Recreational drone now illegal in most of Canada...

It just sounds and feels very defeatist and complacent to accept this. The more we accept, the more we're expected too. Like I said earlier, it's about far more than flying our little plastic toys.
 
I too plan on writing a letter to Mr. Garneau, who to me incidentally, has dropped a few pegs as a national hero.

It may take a few days as I'm busy, but I plan to include things like (in no particular order):
- wrt to the threat to planes; planes take off with the continuing and active threat of birds which can have significantly more mass and be greater in number and be less predictable
- wrt to range from people; cars always have and always will continue to be a bigger threat and share roadways and adjacent sidewalks and do not maintain 75m buffers
- motorcycles and tractor trailers share lanes and roads; risk is inherent and we accept it as normal and routine
- wrt to crashing over crowds, thousands of planes fly over cities 24/7 and it takes just as much a mechanical failure or pilot error to bring them down as a drone but the effect is far more catastrophic with one over the other
- wrt flying over sparse people, if a drone fails or pilot errs over few individuals, in order for there to be any injury it would need to be nearly a pinpoint impact with a person on the ground. We routinely accept far greater risk, as did Mr. Garneau when he went to space.

Had restrictions stifled space exploration the way this restriction will stifle UAS development, he never would have gone.

I make these point here, now, to help anyone else who may wish to contact Mr. Garneau, before and while I compose my letter.

Hi JW -- thanks for sharing your preliminary thoughts. Maybe they will help a few more of us overcome inertia and weigh-in on this issue. I've been rolling these issues around in my mind for the last few days as well.

I'm planning to reach out to Garneau's office myself, but I think our letters will be more persuasive if we avoid trying to compare hobby drone safety to the country's transportation infrastructure. I think it's weak to compare drone rules to, eg., motor vehicle regulation. Motor vehicles are essential. Hobby drones aren't. Makes it too easy for Transport Canada's policy analysts to ignore our input.

You're right that cars cause injury and death. I'm sure if we could ban cars we would. We can't practically ban cars, but we can ban hobby drones with very little impact on society. Similarly when it comes to plane safety we can't control birds, but we can, at least, attempt to reduce the risk of drones. Either way the plane's taking off. Some risks are hard to mitigate, but (unfortunately for us) the perceived risks of hobby drones are not among them.

We're also not likely to convince anyone there should be no rules. Nor will we come to a consensus among ourselves on what the perfect rules would contain.

But it's fair to say the rules as drafted are (imo) significantly over-broad. That's the point Jim Ewing from Great Hobbies makes very well in his letter. If we just rant we'll be ignored. But if we point out that the altitude, lateral distance and aerodrome perimeter limits, for instance, are excessive and impractical, and explain why, then maybe we can get them improved. But we'll need to convince Transport Canada there's practically no risk to changing the rules. Simply telling them they've overestimated the risk isn't, I don't think, going to get us very far.
 
Last edited:
Hi JW -- thanks for sharing your preliminary thoughts. Maybe they will help a few more of us overcome inertia and weigh-in on this issue. I've been rolling these issues around in my mind for the last few days as well.

I'm planning to reach out to Garneau's office myself, but I think our letters will be more persuasive if we avoid trying to compare hobby drone safety to the country's transportation infrastructure. I think it's weak to compare drone rules to, eg., motor vehicle regulation. Motor vehicles are essential. Hobby drones aren't. Makes it too easy for Transport Canada's policy analysts to ignore our input.

You're right that cars cause injury and death. I'm sure if we could ban cars we would. We can't practically ban cars, but we can ban hobby drones with very little impact on society. Similarly when it comes to plane safety we can't control birds, but we can, at least, attempt to reduce the risk of drones. Either way the plane's taking off. Some risks are hard to mitigate, but (unfortunately for us) the perceived risks of hobby drones are not among them.

We're also not likely to convince anyone there should be no rules. Nor will we come to a consensus among ourselves on what the perfect rules would contain.

But it's fair to say the rules as drafted are (imo) significantly over-broad. That's the point Jim Ewing from Great Hobbies makes very well in his letter. If we just rant we'll be ignored. But if we point out that the altitude, lateral distance and aerodrome perimeter limits, for instance, are excessive and impractical, and explain why, then maybe we can get them improved. But we'll need to convince Transport Canada there's practically no risk to changing the rules. Simply telling them they've overestimated the risk isn't, I don't think, going to get us very far.

I absolutely agree.

Any letter has to be factual, objective and realistic if it's to be given credence. While there are comparisons that can be made, it's crucial to keep them relevant and only as substantiated as need be to make a point.

My suggestions for topics are far from refined, but much like you mentioned, I also need to overcome my own inertia, so by dropping "broad strokes", and with motivating replies such as yours, I'll get there faster.

I've thought of a dozen more points; it's choosing the best to keep a letter concise, and getting them formatted that's laboursome.

For example, everything is relative; cars weren't not essential at one point. Nor were planes, computers or space travel, which Mr. Garneau should be able to relate to.

But the point to be made here is NOT that we should expect that drones may become essential, or that they should even be equally categorized with the above, but rather that the mass use of ANY innovation breeds further innovation and the refinement of it, and only then will we realize it's full potential.

And until that point comes, while rules are important, they shouldn't be so stifling as to virtually eliminate their casual use, which is close to what these restrictions do.
 
Last edited:
I tend to look "bigger picture" with a lot of this stuff, and I think that planting that very seed with Mr. Garneau may provoke attention as well.

For example, what do these things use, and use a LOT of?

Batteries: their widespread use may very well accelerate the development, use and refinement of LiPo batteries by years, for any number of uses, be it cars to help reduce emissions, or lifesaving equipment in the medical field.

Wireless signals: widespread use may significantly contribute to enhanced wireless signal systems, whether that be wifi, Lightbridge or an as-yet untapped potential.

Autonomous flight: of the people on this forum, who seem to average in age on the mature side of the spectrum, I'd suggest that most would never have thought autonomous cars would be a reality in their lifetime. These devices may very well be a precursor to the personal transportation of tomorrow.

GPS: again, widespread use of a GPS reliant device may be a significant contributor to other uses of the signals that didn't exist such a short time ago.

Just saying. There are a lot of things that such a restrictive impact can have; and not because they are trying to take away our toys, but because these toys are highly innovative and stifling their use can significantly impact other innovations derived from their use.
 
Thank you very much. That makes me feel a little better anyway. I just hope we can get more of these restrictions relaxed somewhat so that it makes it possible to fly our quad copters without a great deal of worry.

Bud


Yep the way it reads is any one who is involved with the flying of the drone is allowed to be present,call him a spotter if nothing else
 
Frankly these new rules are absurd. I will continue to fly my drone where I please, applying logic and common sense and making sure that I stay away from airports and large crowds.
 
Frankly these new rules are absurd. I will continue to fly my drone where I please, applying logic and common sense and making sure that I stay away from airports and large crowds.

...until someone feels empowered to call 911 as they are now being encouraged to do. Because, of course, someone flying a drone responsibly and with common sense is clearly an imminent threat that needs to be stopped.

Absurd doesn't even cover it.
 
Wouldn't drone racing be sanctioned by MAAC and in a field somewhere that meets the 75 meter distance rules? spectators can be placed away from the action and everyone else is "part of the staff"

I would think they'd have it covered better than we individual drone flyers, don't you?

Bud


And to say nothing of drone racing,,that's would be history now...at least 3 regs broken doing that..DUMB.!
 
...until someone feels empowered to call 911 as they are now being encouraged to do. Because, of course, someone flying a drone responsibly and with common sense is clearly an imminent threat that needs to be stopped.

Absurd doesn't even cover it.


Let them, let them come, I really don't care at this point. By the time the cops actually show up, if they show up, I'll be gone. I doubt the local police will be rushing out to capture someone flying a drone.

Better yet, before I fly, maybe I'll call my local police because I think I saw a drone flying 5km down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nathan Osman
Although I am not happy with the new regs,,I DO have a problem with putting my personal information on my craft. I already have my FAA numbers on it.. I registered so I could fly in the US. Next we will need to put personal information on our cars in case we do something illegal??
 
Although I am not happy with the new regs,,I DO have a problem with putting my personal information on my craft. I already have my FAA numbers on it.. I registered so I could fly in the US. Next we will need to put personal information on our cars in case we do something illegal??

What's funny is I put mine on in case I lost it. Now I want to take it back off.
 
First guns, now drones. Where will it end? Thank the leftists that YOU elected.
Well, M1, in the US, it's the shooters that are blowing drones out of the sky, freaked out about government surveillance or just freaked out about everything. As a liberal, and a gun owner, and a drone pilot, I'm much less concerned about liberals than god forbid I should fly my drone over a fellow gun owners property.
 
Maybe DJI would send a P3S to the honorable Minister of Transportation, Marc Garneau, so that he could actually see how much fun we have with ours - oh hold it.... he would have to actually find a place to fly first, away from people, airports, helipads, buildings.... ;)o_O

I spent 30 minutes driving outside of Edmonton to fly yesterday - and even then I had a really tough time finding a suitable spot that had some things that might be worth taking pictures / videos of.

 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,090
Messages
1,467,569
Members
104,974
Latest member
shimuafeni fredrik