2. How should regulations support the development of the drone industry (manufacturers, service providers, retailers)? | Let's talk drones | Let's Talk Transportation

IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

You need to be signed in to add your comment.

2. How should regulations support the development of the drone industry (manufacturers, service providers, retailers)?

over 1 year ago

Consultation has concluded

  • martinfly over 1 year 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.
  • WIlliam Breen over 1 year ago
    Generally, the larger, higher end drones used commercially are seeing more and better automated traffic avoidance technology incorporated, and the remote video capability/telemetry is improving markedly. When working in remote and rural areas, these factors would seem to speak to a more relaxed Line of Sight range paradigm than currently is in place (and necessary) in more populated centers. Perhaps TC might construct a tiered set of regs of if/then clauses. If the UAV is capable of active object avoidance, and can transmit real-time video, then incorporate the least restrictions. If it can do one or the other, then tighter restrictions. And so forth. Think about an open-ended set of tests for manufacturers and operators who are on the forefront of innovation, like a set of standard obstacles of various sizes to simulate ground clutter, and suspended obstacles to simulate traffic. If a manufactured or customized vehicle can avoid all, automatically, it falls under the least restrictive paradigm, and forms the basis for a 'case law' on that type.
  • Dansab100 over 1 year ago
    Industry leaders like DJI want to assist governments with implementation of rules. But the rules should not stop the growth of this industry. Effectively insurance requirements and licensing would kill the growth.
  • journey over 1 year ago
    Canada should be be relaxing the regulations on UAS for commercial use. Then we might have companies who want to develop Technologies in this country instead of leaving to develop elsewhere. seem counter intuitive to me don't stifle innovation in Canada.
  • dbeale over 1 year ago
    Work closely with all and recognize all the levels of use. Bring all interested parties to the table. The balance is between safe and simple with reasonable estimates of risk based on actual incident rates.
  • Flying Cowboy over 1 year ago
    The list of compliant UAS is made up of older aircraft whose costs are excessive and whose capabilities are often only marginally more useful for current applications than much more common and affordable "prosumer" models, or what can be built for a fraction of the cost by a savvy modeler.For example, the Sensefly Ebee, the newest drone on the list costs around $22,000, but one could get the exact same manoeuvrability, range, and flight endurance by building a $150 FT Spear, and connecting it to a $100 TBS long-range antenna on a $170 Taranis qx-7 radio. Add in a small $300 multispectral camera, and use a subscription mapping softwre like drone deploy and you have all the same capabilities for less than $900.Or, for that matter, you can get almost the same capabilities pre-packaged with the new professional upgrade to the Parrot Disco for around $3300 and save yourself the tinkering.Similar cases can be made for almost every aircraft on that list. Almost all of them could be replaced by a DJI Inspire-1 or Yuneec 950s Tornado for a fraction of the cost.Some of the aircraft on the list of compliant aircraft make no sense whatsoever being there. The Kespry Drone, for example relies heavily on automation with an AI guidance and navigates by LiDAR; neither of which are permitted under normal circumstances by CARS, Its a compliant aircraft that can't be used in a compliant manner.Thus, for complex operations the current list setting the design standards has created an excessive barrier for costs in starting up a services business. If Transport Canada wants to make establishing a service providing business capable of complex operations feasible to entrepreneurs, the first thing they need to do is ensure that affordable, up-to-date equipment is available to them.This can be done two ways. The first would be to help manufacturers of reputable, reliable, and popular aircraft had guidance on how to become compliant, and means of fast-tracking their models onto the compliant aircraft list. The process for becoming compliant must also be commensurate with the potential earnings of the manufacturer: because Canada is a relatively small market, the costs to become compliant must be kept low enough that the manufacturers still stand to profit from complying.The companies DJI, Parrot, Yuneec, Autel, Blade, and Swellpro would be good places to star.Likewise, companies like Draganfly, Kespry, Infinit Jib, Microdrones, and Lockheed Martin that already have compliant products all have newer, more advanced, safer, and in some cases, more affordable models on the market. Allowing them a means of bringing their new models onto the compliance list swiftly would also ensure that Service Providers have up-to-date technology available to the if they want to perform complex operations.Additionally, service providers who manufacture their own drones should have guidance and a means for having their custom-manufactured aircraft certified compliant.
  • Bashir Khan over 1 year ago
  • Bashir Khan over 1 year ago
    Encouraging the investment community to take on drones for the efficiencies, revenues, and positive environmental impact they will have.
  • Bashir Khan over 1 year ago
    Regulations should support the development of the drone industry, particularly service providers, by easing beyond line of sight regulations for autonomous UAV's that are able to start testing and providing services, but so far regulations have permitted otherwise.
  • ShadowArt over 1 year ago
    Regulations in this country won't stifle technology. We are a small sales base compared to many countries so we will be on the outside looking in and watching posts in the forums of what great things people are doing in their home countries. Regulations and education should start at the retail level before someone walks out of the store or gets that Canada Post delivery. No point in having draconian laws, heavy fines and an expensive social media campaign if anyone can just walk into a big box retailer and have a drone in the air in an hour. Put in a regulation that says the retailer must record the licence number of the drone purchaser to prove they know where to fly. You can't drive a car off the lot without proof of licence and insurance.
  • Ianbburns over 1 year ago
    All commercial drones that are to be flown in built up areas need to have a system in place to protect the drone, people and property from damage. Like a parachute compared to an airbag in a car. If all commercial drones in Canada have that installed by the manufacturer then it solves a huge safety issue.
  • T. Todd Hennig over 1 year ago
    There is absolutely no incentive for any company to develop the drone industry in Canada if their products are going to be so restricted that only a minor few will purchase them. For instance, car manufacturers are only able to enter the professional racing circuit with the knowledge their racing technology will be supported and funded by the consumer market. With the current proposed regulations, if I was the CEO of a drone manufacturing company I would not even consider releasing any products to the Canadian market because Transport Canada is unreliable in their approach and knee-jerk reactions I would not know when TC is going to change their policies. I would hesitate to bring any products into Canada if I did not have the ability to sell to a large market to support development.
  • RobP over 1 year ago
    I watched a recording of the Vancouver hearing and one point was not properly addressed. The presenter mentioned that the weight threshold for the more restrictive rules was dropped to 1kg because the impact force of a drone is greater than that of a 2kg bird. But shortly after that he mentioned that redundant systems on smaller drones would greatly reduce the risk of accidents. Why not let manufacturers have that extra 1kg to develop onboard redundant systems or at least more intelligent systems. This would also alleviate the issue of more restrictive rules for average users, as the vast majority of recreational pilots fly devices under 2kg. With the Phantoms weighing in at 1.3kg, I would think this is something DJI should jump on.
  • ian over 1 year ago
    Technology is not the mandate or expertise of Transport Canada. TC should not try to regulate the manufacturing or development of it. Technology is a fast moving target and regulations will never keep up.
  • brett.tripp over 1 year ago
    Regulations need to allow for growth within the industry, not hinder it. Currently, the regulations associated with commercial operations in the forestry sector create extensive limitations to what can and cannot be conducted safely, therefore obstructing any sort of growth within the industry. Unless businesses own a compliant UAV (which is often completely unfeasible for small businesses based on the large price tag), current regulations do not allow for practical missions to be conducted in a cost effective manner. Regulations need to: a) Allow commercial industries, especially in the forestry sector, to fly at higher altitudes to allow for large scale projects to be conducted in a reasonable time frame, and for a sensible price. b) Account for a pilot's/operator's history of success and experience when granting SFOCs - understanding that individuals or businesses who have been safely operating in the industry for a number of years will have some additional understanding for the metrics associated with safe operations is crucial. Creating blanket regulations that encompasses both new and experienced groups only limits the amount of potential growth. c) Allow for drone manufacturers to create compliant drones at a reasonable price. Either that, or create broader regulations for what can be considered a compliant drone.
  • coastaldrone over 1 year ago
    Work with the manufacturers to make it easy to be compliant. Provide grants and incentives for manufacturers to make drones that can be safely used.
  • ypatel9 over 1 year ago
    The regulations should enforce all providers of drones to supply documents (or where to get documents) that outline all the rules to do with drones. This could be published by TC once final laws come into play. The organization MAAC is dominated by model aircraft flyers. I don't know why they were pushed as a priority when the interim laws were passed, but accessibility to their events and the fact that they are not a community of people that are familiar with multirotor drones questions the thought that they should be so heavily involved or mentioned when creating rules that impact the majority of multirotor drones.
  • W37 over 1 year ago
    The regulations could support the development of the drone industry in Canada by allowing a more lengthy phase-in period for the mandated use of expensive Compliant Unmanned Aircraft Systems in complex operations by commercial operators. Additionally, benefits would be gained by eliminating the restrictive claw-back of operating conditions during the proposed equipment phase-in period. This claw-back allows operators to use existing equipment for a specified time period, but will prevent many experienced and safe commercial operators from doing the type of complex work they have been doing under SFOCs up to now. Numerous small and medium commercial operators with a demonstrated history of safe and responsible flight operations (documented through the SFOC applications process), as well as substantial investments in equipment, will be disadvantaged in favour of larger entities with more capital by this proposed regulatory framework. In essence, a rapid move towards the required use of Compliant Unmanned Aircraft without a broader accommodation for existing stakeholders will cause small and medium-sized businesses in this sector to fail or drop out of the market due to high costs. It is difficult to grasp why so many professional and trained operators with documented histories of safe flight operations would be penalized in this way. A longer phase-in period for the mandated use of Compliant Unmanned Aircraft Systems, and no claw-back of the specific and general operating conditions normally accorded to complex and standing SFOC holders would mitigate this problem. This more gradual and accommodating phase-in process will allow small and medium-sized commercial operators to more effectively handle the additional costs associated with buying and operating Compliant Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
  • LucasM over 1 year ago
    The regulations as proposed by TC will if anything serve as a deterrent for the growth of a fledgling new technology. All this extra regulation will turn away the hobby market because it will become too difficult or expensive to enjoy a safe and unique hobby. People in Toronto are already at a loss as to where they will be able to fly and that won't be good for drone sales.If you want to foster this industry, keep your rules in line with the current level of danger. We all already know we are not supposed to fly near airports, increasing fines and tariffs are only going to hurt those of us who already follow the rules.
  • Okanaganacro over 1 year ago
    Regulations do not support the development of the drone industry in any way. The only thing these regulations support is turning safe and respectable hobbyists into criminals. Regulations do nothing but slow technological advance and cost us the taxpayer even more money. Regulating an already safe hobby is a horrible waste of hard earned tax dollars. Put the money used on enforcing these laws into something that actually requires attention such as health care. And we as the hobbyists will keep buying products and giving the government 13% of our hobby purchases. You're aL ready ma king money off of us. Stop reaching deeper into our pockets.
  • captaindrone798 over 1 year ago
    Regulations should never restrict the drone industry. Currently they are far too restrictive for innovation in Canada. Drones can be used for farming/crops, search and rescue, saving lives, delivery to remote locations, amazing photography and filming. Someone in Transport Canada decided to focus on the glass half empty which may be the 1% of uneducated drone users thus reducing innovation and turning everyday law abiding citizens into criminals just for the sake of enjoying a hobby. Transport Canada needs to pursue education for new drone/RC users and not spread wide general regulations that impede innovation