- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 126
- Age
- 63
DJI build drones they don't make laws. Do Ferrari complain about speed limit laws in Canada when in Europe you can drive at 350kmh
Recreational drone now illegal in most of Canada...
- Thread starter isopro
- Start date
Great. Perfect timing, and just what we need. Close call with drone for Air Canada jet landing in Saskatoon
Even better... this is, literally, over my back yard.
And no, it wasn't me.
This isn't going to be good... this is Ottawa, home of our revered Transport Minister.
And no, it wasn't me.
This isn't going to be good... this is Ottawa, home of our revered Transport Minister.
I can't understand for the life of me why anyone is still flying anywhere near an airport, this is literally the worst rule to break as it puts lives at risk and makes the news every time.
These incidents draw to much negative attention to all drone pilots.
It's hard for me to believe that some brick head is this ignorant of the drones vs aircraft issue. There are so many apps that show the airports radius to avoid. They need to get on with basic knowledge tests and registration so informed conscientious pilots can continue to fly safe and enjoy this "craft"
These incidents draw to much negative attention to all drone pilots.
It's hard for me to believe that some brick head is this ignorant of the drones vs aircraft issue. There are so many apps that show the airports radius to avoid. They need to get on with basic knowledge tests and registration so informed conscientious pilots can continue to fly safe and enjoy this "craft"
I can't understand for the life of me why anyone is still flying anywhere near an airport, this is literally the worst rule to break as it puts lives at risk and makes the news every time.
These incidents draw to much negative attention to all drone pilots.
It's hard for me to believe that some brick head is this ignorant of the drones vs aircraft issue. There are so many apps that show the airports radius to avoid. They need to get on with basic knowledge tests and registration so informed conscientious pilots can continue to fly safe and enjoy this "craft"
100% agreed.
This is the first, easiest and most public way to generate negative attention, and have it be not only the most reported, but most supportive of new and even more strict regulations.
But the saddest part is new regulations aren't at all likely to stop this type of ignorant, oblivious behaviour.
Have to wonder how reports like this from pilots are corroborated, if at all. Hard to discern a drone from a seagull at 500kmh. The news reports are not offering any additional detail, other than the pilot saw a drone.
At 7kms out, wouldn't the plane still have been at over 1,000m altitude?
I don't mean to doubt this pilot or minimize the risk, but it's feeling a bit like drone hysteria right now.
At 7kms out, wouldn't the plane still have been at over 1,000m altitude?
I don't mean to doubt this pilot or minimize the risk, but it's feeling a bit like drone hysteria right now.
Relative to your opinion, here is a quote from a link in one of the above articles related to another near miss:
"Police said the Air 1 helicopter pilot was flying southeast 457 meters in the air at about 180 km/h when he saw what looked like a white quadcopter-style drone with red lights.
“The Tactical Flight Officer was focused on a monitor in the cockpit yet still observed the drone in his peripheral vision which speaks to how close the UAV passed to the helicopter.”"
So he admittedly didn't even actually LOOK at the object, but was able to state it was a white quad copter style drone with red lights?
And if that "speaks to how close it was", imagine the blur it must have been at 180kmh.
I'm surprised his peripheral vision wasn't clear enough to make out the name, address and phone number printed on the side too.
I mean no disrespect and on the contrary, actually have the utmost respect for pilots and their profession. But without a requirement to verify sightings, they are free to categorize any airborne object as a drone, and the "sighting" above would never be admissible.
It could have been a bird such as Canadian goose with red lights from a tower or building in same line of site for all anyone knows.
In reference to the Barrhaven Incident:
As a private pilot, with most of my flying done in the maritimes and the Ottawa Region, I have always had up to date copy the local VFR charts for Montreal and Moncton Regions. These charts show the location and runway orientation of all airports as well as the limits of their respect control zones. Most larger airports also have ILS approach plates, which give the altitudes, direction and ground path of aircraft using runway ILS services, and are often used in VFR conditions as well. When I fly my P4, I never fly inside a airport control zone and totally avoid the path of runway approach headings by at least 5 nm from the runway threshold. I also find the DJI NFZ data to be good, but, too general.
ILS - Instrument Landing Service
IFR - Instrument Flying Rules
VFR - Visual Flying Rules
VFR charts are available on line from Transport Canada, e.g.
AIR5003 MONCTON VNC $16.50
AIR5002 MONTREAL VNC $16.50
familiarity with these charts/rules would go a long way to relieve concerns of both aircraft and drone pilots.
As a private pilot, with most of my flying done in the maritimes and the Ottawa Region, I have always had up to date copy the local VFR charts for Montreal and Moncton Regions. These charts show the location and runway orientation of all airports as well as the limits of their respect control zones. Most larger airports also have ILS approach plates, which give the altitudes, direction and ground path of aircraft using runway ILS services, and are often used in VFR conditions as well. When I fly my P4, I never fly inside a airport control zone and totally avoid the path of runway approach headings by at least 5 nm from the runway threshold. I also find the DJI NFZ data to be good, but, too general.
ILS - Instrument Landing Service
IFR - Instrument Flying Rules
VFR - Visual Flying Rules
VFR charts are available on line from Transport Canada, e.g.
AIR5003 MONCTON VNC $16.50
AIR5002 MONTREAL VNC $16.50
familiarity with these charts/rules would go a long way to relieve concerns of both aircraft and drone pilots.
Last edited:
21 days at least for SFOC and only good for one flight , then another 21 days , rinse and repeat
And don't forget if you decide to get certified commercial you are unable to fly recreationally. So that means filling a flight plan and submitting it to transport Canada 10 days before your flight date. Totally unrealistic The weather can turn to sh**** and no flight
I like the NRC's website for airport zones in Canada:
UAV Site Selection Tool - National Research Council Canada
This guy says it all. Exactly. no thought or common sense put into the interim regs. Just a knee jerk reaction
I just finished writing a letter to our Transport Minister. Will be on it's way to him come Monday when the mail goes out. Here it is for the interested (I also prepared versions of this letter to my local MP and to J. Trudeau):
The Honourable Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Transport
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Minister:
I am a recreational drone pilot writing to express my concerns regarding the new drone regulations.
Let me first tell you a little about myself. I am a first-year university student studying physics and chemistry. For as long as I can remember, I have always been fascinated with aviation and rocketry (and space exploration). In 2010, I received my first model rocket as a gift. Seven years later, I have achieved my high-power rocketry certification levels 1 through 3 as a member of the Canadian Association of Rocketry. I became interested in drones and aerial photography about two years ago when, after saving up my summer earnings, and after doing extensive research, I purchased a DJI Phantom drone.
As I’m sure you are aware, drone technology has undergone staggering advancements in the last few years. Most modern drones now feature a direct live HD video feed; built in GPS with auto return to home; safe landing capabilities in the event of a loss of signal with the controller (or a low battery); and sensors for obstacle detection and avoidance. Today’s hobby drones are very safe and reliable.
By and large, the community of drone-flying enthusiasts is made up of people who take great care and pride to fly in a responsible fashion. Increased affordability and improved technology have led to a surge in the popularity of hobby drones. It makes sense then that regulations need to be in place to ensure that all operators have the knowledge and ability to operate a drone safely. I believe that the new rules recently announced are well-intentioned, but I also sincerely believe that they are unreasonably restrictive and harsh. They will have an unnecessarily strong and negative impact on those of us who were already operating in a safe and peaceful manner, but will do little to prevent those with a disregard for the rules from continuing to violate them.
My purpose in writing this letter is to help convince you that the new regulations are unfair to the large majority of hobbyists who use their drones in a safe and responsible fashion, and that it would therefore be reasonable to modify the rules so as to make them less restrictive. I am writing to you in the belief that we share a common passion for flight and exploration. For me, drones are a natural outlet for this passion. Many young people like myself, who enjoy flying drones, hope to pursue a career in aerospace or other similar disciplines. When I am out flying, the overwhelming reaction that my drone receives from curious passersby is positive, often with them commenting on how useful and cool a drone can be, and on all the potential it has to offer. Unfortunately, some individuals will continue to find ways to misuse drones, but the same can be said for most other things, too. It is unfair to effectively punish responsible hobbyists with severe regulations because of the potential actions of a few reckless individuals (who are likely to flaunt the rules, anyway).
With regards to specific aspects of the new regulations, the two most concerning aspects are probably as follows: no closer than 75 m (~250 feet) from buildings, vehicles, vessels, animals, people/crowds, and no closer than 9 km from the centre of any aerodrome (any airport, heliport, seaplane base, or anywhere that aircraft takeoff and land).
The 75 m distance rule makes perfect sense in some situations (such as flying near crowds), but is excessively restrictive in many others. For example, the rule seems to apply to private property. If a friend asks for some pictures of his property from above, can I no longer do so? Am I even able to conduct a quick test flight in my own backyard, hovering the drone a few feet above ground in order to make sure everything is in working order after installing new firmware updates? Realistically, there are many public and scenic locations where it would be quite safe to fly closer than 75 meters without posing a tangible risk to anyone or anything. Surely, common sense should prevail in these situations. The way the rules are now written, we are left with very few interesting places to use a drone—there is not much to photograph in an empty clearing in the middle of nowhere, but for most practical purposes that now seems to be the only place left to fly!
While the 9 km zone is understandable for areas near large airports, it seems unreasonable that it should apply to anywhere an aircraft may takeoff or land. For example, there are heliports all over— including on the roofs of many buildings. If we consider a radius of 9 km around every one of them, there is likely to be almost nowhere practical left to fly. It doesn’t seem reasonable that a helicopter would require 255 square kilometres of restricted air space to operate safely (and many heliports are used just a few times per year, if at all). Again, it is important to allow common sense to reign in these situations.
The 90 m (~300 foot) altitude restriction is somewhat conservative, especially considering the 9 km no-fly zone surrounding all airports, helipads, etc. In the United States (and most other countries) the altitude limit is set at 400 feet. I wonder why the altitude limit has been lowered in Canada. I am also somewhat perplexed by the 500 m operating distance restriction. Many drones have operating ranges of several kilometres before signal strength becomes a concern. While it is common sense to keep a drone within visual line-of-sight (especially while flying in a built up area), it is entirely possible to keep it within sight at a distance greater than 500 m. In less developed areas especially (free of people or buildings and overhead air traffic), I do not understand the rationale for this restriction as it is often easier and just as safe to fly by looking at the live video feed from the drone. Why not just simplify the rule to flying within visual line-of-sight?
Nearly every modern drone has bright LED lights for navigational purposes (to aid in distinguishing the front of the drone from the back) or as status indicators (e.g., for battery levels). These lights serve the dual purpose of making the drone very visible at night (in fact, I would argue that it’s easier to spot a drone in the sky at night than it is during the day). Given that a lot of drones are used for aerial photography, it is very limiting to only be permitted to fly in daylight hours when some of the best photos are taken at night using a long exposure. While the nighttime-flying ban makes perfect sense for drones that do not have lights on them, drones that have sufficient lighting should be exempt.
A licensing program (similar to what is already in place for motorized watercraft) would be a good and fair way to regulate drones. In such a program, anyone who wishes to fly a drone would be required to demonstrate sufficient skill and knowledge before being allowed to fly. Such an approach could greatly increase awareness of how to fly responsibly and safely without the need for overly restrictive regulations.
Thank you for your time. I very much hope that you will reconsider certain aspects of the new regulations to arrive at a better balance, ensuring safe and responsible drone usage, while still allowing enthusiasts the freedom to fly.
Yours sincerely,
[My name]
The Honourable Marc Garneau, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Transport
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Minister:
I am a recreational drone pilot writing to express my concerns regarding the new drone regulations.
Let me first tell you a little about myself. I am a first-year university student studying physics and chemistry. For as long as I can remember, I have always been fascinated with aviation and rocketry (and space exploration). In 2010, I received my first model rocket as a gift. Seven years later, I have achieved my high-power rocketry certification levels 1 through 3 as a member of the Canadian Association of Rocketry. I became interested in drones and aerial photography about two years ago when, after saving up my summer earnings, and after doing extensive research, I purchased a DJI Phantom drone.
As I’m sure you are aware, drone technology has undergone staggering advancements in the last few years. Most modern drones now feature a direct live HD video feed; built in GPS with auto return to home; safe landing capabilities in the event of a loss of signal with the controller (or a low battery); and sensors for obstacle detection and avoidance. Today’s hobby drones are very safe and reliable.
By and large, the community of drone-flying enthusiasts is made up of people who take great care and pride to fly in a responsible fashion. Increased affordability and improved technology have led to a surge in the popularity of hobby drones. It makes sense then that regulations need to be in place to ensure that all operators have the knowledge and ability to operate a drone safely. I believe that the new rules recently announced are well-intentioned, but I also sincerely believe that they are unreasonably restrictive and harsh. They will have an unnecessarily strong and negative impact on those of us who were already operating in a safe and peaceful manner, but will do little to prevent those with a disregard for the rules from continuing to violate them.
My purpose in writing this letter is to help convince you that the new regulations are unfair to the large majority of hobbyists who use their drones in a safe and responsible fashion, and that it would therefore be reasonable to modify the rules so as to make them less restrictive. I am writing to you in the belief that we share a common passion for flight and exploration. For me, drones are a natural outlet for this passion. Many young people like myself, who enjoy flying drones, hope to pursue a career in aerospace or other similar disciplines. When I am out flying, the overwhelming reaction that my drone receives from curious passersby is positive, often with them commenting on how useful and cool a drone can be, and on all the potential it has to offer. Unfortunately, some individuals will continue to find ways to misuse drones, but the same can be said for most other things, too. It is unfair to effectively punish responsible hobbyists with severe regulations because of the potential actions of a few reckless individuals (who are likely to flaunt the rules, anyway).
With regards to specific aspects of the new regulations, the two most concerning aspects are probably as follows: no closer than 75 m (~250 feet) from buildings, vehicles, vessels, animals, people/crowds, and no closer than 9 km from the centre of any aerodrome (any airport, heliport, seaplane base, or anywhere that aircraft takeoff and land).
The 75 m distance rule makes perfect sense in some situations (such as flying near crowds), but is excessively restrictive in many others. For example, the rule seems to apply to private property. If a friend asks for some pictures of his property from above, can I no longer do so? Am I even able to conduct a quick test flight in my own backyard, hovering the drone a few feet above ground in order to make sure everything is in working order after installing new firmware updates? Realistically, there are many public and scenic locations where it would be quite safe to fly closer than 75 meters without posing a tangible risk to anyone or anything. Surely, common sense should prevail in these situations. The way the rules are now written, we are left with very few interesting places to use a drone—there is not much to photograph in an empty clearing in the middle of nowhere, but for most practical purposes that now seems to be the only place left to fly!
While the 9 km zone is understandable for areas near large airports, it seems unreasonable that it should apply to anywhere an aircraft may takeoff or land. For example, there are heliports all over— including on the roofs of many buildings. If we consider a radius of 9 km around every one of them, there is likely to be almost nowhere practical left to fly. It doesn’t seem reasonable that a helicopter would require 255 square kilometres of restricted air space to operate safely (and many heliports are used just a few times per year, if at all). Again, it is important to allow common sense to reign in these situations.
The 90 m (~300 foot) altitude restriction is somewhat conservative, especially considering the 9 km no-fly zone surrounding all airports, helipads, etc. In the United States (and most other countries) the altitude limit is set at 400 feet. I wonder why the altitude limit has been lowered in Canada. I am also somewhat perplexed by the 500 m operating distance restriction. Many drones have operating ranges of several kilometres before signal strength becomes a concern. While it is common sense to keep a drone within visual line-of-sight (especially while flying in a built up area), it is entirely possible to keep it within sight at a distance greater than 500 m. In less developed areas especially (free of people or buildings and overhead air traffic), I do not understand the rationale for this restriction as it is often easier and just as safe to fly by looking at the live video feed from the drone. Why not just simplify the rule to flying within visual line-of-sight?
Nearly every modern drone has bright LED lights for navigational purposes (to aid in distinguishing the front of the drone from the back) or as status indicators (e.g., for battery levels). These lights serve the dual purpose of making the drone very visible at night (in fact, I would argue that it’s easier to spot a drone in the sky at night than it is during the day). Given that a lot of drones are used for aerial photography, it is very limiting to only be permitted to fly in daylight hours when some of the best photos are taken at night using a long exposure. While the nighttime-flying ban makes perfect sense for drones that do not have lights on them, drones that have sufficient lighting should be exempt.
A licensing program (similar to what is already in place for motorized watercraft) would be a good and fair way to regulate drones. In such a program, anyone who wishes to fly a drone would be required to demonstrate sufficient skill and knowledge before being allowed to fly. Such an approach could greatly increase awareness of how to fly responsibly and safely without the need for overly restrictive regulations.
Thank you for your time. I very much hope that you will reconsider certain aspects of the new regulations to arrive at a better balance, ensuring safe and responsible drone usage, while still allowing enthusiasts the freedom to fly.
Yours sincerely,
[My name]
Similar threads
