I owned a P3S for a year and used it to capture photos of buildings and skylines in my city as a hobby while respecting TC's "guidelines". I made the jump to obtaining a P4 just recently in January and it saddens me that I have to sell it now because of the fear that someone will file a complaint. Mr. Garneau seriously threw this out the window.
Recreational drone now illegal in most of Canada...
- Thread starter isopro
- Start date
Or animal.
Imagine the death and dismemberment we could cause to the rodent community.
Sadly, admittedly, this may be the most true sentence of all.
Although I can NOT let this rest without having made an effort, however anti-Canadian taking a stand might be!
True, but you are doing your best to comply. Maybe ask them to give you some room to land if you can't move farther away from them. I think most times one could move 75 m to get far enough away and comply? I would like to think a RCMP officier would agree
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your completely. I think a lot of people will still be curious, enjoy watching and asking questions, and may very well become interested in the hobby if interaction is handled properly.
The problem is that the law is the law; you never know who you are speaking to, or who is walking up to you. The law should be clear, concise and fair... and the unclear and vague way this has been tabled is not only confusing and unrealistic, but sets a dangerous precedent for worse to come.
I see where you are coming from. I am very concerned with what will come down the tubes in June. Liscensing recreational ?
Maybe, but I'd even be ok with that, as long as the rules are realistic. Licensing may help keep some of the "less disciplined" from sabotaging the hobby with irresponsible flight.
The rules were fine last week... I think one consistent set of rules for North America makes the most sense, especially considering that if protecting commercial aviation is the goal, commercial aviation generally follows a set of international guidelines.
The rules were fine last week... I think one consistent set of rules for North America makes the most sense, especially considering that if protecting commercial aviation is the goal, commercial aviation generally follows a set of international guidelines.
It's funny because I'm trying to look at it the other way around... and if I happened upon a guy flying and he asked me to move 246' feet away so he could land safely, I'd think that was the most ridiculous rule I'd ever heard.
There is a push back against legislation being introduced in Richmond, California requiring a 25' clearance and we are talking about 246'? Still can't make sense of that.
Would be nice if lawmakers actually had to fly these things before they dream up laws against them. Some of what they come up with is absurd, imho.
I believe Yuneec has some 25' foot radius from the operator for teak-off landing, but their maximum distance is 300 or 400 feet in their software. So with Canada's ridiculous law of 246' take-off or landing, you'd be confined within some tight (~150') doughnut to fly within.
Lawmakers really do need to stop writing inane, dare I say knee-jerk, laws for their gold stars.
I believe Yuneec has some 25' foot radius from the operator for teak-off landing, but their maximum distance is 300 or 400 feet in their software. So with Canada's ridiculous law of 246' take-off or landing, you'd be confined within some tight (~150') doughnut to fly within.
Lawmakers really do need to stop writing inane, dare I say knee-jerk, laws for their gold stars.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 10
- Age
- 68
So on Sunday I was out at the r/c club field. This is reckless flying caught on camera. Take a look.... https://vimeo.com/209336381
The aircraft is a Piper Comanche
The aircraft is a Piper Comanche
Last edited:
You just said the key word. "Lawmakers"...
What we are dealing with right now is a stop-gap measure imposed by the Transport Minister "within his power".
I think the best we can hope for is that it never becomes "law" as written, and we need to provide as much cognitive, reasonable feedback as we can to make sure it doesn't.
Opinion piece on new drone rules.
OPINION: Rules create big no-fly zones for recreational drone users
OPINION: Rules create big no-fly zones for recreational drone users
Seems reasonable if you are only flying recreational, think of te damage one of these suckers could do to a light plane head on!
But does it make sense to ban an entire technology, a class of hobby, ban everyone in a country from using it, when you consider the odds of a light plane and a drone colliding head on?
As earlier mentioned, in the 3 year period between 2011-14, there were 65,000 aircraft/bird strikes, and ZERO drone strikes.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 10
- Age
- 68
And I expect when the pilot in the video above has his collision, he will blame the model aircraft flying legally at the r/c field 200 meters away.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2017
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 42
Next to none actually...
A quick google search says there are tests planned, and simulations of damage, but nothing has been documented that I was able to find.
Similar threads
