Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Canadian Rules UAV Operations

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by NorthernObserver, Jan 3, 2015.

  1. NorthernObserver

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    6
  2. macheung

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    4
    More importantly, this exception is pretty much useless as one cannot fly within 5 miles of a built up area, which is pretty much anywhere there is more than a couple of houses.

    The pilot operating under this exemption shall only operate a UAV at least five (5) nautical miles from a built up area.
     
  3. Khudson7

    Khudson7 Guest

    +1
    Yes, they added "built up area" in at the last minute,which means only farmland forest wilderness where there is no other house within 5 miles...good luck finding someplace up here where there is not another house, town or village within 5 miles. Anything closer, and you would need an SFOC. The kicker here is each regional office seems to interpret the law differently. For instance Quebec seems to be the most strict,approving very few SFOC's, whereas, those living in Ontario seem to get SFOC's approved easier. And a company in Ontario or B.C. can get an approved SFOC for work in Quebec when a company in Quebec can not get the same one approved here. The Quebec office has even been quoted as saying that if a recreational flyer puts a YouTube video up, and gets a "like"...they consider that a form of compensation and they can fine you for it as they now consider that...commercial. Yikes!

    The transport Canada is Federal, so their law and rules should be the same throughout, but the 5 regional offices seem to make there own interpretation and enforce them differently.
     
  4. Shuether

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Middle Alberta, Canada
  5. Hughie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    141
    Location:
    Leeds, United Kingdom
    The FPV restriction is a shame - but I kind of get it if they are hellbent on maintaining LOS. It is very easy to lose or not bother with LOS if you have FPV. And how many youtube videos are there showing long distance or high altitude flying. Some of these have goggled pilots accompanied by 'competant spotters' Not much point being a spotter if the craft is 2Km away. Not sure what the answer is really.

    The 5 NM rule only applies to built up areas, so my interpretation is that it does not mean you cannot fly within 5 NM of a house. It probably means you cant fly within 5NM of a city/town/village - which still seems a really Draconion and excessive rule to me. I think the UK rule regarding this is bit more reasonable (regarding SUSA craft), in that you are prevented from flying *over* or within 150 metres of a congested area. There is no such restriction if the craft does not have a camera fitted. 5NM is crackers though.
     
  6. macheung

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    4
    I am nota lawyer, but I am not sure that the not using a fpv device means that you cannot have any fpv or just not use it exclusively? How can one actually take a good picture if they cannot use any fpv device like a monitor to frame the picture?
     
  7. russianfront

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2014
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I'm in Vancouver and my company bought a Phantom to evaluate properties. Just got word today that the $1200/yr. insurance policy ($2m in coverage for property damage and liability) will only be valid if I am flying with a SFOC in hand at the time of the incident. Going to try to navigate through the loopholes and get one. I almost guarantee you its a total beaurocratic spin cycle full of faceless zombie like government robots. What a pain in the ***.
     
  8. macheung

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    4
    I've just sent them this question in email, not hopeful in getting a reply anytime soon...

    Transport Canada,

    I am Canadian private pilot and a model aircraft enthusiast. I would like to inquire about the interpretations and intent behind specific clauses in the exemption of small (<2kg) UAV from sections 602.41 and 603.66 of the CARs.
    http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... n/2880.htm

    I believe the intention of this is to allow small UAV to operate within Canada safetly and encourage a wave of technological and business development for Canadians and associated companies. For one, I do appreciate the need for clear and reasonable rules so all Canadians can share our airspace resource safely and productively. However, upon reading the exemptions in detail, there are two clauses that would make this exemption difficult to apply and drastically decrease the practical value if the intent is indeed as I had expected. While I understand that these restrictions doesn't apply to my recreational use of RC fixedwing/rotorcrafts, through I am concerned about some specific clauses as stated the purpose...

    16. The pilot operating under this exemption shall not use a first person view device.
    26. The pilot operating under this exemption shall only operate a UAV at least five (5) nautical miles from a built up area.

    As defined on the page, the first person view (FPV) device include a monitor that projects a view from the UAV. So does #16 prohibit any a pilot from using FPV even if he/she is using it frame a picture/video rather than as a primary means of navigation? If that is the case, then this restriction is prohibitive and would prevent the most common non-recreational use of UAV which is photo or video taking as it is nearly impossible to take a picture/video without the ability to see what the camera is pointing at. I can see that a commercial UAV pilot should be restricted from relying on FPV for navigation (as through a video goggles), but there is not need for the sake of safety to prevent the use of any FPV device.

    The restriction 26 on being 5 miles from a built up area appears overly broad. Depending on the definition of a built up area, it would almost all locations where Canadians live, including all urban/suburban parks, many farms, and waterfronts. Does that mean one can only use this exemption in remote locations and must seek a specific SFOC for any other locations even for a small UAV that is <2kg? Would this prevent a person from using a UAV to take a picture of their suburban home / cottage to post on a for-sale ad, as their home is almost surely located in a built up area?

    I appreciate the original intent of these exemptions as it has the opportunity to open up Canada for research, investment and innovations, but am concerned that the above 2 restrictions would totally nullify the intent and make these exemptions useless in practice. There appears no need for such restrictive rules especially for UAV that are so small. I hope my someone can help me clarify the interpretations of these rules.
     
  9. Chriserl

    Joined:
    May 25, 2014
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Subbed interesting topic
     
  10. Shuether

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Middle Alberta, Canada
    Found a blog that goes through the process. Worth a read. http://blog.flitelab.com/

    Starting with the Part 1 post, seems a most of this doesn't apply if using for recreation use.
     
  11. Khudson7

    Khudson7 Guest

    Yes that blog is a good read, along with some of the comments, especially the post about the fine given here in quebec. But I agree that it appears the intent is for SFOC's for commercial use only.