• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

New "Drone" Regulations in Canada

jross

Well-known member
#1
What do all you Canadian flyers think of the new drone regulations in Canada? Looks like we have 6 months to get a drone pilot certificate, if I understand correctly. This means you need to complete some kind of online ground school. We then need to register each "drone" at 5 bucks a crack. Seems a bit nuts for guys with full hangars. The whole things seems a bit bizarre. Need to read some more.

New Rules: https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation/drone-safety/flying-drone-safely-legally.html
 

evranch

Active member
#2
Pure idiocy. I'm glad I live in the middle of nowhere and can continue to fly as I please.

I'll probably do their stupid test and register my Maja just because it is a true UAV and I fly autopiloted missions on it. If I did have a flyaway it would probably be best to have a registration number on it.

They are classifying any "remote piloted aircraft system" as a "drone". The word "drone" has certain implications to me, i.e. it has a flight controller and can be flown without the constant attention of a skilled pilot. Thanks a lot to kids with crappy quads for ruining the skies for everyone!

The dumbest part is that flying within 100' of people is classified as an "advanced operation" and not only requires an advanced license, but a certified aircraft from a specific manufacturer. Seems like an attempt at regulatory capture of the industry to me.

I'm not sure who is going to stand up for RC hobbyists though since we are a small market. Foamboard planes in particular are cheap fun, so I don't see any industry caring about us at all.
 

ElectriSean

Eternal Student
Mentor
#3
As expected, beyond ridiculous. UK prepare yourselves... At least MAAC members will be exempt at their own fields. Rogue drone operator here I guess, unless I can convince a club of grumpy old men to expand and bless us with some room. Ummm Hmmm.
 

evranch

Active member
#4
I'm reading this document now: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2019/2019-01-09/html/sor-dors11-eng.html which outlines the actual regulation changes. Some are truly impractical:

901.48 (1) Every owner of a remotely piloted aircraft system shall keep the following records:

  • (a) a record containing the names of the pilots and other crew members who are involved in each flight and, in respect of the system, the time of each flight or series of flights; and
  • (b) a record containing the particulars of any mandatory action and any other maintenance action, modification or repair performed on the system, including
    • (i) the names of the persons who performed them,
    • (ii) the dates they were undertaken,
    • (iii) in the case of a modification, the manufacturer, model and a description of the part or equipment installed to modify the system, and
    • (iv) if applicable, any instructions provided to complete the work.
Definitely going to do that if I can log my hours towards my PPL. Otherwise... how about no. And how about this one?

901.49 (1) A pilot that operates a remotely piloted aircraft system shall immediately cease operations if any of the following incidents or accidents occurs until such time as an analysis is undertaken as to the cause of the occurrence and corrective actions have been taken to mitigate the risk of recurrence:
  • (a) injuries to any person requiring medical attention;
  • (b) unintended contact between the aircraft and persons;
  • (c) unanticipated damage incurred to the airframe, control station, payload or command and control links that adversely affects the performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft;
  • (d) any time the aircraft is not kept within horizontal boundaries or altitude limits;
  • (e) any collision with or risk of collision with another aircraft;
  • (f) any time the aircraft becomes uncontrollable, experiences a fly-away or is missing; and
  • (g) any incident not referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f) for which a police report has been filed or for which a Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Report has resulted.
Bounced your plane off the ground flying inverted? Time for an analysis and corrective actions.

Maybe just register a single airframe as "foamboard plane: homebuilt" and slap the same number on everything.
 

Headbang

Well-known member
#6
As expected, beyond ridiculous. UK prepare yourselves... At least MAAC members will be exempt at their own fields. Rogue drone operator here I guess, unless I can convince a club of grumpy old men to expand and bless us with some room. Ummm Hmmm.
I'm not grumpy or old!

But yes this all a huge pita for me, I use multirotors in a commercial environment to save humans from dangerous situations when possible. As it stands I have a lot of paper work with special flight certs. This just adds to complexity.

From a hobby front. I sometimes like to use multirotors on my own property, so will have to comply. But the real kicker is, do I want to register my mig 3, or my long ez, and can I if I wanted too? I always have a plane in the jeep, and it's a jeep, so I end up in interesting places up on top of highish hills with beautiful back drops. I either own the land, or have permission to fly. But I don't have a run way, and ft planes are perfect. New regs stop that dead.

So why is this the case.... over Christmas I read this post in the local town "talks" face book page. This crap is why the regs have tightened.

IMG_2060.jpg

So that there is up to a $3000 fine with current regs, not to mention the stuff involved if it came down on a car, or damaged property.

Others doing stupid things ruins it for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:

jamboree1

Active member
#8
In the states most of us just ignored it. The local police have no way to enforce an FAA law. Where i live the local police stop by to watch us fly.
 

evranch

Active member
#9
I was working in the shop and listening to the radio, and the local news reported on the rule change yesterday. They asked one of the old grumpy guys from a local RC club to make a statement.

He made the exact opposite statement that he should have - basically that drones are junk for kids and that people misuse them, and that the rules shouldn't really affect the "real" RC community. He failed to realize that Transport Canada removed the definition of "Remote Control Aircraft" and replaced it with "RPAS" which includes both fixed and rotary wing aircraft. Thanks a lot pal!
 

jross

Well-known member
#10
Last edited:

Merv

Well-known member
#11
And I thought the US was way over regulated.
What happened to all the people who promised to immigrate to Canada after the last election?
 

jross

Well-known member
#13
And I thought the US was way over regulated.
What happened to all the people who promised to immigrate to Canada after the last election?
That sentiment actually tightened up our border. A buddy has an American girlfriend. They won't let her across the border for fear she'll live and work here. No criminal record. A good job in the States. Last time she was coming for a vacation to do a trip through the Rockies. I was really surprised. She's flagged now and will forever have trouble at the Canadian border. My buddy travels south no problem.
 

jross

Well-known member
#16
Living Creatures
901.22
No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft that transports or carries on board a living creature.

This one really bothers me. I've been working on an alternate power system for RC planes. I have 1H, 2H and 3H figured out. The part that had me stumped was how to add more than 3 hamster wheels to a flying plane. And then there's feed and water for the hamsters. Don't want PETA after me. Another green project killed by government.

Still legal in the States though. Would make a great FT video.
 
Last edited:
#18
Laughing out loud about poor Andrew Bailey of Beaumont. I think I would prefer to eat the cost of that copter before admitting to the neighbors what a knucklehead I am! Note to self: Don't be an Andrew Bailey.