aircrafts that have been flying with exemplary safety for decades, not just camera drones.
DMM about 1 month ago
I completely agree with this sentiment, although, realistically some common sense regulations are needed. But just to add some numbers to why they should be minimal: According to a study by the University of Calgary earlier this year, there are now more drones flying in Canadian skies than manned aviation. If we are to believe the hysteria surrounding drones, then you would think there would be tons of reports of drone incidents. The reality is quite the opposite. The Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS) accumulates all of the incidents with aviation in Canada, including drones. In the past 12 months, there have been a total of 16,533 aviation incidents recorded in CADORS. Of these, only 144 involved drones or 0.8% and the vast majority of these (if not all of them) are of the 'I think i saw a drone' variety. In the same period there were 24 incidents resulting in 37 deaths - ZERO involving drones, and 90 incidents resulting in over 100 injuries - ZERO involving drones. The numbers speak for themselves and yet TC is telling Canadians to call 911 whenever they see a drone?!? How is this justified?
ian about 1 month ago
I agree with common sense regulations, that is what we had before they started panicking.
Laval076 about 1 month ago
The astronaut wasn't able to sleep no more, so, he regulated... :)
Steven about 1 month ago
Can we get this acknowledged by TC? It seems like old school frame of thinking and hysteria is being used instead of evidence.
AlFred334 about 1 month ago
Thx for posting this. I found the CADORS web site. You can do your queries on incidents. Very useful. You are right - proportionally very few drone incidents, and 0 injuries. The vast majority of the drone incidents were of the nature: "drone seen at a very high altitude (like 2000 feet) near an airport. No impact to operations". Seems there are more simple ways to correct this than the proposed regulations we are seeing.
AlFred334 about 1 month ago
It appears the USA has this right. Their drone industry appears to be thriving with the more simple, common-sense rules they've established (no arbitrary rural/urban rules, no arbitrary proximity limits, no liability insurance requirement, no naming stamping ). See "FAA Small Drone Rule Lets Unmanned Aircraft Soar" at https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88748 and https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
Td about 1 month ago
People should be able to sign a waiver to allow filming overhead / close filming. The drone weight categories need updating, for example, a 1kg drone should not be treated as a 25kg drone. Filming over your own boat/watercraft should be allowed. Filming over another boat should be allowed if the boat being filmed signs a waiver.
AlFred334 about 1 month ago
Google yields what appears to be more background/rationale on these proposed regulations at http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2017/2017-07-15/html/reg2-eng.php Interesting read, but also in some areas disconcerting where the rationale appears to be weak, incorrect, or based on questionable assumptions. Some examples:i) QUOTE: "The present analysis concluded that 0.5 nautical miles (NM) was a safe distance to mitigate the risk of a UA hitting a person in a built-up area. The analysis is assumed to be refined as more fly-away data could possibly be collected. Transport Canada has determined based on this analysis that 0.5 NM from the edge of a built-up area is the appropriate distance where increased regulatory requirements would be warranted to ensure safety, thus defining where a small complex environment begins." COMMENT 1: This is implying that the/a key reason for small (1k-25kg) drones to be restricted to rural areas is an assumed risk of fly aways and/or the damage heavier drones might cause in urban areas if they do fly away. However, this appears to ignore the fact that these heavier drones generally have far more sophisticated fail-safe systems that would prevent fly aways. The P4P, for example, has dual GPSes, and weighs only 1.3kg. It would require a failure of both GPSes, as well as a failure of both compasses to circumvent the automatic return to home system on this drone. I think it would be far safer to fly one of these 1.3kg drones in an urban area, than a 1kg drone without these fail-safes. Perhaps the study was done before the availability of these drones. COMMENT 2: This offers no rationale as to why a very small drone is restricted to 30m from people but a small drone in a rural area would be restricted to 75m. Why should the drones with more safety features carry further restrictions in rural areas?ii) QUOTE: "Transport Canada is aware that the proposed amendment may pose location restrictions for a recreational pilot living within the 0.5 NM distance limitation of a built-up area and who does not want to meet the more stringent requirements of the complex operating category. However, Transport Canada is confident that the recreational UA pilot would be able to find an appropriate location to operation their UA." COMMENT: This seems to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of a key recreational use of drones - family event photography. Often this is in your backyard, or other locations that are prescribed by the nature of the event - not selected for the sake of the drone. I would much rather photograph my family with a 1.3kg Phantom that has full redundancy vs a less sophisticated, less safe 1kg drone. But the proposed regulations would make that illegal. iii) QUOTE: "The liability insurance industry for recreational UAS operators is not yet mature. However, it may be assumed that the cost of $100,000 of liability insurance for a recreational UAS operator is estimated as twice the group insurance premium for a modellers association. Liability insurance could amount to an estimated 15$ per year." COMMENT: This appears to be based on very thin, if existent, data. My limited investigation failed to yield an insurer who would provide such insurance at all, let alone at a rate of 15$/year. The government should at least wait for the industry to mature before enforcing the need for liability insurance an unknown costs.iv) QUOTE: "The actual number of small UA units that are flown recreationally versus non-recreationally is unknown. .... Since the requirements in the proposed amendment hinge on the type of UAS and the type of UAS operation conducted, the differentiation between the UAS operated recreationally and non-recreationally is based on the following gross assumptions: .... Most of the small UA would be operated non-recreationally." COMMENT: This section of the document appears to be estimating the cost impact of the proposed legislation on drone manufactures. I think it's great they've attempted to do that. But, surely they could do a more in-depth study of this, as opposed the gross assumptions they appear to have taken. For example, in my experience, the vast majority of the drones in the 1-1.5 kg range are used recreationally. Just look at the drone icon used for this 'Let's Talk Drones' forum at https://letstalktransportation.ca/ - it's a Phantom. I believe Transport Canada is significantly underestimating the impact on such drone manufactures, by classifying such drones for rural use only.
mikehhfx about 1 month ago
I feel Transport Canada is going way to far with the rules for recreational Drones, most people are flying DJI drones that would do far less damage then a baseball hit in a yard toward a house. Most of these recreational drones would be more likely to break then damage a car or building. I do understand that Drones should not be flown recreationally in the middle of the urban core of a city. But someone flying their Drone in their yard even in a city are not going damage anything.The rule for recreational drone users to have insurance is in my opinion just another tax on people. I've inquired about drone insurance for recreational drone use in a non urban area and have been quoted a price of nearly 500 dollars, and the local companies offering courses for a "Drone School" are upwards of 500.00 or more. Heck I've gotten my courses and permits to own a handgun in Canada for less then 200.00, so what's wrong with this picture.I could agree to a small licensing fee and an online course similar to the small craft boating course for drones between 1 and 25kg or similar. And as far as endangering aircraft, am I wrong that we have a limit to fly no higher than 90 meters, thats just under 300 feet, and planes cannot fly lower than what 500 feet, that's a 200 foot difference, and I've never seen a plane that low in my city. As far as how close you can fly to an airport, the new distances are reasonable, but even at that most planes are way above 300 ft before they even get outside perimeter of an airport. These rules need an overhaul for sure but in the opposite direction, relax them and let us get the family photos and keep spreading the photos and videos of how beautiful our country is.
crboisvenue about 1 month ago
Why on earth would we need insurance with your proposed regulations? Besides this being an obvious cash grab please explain your thinking behind this. Your proposed regulations include no fly zones, mandatory distances to stay away from people and vehicles, and a 1km no fly zone radius from built up areas (towns, buildings etc), so what exactly would we require this liability insurance for? Damage done to a tree? (if we could even find a spot to fly that fits these requirements). Your proposed regulations would keep drones away from anything with any value to claim on and with drones advancing technology and minuscule weight a drone is highly unlikely to damage anything let alone end up in an accident. Perhaps we should look into who we would be buying this liability insurance through and whose pockets this money would be lining etc because it makes zero sense to require such a thing, these craft are not the size of hanggliders or paragliders and when human error occurs these drones are programmed to take over and stop the accident before it ever happens (obstacle avoidance, no fly zones programmed to the firmware, and limitations implemented by the manufacturer to prevent accidents). I can see looking from an insurers standpoint that this would be a low risk high yeild profit if it was mandatory to have coverage to fly. We should be following Americas' shoes, they had regulations like the ones you are proposing that made it next to impossible to fly without breaking the law. Now they have removed those obstacles and the drone industry is booming allowing for innovation and generating billions for the economy. Also requiring your name and number on the side of the drone? I do not see cars, boats, or bikes requiring your actual name and phone number on the side, why would this be different. Perhaps a free registration like boats with a number given to you but not your actual personal information.
Laval076 about 1 month ago
A registration number on a standardized tag would be, by far, enough !!! If really necessary !!
AlFred334 about 1 month ago
I'm a family man, and use a drone to occassional record family events in my fairly spacious (80ft wide) backyard. The proposed legislation would make such usage illegal because of the proximity rules. Seems unfortunate, if not plain wrong. Let me be clear: Drones of course do have the potential to be damaging if used in an abusive way. For that reason I'm very much in favour of the introduction of some controls. In particular, I'm in favour the posed need to pass an exam. I think the boating exams done in Ontario would be a good example to follow. (The boating recreation is far more widely used, and potentially more damaging if abused.) I'm also in favor, in principal, of the rules to stay clear of airports. However, when I look at the map of airports and the safety perimeters around them, it leaves very little space to actually use a drone in some areas. (Just look at the Muskoka and Toronto regions for example). I wonder if there are alternatives that would be more open, without compromising safety. Have we surveyed what other countries are doing ?There are also several factors in the proposal that seem to be over-reaching, if not over-kill. First, I agree with others on this forum that theinclusion of the drones in the ~1kg-1.5kg class in with drones that are 25kg for use only in rural areas is unreasonable. As mentioned, many of the drones in that 1-1.5kg class (the Phantom's for example) have the best safety features built in. I would think legislation intended to improve safety would endeavor to encourage their use, rather than discourage it. Second, I also agree with others on the forum that the requirement for liability insurance for this recreation is unreasonable - at least currently, as it appears difficult for individuals to acquire such insurance at reasonable cost. Also, the requirement to place your identity, address etc on the droneis innappropriate, given the risks associated with identity theft andother factors, in today's world. I think a registration number, againsimilar to boating, would make sense, as long as it was administered withsimplicity and with reasonable cost. I sincerely hope the folks responsible for this proposed legislation are thoughtfully reading and considering these comments and suggestions. I would be happy to discuss in person as well (presumably you have access to the email address for my forum registration).
Orville about 1 month ago
I attended the Transport Canada drone regulation meeting here in Moncton and listened to all that was presented. I feel that the imposed regulations need to be made far less complicated especially for those who love to fly for recreation purposes. Although I agree that recreational drone operators should avoid commercial airspace and should prove themselves as responsible knowledgeable pilots, they should be allowed to fly their aircraft without regulations that are not sensible and definitely not needed. I own a DJI Phantom 4 Advanced; an aircraft costing quite a few bills and is loaded with many fail-safe features. All is required is common sense and knowledge of how to fly this drone safely. My drone is within the 1.2-1.5KG range, yet placed in the same category as a 35kg drone however posing dramatically far less risk vs a 35KG drone. This should never be! I fell the proposed regulations are blown far out beyond what they need to be; will be very hard to monitor, are unfair to the hobbyist who want to fly responsively and will cost (insurance) the hobbyist money they can't afford for a hobby that has yet not proven to be and more dangerous than flying a kite.
Andrew Young about 1 month ago
In this instance I think it might be best to follow the American legislation exactly. They have a more densely populated country with a much more crowded airspace, so if it works there it should be more than enough protection here. If Industry Canada makes it very difficult or impossible to fly drones in Canada, then we will miss out on an industry that is worth millions of dollars. Those dollars will go somewhere because the world seems to have made a less restrictive decision about flying drones already. Do we as Canadians want to see the film industry harmed by oppressive legislation? Do we want to regulate this new technology outside of our borders? Do we need the jobs in Canada that new technologies provide? The answers to all of these questions is obvious, so why is the Canadian idea for drone legislation such a knee jerk reaction to the unknown?
FBJ about 1 month ago
Transport Canada, I recognize rules need to be implemented to avert potential disaster here, but I do think your rules are overblown to the point of irrationality. Given the cost-prohibitive nature of drone equipment, it should be understood that children aren't overly likely to engage in flying these things. In fact, I'm not a current drone owner, but a potential one. My research, things adults do, has ultimately led me here after seeing the virtual blanket ban on legal flight zones in the Toronto area. As it stands right now, there is precisely nowhere in within the boundaries of Toronto (downtown precisely) where I'm able to fly a drone without having to take a long trip to the suburbs -- Scarborough Bluffs being a popular destination.I was interested in the idea of purchasing a drone for the purpose of urban photography, a hobby I recently started to undertake. While I'm able to use my digital SLR to do so from ground level, not only have your rules limited my wish to expand my creative photography, but the rules have directly impacted the drone industry due to the fact I haven't bought one yet. I'm watching developments closely. Unless your rules are significantly relaxed, the only parties that stand to lose besides myself is the drone industry and my contribution to the growth of the technology.Do your best. We're counting on you.
Mohammad Khakwani about 1 month ago
One should not be limited even after obtaining a drone pilots licence and have a ROC A and having a liability insurance and drone registration and SFOC etc.. it defeats the purpose when you cant simply fly in a city park that is big enough area wise whats the point of obtaining all these documents and certs when you still cant fly recreationally in an aera closer to the city. After going through all of this training this should prove to TC that the person or persons operating a drone for rec purposes are competent
mvaseghinia about 1 month ago
I believe these regulations are too restrictive and are based on no fact. Focusing on pilot knowledge and strengthening education and public awareness is definitely more effective.I fly maybe once or twice a month (weather permits) and that is to film my family and friends from a different point of view. I have always taken all the safety precautions to ensure that no one is in danger and no privacy is violated.
Pierre Sinclaire about 1 month ago
Hi, my name is Pierre Sinclaire from Rock Creek B.C. and I attended the presentation in Kelowna B.C. on September the 8th 2017 . After the presentation it was clear to me that things in the proposed interim rules should be changed as they are too restrictive an probably put in there hastily. I made comments to the regulators that were present as follows:A) Retracting or educating the public in regards to 911 calls about drones. 911 is already overloaded with useless calls and now Transport Canada is telling the public to call 911 whenever they fill that a drone is not in the norm. What is the norm in the general public understanding of drone regulation. How can the general public tell a drone is flying at an altitude above 300 feet or over an area that is not allowed?B) FPVs(goggles), in the interim rules the law is that someone cannot use visual devices to view video feed from the drone in any way. This then excludes the use of augmented reality glasses which allows the drone operator to see the drone at all time while seeing, at the same time the video and data stream from the drone?C) The regulators at the presentation in Kelowna were saying that they do not want to stop the drone technical development and opportunities in Canada but at the same time will force the individuals (the same public that are the primary drive for this technology) to have a liability insurance of $100.000 at the average cost per drone operator of $400.00 per year, not counting that fact that 98% of insurers will not cover or insure drones for individuals. Also this does not include the eventual cost of licencing the drone. That is probably a given as the staff for Transport Canada that overseeing this has grown significantly. How will 17 years old indeviduals afford it. D) The lack of public education regarding these rules leaving the general public thinking that drones are bad and that all of the users should be deemed spy’s by default.I mentioned that the presentations were held during the week which made it nearly impossible to attend and that 90% of drone users are the ones that could not make it to the presentation as they are at work during the week. I hope that this information will be read and that it will be taking into consideration.Regards, Pierre SinclaireRock Creek., B.C.
Jo about 1 month ago
1.Maximum Altitude: 400 agl (giving a 100' buffer) 2. Remove distance from aerodrome because it shouldn't be an issue seeing as we need to remain below 400' and out of controlled airspace.3.Night Flying allowed with appropriate position lighting on the drone4. Raise the minimum weight from 250g to 500g. Implement a commercial operator licensing system similar to the US' part 107.
Kris Crawford about 1 month ago
I bought a drone to be able to capture activities our family was participating in, and the adventures we are blessed to have. I TOTALLY get safety and realize there should be restricted areas to fly in, but if I'm trying to capture photos or video of my kids doing water sports, or playing soccer, I should be able to do that within safe parameters.
Roly about 1 month ago
My interpretation of Approach 1 is that members of MAAC are exempted from the regulations. This is reasonable considering the club's responsible safety record.Approach 2 is a preposterous over-reach. Surely Transport Canada is not entitled to assume that everyone who has a camera is a spy! Applying this kind of logic to photography would mean every tourist who uses a camera is engaged in surveillance and must therefore have a ham radio licence.It is illogical that FPV (which I take to mean a device which allows the operator to view from the drone) is not surveillance whereas a device which records what is seen is a spy camera!Approach1 is much more reasonable.If Transport Canada adopts Approach 2 they are imposing an absurd burden on individuals who have no use for a ham radio licence. A ham radio allows the "spy" to not only to view. It allows him to report by radio to his "handlers" what he has seen.People who are deprived of what they lawfully purchased before the regulation came into force should be compensated in the same way as a landowner is compensated when his property is expropriated!
AlphaTango026 about 1 month ago
"Pilots who intend to fly in the complex operations category — which includes flying in urban areas or within controlled airspace or close to airports — will need to pass a written knowledge test to get a pilot permit that is specific to small drones. The test may take place at a Transport Canada office or at a ground or flight training school we authorize to deliver exams for us." Please make successful completion of ground school testing retroactive. Mune cost me over $800!
AlphaTango026 about 1 month ago
In these modern days of identity theft please do not force me to fly my personal information in public.
ShadowArt about 1 month ago
I added drone services to my video business and went through the SFOC process and believe in educated pilots both for recreational and commercial purposes. I feel some of the new proposals are based totally on misinformation and paranoia and not on fact. The two worst regulations are; giving 7 days notice of a flight and having a compliant drone for flights in a complex environment. Very rare is the client who calls up to book drone video with that much notice and weather can't be predicted accurately that far in advance. Do I make my client wait another 7 days if the first date has rain? Clients have got very used to the idea of the ease and price of services like mine that use DJI drones. They will not pay four times as much just to have a compliant drone take their real estate photos. So many companies in my line of work are already flying without training much less an SFOC or insurance. They are not doing stupid things with their drones so if anyone came across their video, there is nothing to throw up a red flag to TC. The biggest issue will be the licencing and purchasing of a drone. I see nothing in the regulations that will make a big box electronic store or an online retailer force the consumer to provide proof of licence and insurance before they purchase. Without stopping the consumer before the purchase, people will continue to buy and fly with even less regard for the laws. In short, these new heavy handed regulations will just make more and more illegal fliers both commercially and for recreation.
sam about 1 month ago
Most of us who buy these don't race them. We use them as aerial video cameras. We take videos of our family, especially our kids learning to ride a bike or walking/hiking a trail; or to capture remote wilderness.My points of contention and recommendations to change.1) Requiring a license - good idea. Forces people to learn the rules. I recommend following similar format to the Ontario boating license. 2) Registration. Do not like personal information on device. Should allow us to register. Give us the option to do this when we take the test. Having personal information on the device worries me.3) Insurance. Not sure why we need this. Many us only use the drone a few time in a month a few months a year. Getting annual insurance if not coverage by auto or home would be cost prohibitive. One could argue we should have it for riding a bike too. I am sure more people are hurt by bikes rather than UAVs4) Let's have reasonable fines. Or, at least state fines for particular expenses. If I was facing potential $3,000 fine every time I drove my car, I stop driving. Sure $3,000 if we fly it into Pearson International and almost hit a plane. But what about other possible fines. For cars, fines are set for individual violations, speed, litter, etc...
BrendonB about 1 month ago
Going out and buying a quad from a store is one thing for "Most of us who buy these don't race". But there are lots of us out there who do race, many just dont know there are small groups out there that organize meetups (Multigp, DRL etc) we usually do it in safe ways outside of the airport radius. And our craft are usually between the 250 to 1kg weight limit which sucks, and means lots of us are moving to smaller and lighter quads.
rancy90 about 1 month ago
Transport Canada needs to reduce the bureaucratic clutter to a minimum and devise clear, common-sense, evidence-based rules. Ideally, anybody should be allowed to use their small UAVs for small-scale money-making projects (ie. real estate photography) provided they do not fly over people AND have the consent of private property owners. Furthermore, they should be allowed to operate the UAVs alone, without the need of a spotter. Liability insurance should NOT be required as we are talking about small UAVs, large UAVs are another problem. Say buddy asks me to get a couple pictures of his house on the outskirts of town for him, for say $20, but I currently have no insurance nor license, despite having flown UAVs for years with no problem. This is currently illegal on several grounds, but it is also illegal under the proposed legislation. Why should I need liability insurance for a drone that is so small it couldn't damage anything even if you tried? Worst case scenario, absolute worst, the drone loses power and falls onto his roof, which might require a ladder to retrieve. Also, why should I obtain a license to operate the UAV when the controls are so easy you could teach a monkey to use them?Assuming Transport Canada still thinks licenses and liability insurance are necessary, then those should be made incredibly easy to access. The Registry of Motor Vehicles, which has branches everywhere, should be providing them. There should be a cheap and ACCESSIBLE national insurance. I laughed reading an article on Mobilesyrop.com in which Transport Canada officials had suggested liability insurance could be purchased for as low as $15 per year. I haven't found anything below $500. And then we are getting into a situation where the annual liability insurance is going to be more expensive than the drone. Clearly an absurd situation. If Transport Canada believes so strongly in 100 K of liability being necessary, then IT should be providing that at an affordable price to consumers. It would be more logical however for liability insurance to be only required for truly heavy UAVs, which would have a real possibility of causing damages.The over-regulation and paranoia of our regulators is DAMAGING the Canadian economy by stifling economic activity while doing little to improve safety. Imposing onerous conditions reduces economic activity and only benefits large groups that have access to legal advice and other means. There are tens of millions of dollars in lost opportunities being wasted. Rural Canada is particularly disserved by this trend because the large groups are located in cities. By creating unrealistic rules that are not common-sense, the law will be broken every day as consumers DO NOT BELIEVE in the law. If Transport Canada creates unrealistic rules that are being flaunted by tens of thousands of people every day, then it will have no way to enforce those laws. The laws need to be realistic and common-sense, for the consumers' sake but also for the sake of the regulators who have ''bigger fish to fry''. Focus on the truly dangerous transgressions like flying in very near proximity to airports and near emergency crews.
Mark9471 about 1 month ago
Hello, I am a recreational drone user, and I have some questions regarding drone regulations with Transport Canada. For the record, I own a DJI Phantom 4 drone.I have a few unaddressed questions that I searched online and could not find the answer to…Is there any exemption for flying over 90 meters? For example, assuming there is no airport or heliport in the area, and I am near an object, much taller than 90 meters.. Let's say 300 meters for this example (A building, telecommunication tower, smoke-stack, ect). If I am close to this object significantly exceeding 90 meters, can I match that height with my drone (fly 300 meters, no higher than the tip of the 300 meter object)?I know in the United States, the FAA has an exemption rule, but I cannot find it with Transport Canada… The FAA’s rule for this states:(b) the altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above the ground, unless the small unmanned aircraft: (1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and (2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.So going back to my example, if I am near a building; 260 meters tall, and the building has a antenna spire of 60 meters, so the tallest point on this building is 320 meters… So based on FAA’s rules, I can fly an additional 400 feet (90 meters in Canada), so 320 + 90 = 410. So would I be able to legally fly 410 meters (320 meters above the legal limit) in this scenario? Assuming this was at least 5.5 kilometers away from any airport.2. I can’t find a clear answer about this question.. Since I am a recreational user, I only fly for fun. I plan to post all my videos to youtube. Now, if I monetize my videos (have ads before the content), and I make a few cents a month.. Is that viewed as commercial use, even though the flight was simply recreational? If the answer is yes, can you please explain this.3. Operating a drone from a moving vehicle, is it legal or no? I don’t see anything at Transport Canada’s website prohibiting this. Assuming common sense is practiced, somewhere away from the city, in the open countryside, and operating as a team, at least 3 personnel. A driver (drives the vehicle, and focuses only on the road) A drone operator (uses the remote to control the direction of the drone, and using a mobile phone to see the point of view), and a spotter (someone that is physically looking out the window at the drone). I did not find the answer to this on Transport Canada’s website, and I don’t see how this can cause any danger if caution is used. Keep in mind that it does not violate any of Transport Canada’s current drone rules, assuming: obviously the drone will be in sight at all times, and not further than 500 meters away and it is not night, the drone is within 90 meters above the ground or lower, 75m away from vehicles, vessels, and the public (on a country road, this should not be a problem, unless someone decides to tailgate you, which is now their problem, not yours). Let’s say there are no airport within 5.5 kilometers of your entire route, and least 9 km away from a natural hazard or disaster area.4. Is there anywhere I can find an official “No fly zone” map? The one on Transport Canada’s website is useless, since the no-fly zones seem to be 9-kilometer radiuses.. I use the app “UAV Forecast” on my phone for now.. It seems to be legit.
Robert R about 1 month ago
Insurance for commercial flights is reasonable but for us recreational pilots flying within the very restrictive rules that are in force at the present time seems like someone is not thinking, just writing things down as they come to mind and just plain not think at all. Fist, I would like to know how the Gazette writer came up with $15 a year? At the present time, it's neither reasonable, price wise, or available as recreational flight option. It is bunched in with commercial UAV use which is a whole other flight regime. I have been informed by several insurance companies that there is nothing available presently for under 300.00. Basically you are forcing every RC pilot in Canada to buy unavailable or at the least, very expensive insurance or fly at a MAAC field which are not available to a lot of pilots for something that has little to no chance at causing damage or injury if the person is following the rules in the first place. So lets for get the insurance on the recreational small drone market, it's neither feasible or reasonable. Secondly, do some real research into actual incidents and the potential damages a 1.1 kg drone or foam airplane for that matter and then compare that to a 25kg flying object. The is a real oranges to apples comparison and your lumping them into one category. We use to consider amateur rocketry to be under 3.3lbs or 1.5kg and I would think that these numbers would also work well with the RC and drone sizeing too. I absolutely agree on the education requirement as outlined in the proposal and both the online and written exam requirements for the different flight regimes. I don't have a huge problem with the altitude limits but the distance limits are really silly, since it would essentially criminalize every RC pilot who flies indoors on non MAAC RC flying fields. Educate people to fly safe don't regulate to make them criminals.
larbuckle about 1 month ago
larbuckle about 1 month ago
I would like to discuss the rules starting at min 250 grams [8.18 ounces] and up. The DJI Spark's weight is 300 grams [10.58] ounces. Less than 2 ounces. Come on, we are splitting hairs. The Spark looks like a toy. Kids throwing rocks would be more dangerous.
rlewismanning about 2 months ago
What many amateur operators lack is a sufficient understanding of airspace. Having a basic online training and certification process could go a long way to reducing unintended and harmful consequences. The PCOC for boating might be a model to emulate.
Reasonable Laws For Drones about 2 months ago
Thank your for taking the time for public feedback. The minister's reaction was an understandable reaction to an unknown — but now (with community feedback like this) you know better. Please update these knee-jerk laws to a more modern set that returns Canadians to the forefront of forward-thinking technology. I beg you to implement a licensing system (similar to our fisheries, boating or even automotive programs) professionals like myself are desperate and hobbyists will line up to prove they have the public’s safety in mind. Drones are extremely safe when operated by mature and professional pilots. Plus, my DJI Phantom 4 Pro (just under 2kg) packs a TON of technology, including obstacle avoidance and other redundant fail safe measures — however it weighs 1,388g so it falls into the same category as a drone that is 35,000g. A pee vs a jackfruit. Here are a few of my opinons. 1) Education is required. Not just on the side of the pilot, but also Transport Canada. 2) The government fear mongering must end. My drone is under 2kg and made of lightweight plastic — A Goose is around 5-8kg and made of muscle and sinew. Why the overreaction to plastic? 3)Fines are incredible. Thousands, for a drone, but only a couple hundred for fires in public parks (when BC is under siege with forest fires) 4) Licensing should be simplified and streamlined. Fishing, boating, even driving a car is easier and more intelligible than getting an sfoc. 5) Insurance again needs to be (at the very least) thought out and at the best should be provided reasonably by our crown corporation ICBC. Again, boats do not require insurance, so why drones? 6) Privacy — again, education on part of the law makers is required. Drone cameras are extremely wide and meant for landscapes. We should deem a “reasonable” distance from a house or home. At least until I can mount an 800mm lens to a drone. 7) Define flight zones — this falls to Transport Canada. Where exactly am I allowed to fly in BC. Seaplanes can land anywhere — 5.5 km is still a rediculous and unenforcable requirement. 8) Placing personal info on the drone is absurd. 9) why the arbitrary 300 ft height cap? It's 400 nearly everywhere else in the world. 10) If all else fails, the very least you can do is cut and paste the existing American FAA 107 program. Please. It would be a shame if Canada fell years behind an American program, but that’s where we are now. Please listen to these people and update our regulations reasonably. This is not an opportunity to create more government sub-committees and oversight. This is an opportunity to put Canada at the forefront of this technology and industry. An industry that is rapidly growing.
SmoothRunnings about 2 months ago
Don't make the hobbyists suffer, I agree there should be some rules such as protecting peoples privacy, no fly zones (unless permission is given), height limitations. Drone flying isn't easy, I know I just bought a drone. I have had to go by a piece of software called RC Drone Simulator to practice flying before I really take to the skies and I can't tell you its not like anyone can fly a drone. So the government needs to take less of a panic state and take more of a practical one.
nillo about 2 months ago
Education is key, enforcement is in my opinion costly and a waste of taxpayers money when consider the small risk that drones pose. As Okanaganacro put it out of the millions of UAV flights, how many of resulted in significant damage to other persons property? These regulations are an insult to the common sense of the average RC flyer.A pleasure power boat operator can operate a metal craft of significantly more weight than a drone at speeds of 30KMH + with an online PCOC exam, so why can't a UAV operator operating a 1KG UAV made mostly of plastic or foam at similar speeds be allowed operate with just an online exam?
ypatel9 about 2 months ago
1) I think a basic online test and some kind of waiver/agreement to have a record that any drone flyer is responsible for their actions as they would be for any vehicle related incident involving their drone. Drone insurance, licensing, and registration of drones should be mandatory for urban flyers. Drone insurance which has been heavily quoted by TC as a minor expense is a bit misleading. There have been many people in Canada on youtube who have gone out and asked about drone insurance and have not found anything reasonable (TC assumes a very low insurance cost in the proposed rules). I think the insurance needs to be optional, or only mandatory when the pilot is flying in areas where a collision has a risk of causing damage to property (urban flying). 2) TC has taken an approach of attaching a stigma of danger, privacy invasion, etc. There is a blatant disregard to the lay person's responsible use of a drone. Social media needs to be revamped to make it not feel like a drone-hunt for people to go out and find reasons to contact the police when they see a drone operating in any situation. The current site seems like a ploy to generate numbers for a report that will be presented someday as "XXXX drone incidents have been reported online!" 3) Enforcement measures should be taken when pilots operate dangerously. This includes flying too close to buildings, too high, or for any malicious purposes. I believe that there should also be a 2nd lower unrestricted ceiling in effect (for example, under height of a street light) that would allow people to practice in empty fields or areas without fear of someone reporting them.
wmsTO about 2 months ago
Completely agree about the social media revamp. TC is disgraceful for the horrible ads they have posted about Drones. "See a Drone, call the police" - what message is that giving to the ill informed public - Drones are bad. That's not the way to get the right attention.
droopdog about 2 months ago
i feel it needs to be stated that registration is one thing, but demanding that every drone needs to have my personal information such as my name, phone number, and address on it is ridiculous. i can agree with registration and perhaps placing a registration number on my drone, similar to that of a car license plate, but i dont feel it is any random lunatic that may run up to my landed drones right to have my personal information, especially that of where my family resides. these devices are extremely expensive pieces of equipment. there are unfortunately people in all areas that know this and are not opposed to thievery. whats to stop one of these individuals from waiting until i land, stealing my drone, and now having the information he or she needs to go directly to my home to most likely find more expensive equipment to steal and profit from? my car is registered, but that doesnt mean i post my name phone number and address on the trunk lid for all to see. why would this be sensible for my drone?
RiverdaleDIY about 2 months ago
While I STRONGLY support education, training, awareness, and rule ENFORCEMENT, there are some things I take issue with. The primary issue being the essential banning of ALL recreational drone flying within urban areas, specifically Toronto (except the Scarborough Bluffs area). It seems massively draconian, to ban me from flying a tiny drone (<1kg) from flying around, at low altitudes, to film my child riding his bike down a trail, in a large park, or across an empty parking lot. Sure, 200m above the ground, within sight of the approach to Billy Bishop, absolutely I get it and I do fully support the safety initiative side of things. But if you make the rules so overwhelmingly restrictive two things will happen 1) People will just completely ignore any rules/regs. that are put in place and it will become the wild west. And lets face it, enforcement is going to be essentially non-existent except in extreme and very dangerous situations. 2) Many other people will just not buy drones, not support local tech. companies, and the industry will be stifled. Either way is a big loss.Make some SENSIBLE and enforceable rules, with maximum altitude limits that are lower when closer to airports etc.. But to blanket ban ALL flight, no matter what the altitude, within 5km of an airport is WAY is a significant overreaction. Surely in the park at the end of my street, I can fly a drone, a kite, or even hit a baseball 30m in the air without putting any aircraft in danger.Make the training like boating. An online, and very affordable, training and awareness program which will ensure people are aware of the rules and the dangers of not following them. But make it possible to buzz around your local open space at 15m off the ground when there's an airport 5km's away. People want to follow the rules, but if they are seen to be so ridiculously restrictive, what options do they have? Only one, and that is to break the rules...
pgaudet about 2 months ago
5.5km seems very restrictive in regards to distance from an airport. I live in Charlottetown, PE and this essentially negates all of capital and most of the neighboring towns. The idea that someone having a 1kg drone is for 'rural' use is preposterous. As was mentioned in a comment above, 1000-1500g drones are probably the most common.The rules proposed are not logical by any means. I'm currently thinking of buying a DJI drone but am unsure now due to these restrictions as the drone is 1280g and falls in the 1kg-25kg range (which is a ridiculous range IMO)...make it 3-15kg, and 15-25kg or something like that. Don't get me started on the insurance requirement...
Dansab100 about 2 months ago
Social media and PSA are the way to go.The biggest drone vendor dji makes it impossible to fly in no fly zones anyway.Working with the industry is critical as amazing things that can be done with drones is being discovered every day. I don't think Canada wants to impede the growth of the industry
LC about 2 months ago
I had warning messages almost two years ago using the dji app when i was too close to a airport I was not aware it was there when i was flying in a different city,today I am well informed of airport localities either by my DJI apps or Flight Tracker 24 and constant on of my portable scanner and when a unicom or any chatter or any type of aircraft is heard I set down or reduce height to power pole level until i can asses where the other aircraft is! What I do not like is Aircraft who do follow height restriction after 5kms out from the airport the aircraft should be higher than 250-300 feet like some locals persist in doing!
mollys_d about 2 months ago
The proposals are a wonderful example of government overreach, and will result in either killing the industry or turning ordinary folks into criminals, or both. Perhaps these are your objectives. I will just throw in a couple of comments, rather than repeating the sensible points made by others. Both of these points relate to the map that shows the restricted zones.First, it does not take a genius to see that the restricted zones cover the areas where 95% or more of us live.Second, the most "dense" restricted area on the map is the Muskoka area in Ontario. How is this possible in such a sparsely populated area. Answer: A whole bunch of rich guys own float plane and their cottages are categorized as airports, so nobody can fly a drone. Seems fair to...... who?You need to start over.
safedroneflyer about 2 months ago
Many people in rural Ontario face the same problems. Farmers field airstrips which are used only a couple times a year (if at all) are designated as aerodromes. Flying 50 or 100 feet off the ground 3km from one of these should not be a crime. There needs to be some common sense wording about distances from infrequently used airfields and manned aircraft taking priority in the sky.
LC about 2 months ago
I have a comment saved from my local police that the biggest concern was privacy!! with satellite Technology and the Google car everywhere there is no more privacy
coastaldrone about 2 months ago
Rules will be broken if they are not known. I think an increase in outreach, education and awareness, as well as knowledge and training will go a long way. Strict rules are currently only punishing those who follow them.
safedroneflyer about 2 months ago
There are many people who want no rules. I want to feel safe walking in a park, I want to feel safe taking off in a plane...but I also want to fly my RC aircraft in areas where it is safe to do so. The current proposed laws will turn me into a criminal if I fly.
safedroneflyer about 2 months ago
Don't put a blank line in your comment...this forum will throw away the rest of your comment.
YYCADM about 2 months ago
I believe the focus of these proposals is mis-directed. I agree wholeheartedly that some form of SFOC (less cumbersome from an acquisition standpoint; retain the bulk of the information/training/insurance requirements, but the administrative process on the Transport Canada end MUST be streamlined) may at times be appropriate. I fear that "eliminating" SFOC's is an inaccurate comment; in relality these proposals do not '"eliminate" anything. SFOC's will still be required for the same situations as they are currently; what WILL be eliminated is any possibility of recreational fliers from partaking in the hobby within any urban area. These proposed regulations do NOT address the root problem that exists; the single digit percentage of UAV pilots who ignore existing regulations & fly when & where they want with virtual impunity.The reality is that well over 90% of recreational fliers comply with the existing rules at all times. While there may be very infrequent occasions where these "law-abiding" pilots may violate a regulation, it is most often the result of inadequate knowledge, not willful intent. Those small numbers who willfully violate the regulations will continue to do so, regardless of how onerous or draconian a set of rules is imposed. In many cases, their attitudes ALSO reflect the same lack of knowledge. There are a great many who simply do not believe that a small UAV poses a real, significant threat to manned aircraft. Having spent my entire career in aviation, I'm intimately aware of the danger posed by mid-air impact with anything; birds, UAV's, model aircraft, kites, balloons, etc., but that is not information that many people have.Much greater levels of education for all UAV pilots would significantly reduce these behaviors; enforcement action is, and will remain virtually non-existant, and without enforcement, additional regulations serve absolutely no purpose. Establish a knowledge based examination process, make it mandatory. Enforce as much as possible. Refocus these regulations away from where they currently point, towards those who ARE law abiding and who want to do the right thing. Instead, focus on those who will and who are violating them currently. If left in the current form, these proposals will kill any hope of the development and growth of a UAV industry in Canada. Manufacturers will NOT engage this country in any meaningful way; it would be too restrictive. The same will be true for the thousands of Canadians currently trying to make their own way with small business. You will destroy any hope of that market sector growing and flourishing
LC about 2 months ago
As long as pilots are above 300+ feet and drones stay below, staying away from airports and runway flightpaths,chances of collision =0 ! Worry about a 20 pound goose instead!
LC about 2 months ago
I think the whole thing is just a scam to usher in laws the protect business and helicopter owners! 0 ZERO strikes on airplanes and the chances of getting struck by lightning and winning the lottery at the same time are better. Do some people do stupid thing like fly directly over people,Yes and their will always be a fool out there that will do it law or no law. Common sense Laws,like dont fly over crowds or busy highways and stay away from the flightpath of aircraft runways! Insurance should be similar to MACC and be affordable to all. Weight restrictions are foolish,1kg to 25kg is a extreme range and most people fly P3 or similar at Weight of 1280 grams a very big difference from 25kg which very very few fly and are usually done for commercial purpose! Also it is much safer to fly using the screen rather than LOS and restriction in distance is stupid as well as long as your staying at or under 90 meters and aircraft are staying at there height. Night flying,Its much easier to see the craft at night vs day as there very well lit up! I don't expect common sense law from government anyway.There are many ways to remain safe 1 is to use many apps available that let you know where aircraft are present in the sky and 2nd a scanner tuned to all local and international flight frequencies should be carried at all times! Another idea is why cant we carry a separate small radio that is capable of pinging or broadcasting the drones location within a 5 mile radius?? so that aircraft are aware,cannot be too hard to develop or manufacture with the technology today
Okanaganacro about 2 months ago
You can't increase the safety of something that is already reasonably safe. Years and years of UAS flying around and still no collisions with aircraft. There are more UAS flights a day than commercial flights in Canada. Where is the danger? A few dull pencils (who wouldnt follow the regulations anyway) fly near an airport and now the other 99.9 percent of UAS pilots have to either stop enjoying their hobby or pay even more money to continue enjoying it.
captaindrone798 about 2 months ago
Transport Canada needs to focus on people. Educate people that flying a drone is fine as long as you stay away from people. Kerp the rules SIMPLE and make the avoidance of people the key. The bestenforcement is to have experienced drone users on your side. Law enforcement is a waste of time and most drone users know it... however, peer pressure by experienced safety minded drone users goes a long way. On line or in person courses are a key to this.