One drone is in custody and its owner out a playtoy after the small  aircraft was flown in the path of a STARS air ambulance in Red Deer.
  The incident took place on Wednesday morning as the medical helicopter was making an approach to the Red Deer hospital.
    "Police seized the foldable Mavic Pro drone as part of the  investigation into whether the drone was in violation of the Federal  Aeronautics Act," said RCMP in a news release.
  New rules for the operation of drones were passed on March 13, restricting the use of the ubiquitous flying machines in populated areas.
  Those who violate the new rules can face fines up to $3,000 for  recreational use. Commercial users face fines up to $15,000 under  prior regulations.
  RCMP said they continue to investigate the incident.


The hospital is located in a "built up area" where the new rules say you cannot fly.

Aye, fuel for the fire.

WTF hopefully that clown will be caught, I read more and more from others on this forum about restrictions been put on them, here's the reason why..

Yeah all for fines. Tracking no. The clown bureaucrats want to know everything. He should have flown it into a bathroom stall and got some good footage, what a waste!

let's not jump to conclusions and wait and see what actually happened.  Police are a inherently dishonest with their press releases.  According to the RCMP release it was "spotted flying near the flight path of a STARS Air Ambulance helicopter"  There's a big difference between "flown in the path" and "flying near the flight path".  "Near" means different things to different people.  These new "laws" are part of an interim order and not enshrined in the Federal Aeronautics Act.  Hopefully the pilot has the funds to challenge the order and seizure of his property.

RobSinfield Posted at 2017-3-30 11:17
let's not jump to conclusions and wait and see what actually happened.  Police are a inherently dishonest with their press releases.  According to the RCMP release it was "spotted flying near the flight path of a STARS Air Ambulance helicopter"  There's a big difference between "flown in the path" and "flying near the flight path".  "Near" means different things to different people.  These new "laws" are part of an interim order and not enshrined in the Federal Aeronautics Act.  Hopefully the pilot has the funds to challenge the order and seizure of his property.

I agree. I just watched a video showing a racing drone that had crashed a good 100 yrds or so from anyone and the woman steals the drone because it as she claims to the police on the phone crashed 4 feet from her and her dog. Said her life flashed before her eyes because it almost killed her. So yes "near" has many meanings.

How did police get the drone? Did they find the operator? Shoot it down? Did it land on the hospital?

This kind of stuff is going to happen now and then but it's not the end of the world. Close calls only count when your playing horse shoe of throwing hand grenades

RobSinfield Posted at 2017-3-30 11:17
let's not jump to conclusions and wait and see what actually happened.  Police are a inherently dishonest with their press releases.  According to the RCMP release it was "spotted flying near the flight path of a STARS Air Ambulance helicopter"  There's a big difference between "flown in the path" and "flying near the flight path".  "Near" means different things to different people.  These new "laws" are part of an interim order and not enshrined in the Federal Aeronautics Act.  Hopefully the pilot has the funds to challenge the order and seizure of his property.

Agreed.  Unfortunately I suspect if the 'TRUTH' be known, our RCMP purposefully sought out to find a drone in the air at the time of the STARS heli with the sole purpose to CREATE media attention and give credence to the recent interim regulation.  In other words, they staged this more or less.  Can it be proven?  Probably not unless our media is savy enough to uncover what appears obvious to many.

RCMP are now using the 'built-up area' clause to suit their needs.  It's happening people...just as my prior posts discussed this 'built up area' conspiracy .  FYI, they cannot use the 'built-up area' term in their investigation since the regulation that contains this wordage is not actively in force; only the interim ruling is...and it does not use this term.

Someone is gonna be in a heap of DOO-DOO

                                                                       {:4_110:}

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-30 13:15
Agreed.  Unfortunately I suspect if the 'TRUTH' be known, our RCMP purposefully sought out to find a drone in the air at the time of the STARS heli with the sole purpose to CREATE media attention and give credence to the recent interim regulation.  In other words, they staged this more or less.  Can it be proven?  Probably not unless our media is savy enough to uncover what appears obvious to many.

RCMP are now using the 'built-up area' clause to suit their needs.  It's happening people...just as my prior posts discussed this 'built up area' conspiracy .  FYI, they cannot use the 'built-up area' term in their investigation since the regulation that contains this wordage is not actively in force; only the interim ruling is...and it does not use this term.

What does "built-up area" even mean?

that's an interesting theory.  I wouldn't count on the media to report positively about drones.  

Unfortunately I think hobby drones larger than 250 grams are dead in Canada and there's no going back.   Nobody is on our side and there is not enough of us to force change.  Most people including the media have a negative opinion of drones and their operators.   Most comments on the CBC rules announcement article support an outright ban on drones with cameras.  This will have little to no impact on existing jobs.   Commercial drones flying under an SFOC are unaffected other than a lack authorization procedures for flying closer than 9km from the center of an aerodome.  

I don't think DJI's Node advocacy group will have any success.  Parliament isn't going to give two sh@ts what a chinese company thinks when they're not creating jobs in Canada.

It was fun while it lasted.

Hopefully, this owner was flying responsible and is not at fault.

he's screwed according to the new rules.   He needs to make a constitutional challenge or accept whatever punishment he receives.  This will be a civil matter since it doesn't sound like reckless endangerment, but you never know what fun and exciting superfluous charges the RCMP can come up with.

There's not even a sliver of land that you can legally operate a drone in Red Deer.
https://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/s ... selection_tool.html

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-30 13:15
Agreed.  Unfortunately I suspect if the 'TRUTH' be known, our RCMP purposefully sought out to find a drone in the air at the time of the STARS heli with the sole purpose to CREATE media attention and give credence to the recent interim regulation.  In other words, they staged this more or less.  Can it be proven?  Probably not unless our media is savy enough to uncover what appears obvious to many.

RCMP are now using the 'built-up area' clause to suit their needs.  It's happening people...just as my prior posts discussed this 'built up area' conspiracy .  FYI, they cannot use the 'built-up area' term in their investigation since the regulation that contains this wordage is not actively in force; only the interim ruling is...and it does not use this term.

I will add and/or emphasise a few important points on this issue:

It is my (educated) opinion that this investigation will lead to zero charges or fine.  I state this based only on a few facts, some that were reported.  Firstly, the Mavic was reported (by whom we don't know) to be "NEAR" the flight path.  Interestingly the official RCMP statement used the term 'near' not 'in'.  There were several Canadian media outlets that used the term 'IN' in their headlines.  Although 'near' or 'in' the flight path are each not stipulated in the regulation/order, "IN" connotes that the UAV was in violation of the airspace rules.  Also if the incident was REPORTED BY the STARS heli, this would highly indicate that the Mavic was likely to pose a threat to the heli.

Also very important to highlight is that according to the Canadian regulation it is not a violation in and of itself to fly a UAV less than 9km from an aerodrome.  TC has published an interpretation that details this.  You may fly within the 9km exclusion zone provided you aren't flying in a hazardous/careless manner that could affect air safety.  Very interesting.  I'll stress that this interpretation may only apply to the actual Regulations that are impending on us but may not apply to the short-term 'order'.     See how confusing it is   This interpretation is actually directed towards the not-yet enacted into law regulation, which incidentally uses the (most restrictive) clause 'must not be operated within 9km...'.  So the wording used in the "order" may be more restrictive than the actual future regulation but logic would say that both should have the same meaning.

In the news article, STARS spokesman indicated that "...the STARS air ambulance flight was not affected by the incident".  This implies/states to me that the drone incident did not pose a threat, therefore according to the TC's interpretation of the rules, since there was no threat and I assume was not being flown in a way that was hazardous to the heli, that the operator would not have been in violation of the TC order/regulation.  The incident does serve as a great example that it is best NOT to fly even near a heli, and the best way to avoid this is to stay the heck away (9km).

Holy carp! That's scary.

RobSinfield Posted at 2017-3-30 11:17
let's not jump to conclusions and wait and see what actually happened.  Police are a inherently dishonest with their press releases.  According to the RCMP release it was "spotted flying near the flight path of a STARS Air Ambulance helicopter"  There's a big difference between "flown in the path" and "flying near the flight path".  "Near" means different things to different people.  These new "laws" are part of an interim order and not enshrined in the Federal Aeronautics Act.  Hopefully the pilot has the funds to challenge the order and seizure of his property.

Good Post RobSinField

Ex Machina Posted at 2017-3-30 13:52
What does "built-up area" even mean?

From the SFOC exemption order it is defined as this;
Built-up area – means areas with groups of buildings or dwellings including anything from small hamlets to major cities. Anything larger than a farmstead is considered a built-up area.

( Pilots wishing to operate within a built-up area are required to apply for an SFOC. )

Basically if you want to continue to fly a UAV you must get insurance then apply for SFOCs.  By the way Transport Canada is being inundated with SFOC applications and have created a streamlined process.  If you are in Western Canada email PNRspecialflightops@tc.gc.ca  This address with respond with forms  that are to be filled in.  Just put "Request for info" in the email subject line.

As for Insurance I got mine from Hub International in Red Deer.  Email Brad > brad.borle@hubinternational.com
Liability only is very reasonable.

Ex Machina Posted at 2017-3-30 13:52
What does "built-up area" even mean?

Transport Canada did define 'Built-up area' as:

"Built-up area – means areas with groups of buildings or dwellings including anything from small hamlets to major cities. Anything larger than a farmstead is considered a built-up area.  "

So you can see why there is all the fuss about TC basically issuing an order that is impossible for UAV operators to even fly.  BUA is a term that has been very hard to define for many years in aviation and normally requires an 'interpretation' to understand; or even a commentary that is supplementary material to the text of regulation.


What TC does not divulge however is the CONTEXT in which this term even became included in aviation regulation and how it even made it's way into the regulatory framework for UAV/Drone regulations!!  This in my opinion is the biggest area of the UAV regulation that must be addressed and made RELEVANT to UAV operations.  I think people really need to understand this because if it is not addressed it is a major blunder in the development of UAV regulation IMO.

You see the term BUA was created to address LOW FLYING VIOLATIONS of aircraft (initially not drones/UAVs).  Pilots are required to avoid BUAs unless fllying at a minimum altitude (the flight deck) in case of an in-flight emergency requiring an emergency landing.  A min altitude over BUAs or avoiding altogether (if possible) is needed for a pilot to ditch his plane into an area that is away from the BUA.  If flying too low, a plane may not be afforded the time/distance to crash land and/or land away from the BUA.  The physics involved in risks associated with UAVs vs other aircraft is orders of magnitude different (and the science and probabilities wrt UAV and aircraft collisions is not determined).

BUAs and min flight altitudes and their reasons for existing as a restriction are entirely different for UAV/Drones than other aircraft.  Airplanes inherently need lots of height AND speed to negotiate an emergency maneuver such as an emergency landing.   UAVs like the Mavic are incredibly agile, can hover, low in speed, do not carry fuel, people etc and do not require the restrictions that planes do over BUAs.  

Also the restrictions around BUAs  built into the TC regulation (the order or the pending regulation) do not include any provision for 'take off and landings' for UAVs as they do for aviation regulatoin for which most of all the regulation is based!!  This is a huge point.  For UAVs, take off and landings can basically occur anywhere and the process of taking off/landings may be a repeated multiple times and in a short period of time making up most of the purpose of the flight itself; not so for other aircraft like planes.

IF TC does not allow for take off and landings of UAVs withing a BUA, then they are essentially killing the purpose / utility of what makes a UAV a UAV.  They might as well have a very simple and short UAV Regulation that goes something like "No UAV flight permitted within any City limit including a 9km radius around any aerodrome" . If this was TC's intention, they could easily say so with plain, clear, simple language.  The fact that they don't say this in simple terms is evidence that flight within a BUA is allowed but with reasonable restrictions that are understandable.  Essentially this issue is that our Regulation is being developed with only a history/understanding of the safety issues relative to airplane flight and several clauses are being developed without much care/attention to the very different nature of UAVs and the types of risks to people, other aircraft etc that they pose is very different than airplane risks against the population, buildings or other aircraft.

RobSinfield Posted at 2017-3-30 14:04
he's screwed according to the new rules.   He needs to make a constitutional challenge or accept whatever punishment he receives.  This will be a civil matter since it doesn't sound like reckless endangerment, but you never know what fun and exciting superfluous charges the RCMP can come up with.

There's not even a sliver of land that you can legally operate a drone in Red Deer.

The TC regulation that is not yet in force, specifically allow for UAV flight WITHIN  the 9km restriction zones.  This is also true for the regulations that were 'Guidelines' before a draft regulation was near completion.  The crazy/difficulty with this situation is that you must review what TC has detailed in its interpretations of the regulation for their true meaning.  Their black and white interpretation wrt that fact that (paraphrased) 'simply flying within the 9km zone is not an offence in and of itself'....in order to be in violation of the regulation a UAV operator must also be found to be flying 'in a reckless manner and endangering aircraft'.  So as long as you are flying 'responsibly' you may fly in a controlled area (unless of course it is a strict no-fly zone like a military airspace).  

Below (in RED) is a cut/paste from a TC interpretation exactly wrt this issue....:

As has been previously mentioned there was no change in the actual regulations and the #nodronezone is a guideline only, 9KM distance to an aerodrome is not a violation in and of itself.

Thank you for contacting the Transport Canada Civil Aviation Communications Centre.

In regards to your inquiry, please find the response below.

Recreational Activities

Operating a model aircraft (recreational drone) within 9km of an aerodrome would be a violation of CAR 602.45 if the aircraft was being operated in a manner that is hazardous to aviation safety. The 9km (5nm) guideline is provided as guidance on how a recreational user of an unmanned aircraft (a model aircraft by definition) can comply with section 602.45 of the CARs which governs the operation of model aircraft. This regulation states “No person shall fly a model aircraft or a kite or launch a model rocket or a rocket of a type used in a fireworks display into cloud or in a manner that is or is likely to be hazardous to aviation safety”. The guidelines were provided to help those that are less familiar with aviation with how to operate their aircraft in a safe manner. This will keep these aircraft out of most control zones and away from concentrations of manned aircraft. As stated, the 9km (5nm) direction is only guidelines and not a regulations.


We can only hope/trust that when the actual regulation comes out later this year, that the same logic will be applied and the (overly) restrictive wording used in the ORDER will vanish.  We can only hope

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-30 16:33
The TC regulation that is not yet in force, specifically allow for UAV flight WITHIN  the 9km restriction zones.  This is also true for the regulations that were 'Guidelines' before a draft regulation was near completion.  The crazy/difficulty with this situation is that you must review what TC has detailed in its interpretations of the regulation for their true meaning.  Their black and white interpretation wrt that fact that (paraphrased) 'simply flying within the 9km zone is not an offence in and of itself'....in order to be in violation of the regulation a UAV operator must also be found to be flying 'in a reckless manner and endangering aircraft'.  So as long as you are flying 'responsibly' you may fly in a controlled area (unless of course it is a strict no-fly zone like a military airspace).  

Below (in RED) is a cut/paste from a TC interpretation exactly wrt this issue....:

The sad part is that the interpretations are being done by police who like to use the simplest meaning ie its over a few houses, it's a BUA, especially the Calgary police, they tell you the whole city is a NO FLY ZONE.  They interpret the 9km from airports and helipads the same way.
Hopefully TC does issue actual regulations later this year, they have a very poor track record.  We might be stuck with the Interim Order for a long time.

Interestingly enough.... in the news report, http://globalnews.ca/news/334557 ... pproached-hospital/
At the 16 second mark, the RCMP state that " the caller felt that it was interfering with the flight path of stars ambulance "  Police would use the term "THE CALLER FELT THAT...." if they don't necessarily believe the caller, but are compelled to investigate because if they don't, the person would, and probably was the source of the call to the news agency's.

I would like to state something similar... " I feel that these rules that are imposed are to restrictive....... " " I feel that when a Transport minister telling the public to call 911 when they FEEL they don't like a drone for whatever reason, is the wrong message to send to the public, drone pilot or not. "
I feel that killing the drone hobby and commercial aspects, will also kill the university research aspects, the learning, and technology advances by us, Canadians, and our children in the future world markets!!! Is this where you want us to be, the bottom?

Marc Garneau, Please investigate MY Feelings too! Or at least, go on national media and state that we too can call 911 when we have those feelings.

I guess I can't go for hikes with my Mavic in the middle of no where.... I'm sure there is a Squirrel somewhere in that forest with a cell phone!  To think, this "toy" mavic is what actually got me to get out and get that exercise. NOW, I can't use it, so I will have to sit on my ass at home and get fat, and have health complications due to lack of exercise that will have to be treated by... yup, the very same government that I pay for health care, Killed the drone hobby.
Yet when it came to smokers, you said, wait a minute, you are costing us lots of money, we will tax smokes to recover that cost.  I am not looking for a reduction in taxes because I would become more healthy, I just want something, just ONE thing that I can do freely without having to worry about that squirrel, or that loser that calls 911 because they think a drone is spying on them.

To think, when the first car was put on the road....  NO WAY YOU ARE PUTTING THAT 'CAR' ON THE TRAILS, YOU ARE GOING TO SCARE ALL THE HORSES!  yet, somehow we got past the wild west, and we get to keep up with the world with all of our vehicles, businesses, transportation, etc.

Mr Marc Garneau,
   We love you, we understand that you have to protect manned aircraft, and we all appreciate that.  However, that IS NOT the only thing to consider, the picture is MUCH bigger than just that aspect.  The people that will break the rules are going to do it regardless.  Someone that wants to fly a drone near an airport will do it anyways.  
  There should be more consultation with the public.  I'll attend!

Drone communities need to get the media on board, they need to get the media to cover positive stories about the positive side and positive stuff that can be done using drones, I live in Ireland when drones where first introduced there were problems with drones getting into prisons and various other stuff like that and people where weary of them,
But the Irish government got behind the use of drones and were able to see some very positive stuff they could be used for, they now use them regularly in search and rescue, they are rolling out a new scheme to use drones in the process of catching people fly tipping rubbish and are increasingly using them for inspection on public buildings. The media have been very positive in portraying this new technology and in getting behind the positive use of drones.
The IAA in Ireland have been very rigid in setting out some very restricted rules. 120 m height 300m VLOS and 30 m from a person, these rules are the same for hobbyists as they are for commercial users. Commercial users can apply to fly to 600 meters distance with the aid of a spotter, they commercial test and exam are very strict and rigid and carried out in a fairness that is good for everyone.

But the big thing that has helped was getting the media on board, which has been done, dji have come to Ireland and managed to get behind all that is positive about drones and the groups using them for the common good, the negativity can be turned around as it is being done here, but we need to get the focus back on what are the positive uses of drones, forget about the clown above and focus on what can be a positive outcome for the common good.

As far as getting the media on board, they are all to happy to steal footage of a sunset on a Vancouver beach shot from a drone to close out a nee broadcast, but will turn around and paint every other operator as likely a pervert or terrorist with their next story.

FFS Posted at 2017-4-6 05:40
As far as getting the media on board, they are all to happy to steal footage of a sunset on a Vancouver beach shot from a drone to close out a nee broadcast, but will turn around and paint every other operator as likely a pervert or terrorist with their next story.

Which is really the answer to the question.  News Media is a business.  Make a drone story that is positive and makes people want to see it - the news will play it.  Otherwise it's nothing but crashes.

RobSinfield Posted at 2017-3-30 11:17
let's not jump to conclusions and wait and see what actually happened.  Police are a inherently dishonest with their press releases.  According to the RCMP release it was "spotted flying near the flight path of a STARS Air Ambulance helicopter"  There's a big difference between "flown in the path" and "flying near the flight path".  "Near" means different things to different people.  These new "laws" are part of an interim order and not enshrined in the Federal Aeronautics Act.  Hopefully the pilot has the funds to challenge the order and seizure of his property.

Absolutely.  The police report will paint this in the most damning light just to support their accusation.  It really sounds like the guy was flying in a built up area that happened to be near a hospital and the police used the hospital and rescue copter as an excuse to put the grabs on this guy.  On the other hand, if the guy was actually flying in the flight path of a helicopter in flight, they should throw the book at him.  Either way, it sucks to be a drone pilot in Canada right now.  Sorry, brothers to the North!  (And sisters...)

So we now have a video of the perpetrator explaining his actions, he runs on about other stuff so skip to the 2:52 mark for the story.
As I have suggested to DJI a drone should be locked to beginner mode and  the user be only given the unlocking code once they have passed a basic  test on rules and safety much like the instruction and test put on in  Germany by Lufthansa Technik.
https://www.lufthansa-technik.com/safedrone

Hello I just signed up to this Forum because of Transport Canada actions last month.  I've read hundreds of comments on several forums already and there is still a lot of information that is just plain wrong.  As per the Red Deer incident the operator was breaking the law.  He works for a business and was flying his drone out of his line of site.  He even says so when describing the incident.  There is no mention at all whether he even has an SFOC to fly at all.  The Helicopter pilot never even saw the drone at all.  It was just a witness that saw the drone in flight while the helicopter was on approach to the airport.  These new interim laws are in effect since march 16th for a period of one year.
@randy.sauder where did see this TC interpretation ?  If you go to this page https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaro ... model-aircraft.html
you will see there is no mention at all about how you fly,  safely or recklessly.  All model aircraft in the weight limits must follow the new laws as shown on that page.
I've contacted Local MPs as well as city and town council in my area as well as a few local police.  Some of them are aware of the new regulations and are currently discussing the issue.  Both local police forces have not even heard from Transport Canada yet.  As far as they are concerned they will only investigate if a complaint is made the same as they did in Red Deer.  From what I've read only the RCMP are able to enforce  Transport Canada laws.  Local police could hold you until RCMP arrive though if a complaint has been made.  The police can seize your drone and arrest you under privacy laws that have been in place far longer then the new TC laws though.  If your unhappy about the current situation then contact your MP and local governments as I have and express your concerns.  If we come together as a group we would be far larger then other lobby groups that have caused governments to change policy.  Don't just contact the currently elected officials either.  Any politician would be foolish to not consider the millions of Drone operators that currently exist and that number is growing fast.  There are several petitions already with 1000's of signatures but the more the sign up the better.  Change.org and N.O.D.E are just a few examples of where you should sign up.

The guy admits several times that he is flying outside VLOS yet is saying he did everything safely?

Mustang1993 Posted at 2017-4-17 07:35
Hello I just signed up to this Forum because of Transport Canada actions last month.  I've read hundreds of comments on several forums already and there is still a lot of information that is just plain wrong.  As per the Red Deer incident the operator was breaking the law.  He works for a business and was flying his drone out of his line of site.  He even says so when describing the incident.  There is no mention at all whether he even has an SFOC to fly at all.  The Helicopter pilot never even saw the drone at all.  It was just a witness that saw the drone in flight while the helicopter was on approach to the airport.  These new interim laws are in effect since march 16th for a period of one year.
@randy.sauder where did see this TC interpretation ?  If you go to this page https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/interim-order-respecting-use-model-aircraft.html
you will see there is no mention at all about how you fly,  safely or recklessly.  All model aircraft in the weight limits must follow the new laws as shown on that page.

Mustang1993.  You asked where I saw this Transport Canada Interpretation...

TC has provided numerous interpretations to the public on how to understand and apply its guidelines and planned Regulation.  Prior to the recent "Interim Order" (which is not the regulation) TC has published and sought feedback on its Regulation that they've been working on for many years.  Actually in June of last year, TCanada embarked on a 'NoDroneZone' awareness campaign- and guess what?...there was tons of complains about how it is even possible to comply with their published 'Guideline' on UAVs let alone understand the actual wordage of the Regulation which is still not in legal force/affect (yet).  TCanada emphasised very clearly that THE INTENT OF THE UAV Regulation and their initial Guideline was for "Public Safety".  This fact should be obvious.  Therefore the 'Rule' to fly outside the 9km areodrome radius is NOT IN ITSELF A VIOLATION.  It must be coupled with the need to fly safely and not endanger aircraft.  They clarified that one obvious way to ensure that you don't fly in a manner that is reckless, is to fly outside a distance of 9km.  Their interim Order is very vaugue and contains numerous factual inconsistencies, therefore it would be reasonable for any UAV operator to assume that the logic applied by the TC to guide the public in the application of its Guidelines prior to the Order and prior to the actual Regulation.

The verbatim link to TCanada's interpretation on this specific topic can be found at:

https://blog.flitelab.com/2016/0 ... m-transport-canada/

Here you see that TCanada actually notes that TC clearly states HOW the UAV is flown is important to consider when making a determination that a UAV was or was not in violation of any ordinance.

I should not also that the actual info wrt the Red Deer incident indicated the Mavic was flying "NEAR" the flight path of the Air Ambulance.  The media distorted this fact by changing the info to report it was seen to be flying "IN the flight path...".  There is a big difference.  I suspect the local authorities were on the hunt to find any drone in the air at the time of the STARS heli- so that they could sensationalize this story in the media.  Crazy.  

Thanks ...  The media and pilots are getting worse.  Seems every thing pilots see now is " A DRONE" and the media reports it that way even though vast majority are proven to no be a drone at all.  Already been a few more instances near Canadian airports this month

Mustang1993 Posted at 2017-4-26 16:15
Thanks ...  The media and pilots are getting worse.  Seems every thing pilots see now is " A DRONE" and the media reports it that way even though vast majority are proven to no be a drone at all.  Already been a few more instances near Canadian airports this month

"media and pilots are getting worse."

True.  Everyone see the youtube from last year of a Phantom in a US National Park where as the Park Rangers are talking to the operator, a US Park Service helicopter flies overhead and attempts to use it's down-draft to crash the drone!!!???!!!  The heli is diping and pitching all over the bystanders in a 'Top Gun" - like attempt to blow it into the river below putting everyone's lives at risk with this stunt.  Also attempting destruction of personal property (regardless if it shouldn't be there) which I'm sure would be illegal.  I cannot believe that the US Parks Service didn't fire the pilot.  The guy was attempting to return his quad to a safe landing the whole time.  Unbalievaballs- and they say the drones are not allowed in order to PROTECT the parks and people yet tried (unsuccessfully) to knock it out of the sky and put everyone at risk (including the heli pilot).  No media covered THIS part of the story.  Scramble your F35's...the drones are attacking!

FFS Posted at 2017-4-6 05:40
As far as getting the media on board, they are all to happy to steal footage of a sunset on a Vancouver beach shot from a drone to close out a nee broadcast, but will turn around and paint every other operator as likely a pervert or terrorist with their next story.

This.  The media will never paint drones in a good light no matter what you do.  It is similar to how they always follow up an article about any animal by contacting PETA for comment.

Anything they think will tick off a small portion of the population they will hype and over-blow until he cows come home.

The media is no longer the media of 30 years ago.  They cannot call themselves news agencies anymore.  They have all become nothing more than entertainment magazines.

Hummingbird.UAV Posted at 2017-4-6 10:30
So we now have a video of the perpetrator explaining his actions, he runs on about other stuff so skip to the 2:52 mark for the story.
As I have suggested to DJI a drone should be locked to beginner mode and  the user be only given the unlocking code once they have passed a basic  test on rules and safety much like the instruction and test put on in  Germany by Lufthansa Technik.
https://www.lufthansa-technik.com/safedrone

I couldn't watch to the end.  This guy is extremely annoying.  He says he has a blog; who in their right mind would follow his blog.

Transport Canada's new regulations regarding drones are quite clear...
Do not fly
higher than 90 m above the ground
closer than 75 m from buildings, vehicles, vessels, animals, people/crowds
closer than nine km from the centre of an aerodrome (any airport, heliport, seaplane base or anywhere that aircraft take-off and land)
within controlled or restricted airspace
within nine km of a forest fire
where it could interfere with police or first responders
at night or in clouds
if you can’t keep it in sight at all times
if you are not within 500 m of your drone
if your name, address, and telephone number are not clearly marked on your drone.

There is the potential that the drone could have interfered with police or first responders on an accident scene and it was also in an area that the STARS helicopter was going to land.

Rick A Posted at 2017-4-28 08:30
Transport Canada's new regulations regarding drones are quite clear...
Do not fly
higher than 90 m above the ground

"There is the potential that the drone could have interfered with police..... "

Probability according to science = (approximately)    0.0
Probability that on any given day, cell phone distraction while driving could potentially lead to a serious incident or fatality = (about) 1.0

- Fine for improper drone use = $3000 min
- Fine for distracted driving = $178 (or did they double that?)

Hummmmm....does Transport Canada do ANY 'risk-based' analysis?????

Rick A Posted at 2017-4-28 08:30
Transport Canada's new regulations regarding drones are quite clear...
Do not fly
higher than 90 m above the ground

"There is the potential that the drone could have interfered with police..... "

Probability according to science = (approximately)    0.0
Probability that on any given day, cell phone distraction while driving could potentially lead to a serious incident or fatality = (about) 1.0

- Fine for improper drone use = $3000 min
- Fine for distracted driving = $178 (or did they double that?)

Well....does Transport Canada do ANY 'risk-based' analysis?????

Burmman Posted at 2017-3-30 11:24
I agree. I just watched a video showing a racing drone that had crashed a good 100 yrds or so from anyone and the woman steals the drone because it as she claims to the police on the phone crashed 4 feet from her and her dog. Said her life flashed before her eyes because it almost killed her. So yes "near" has many meanings.

I live a few blocks from that exact park. Crazy lady she is.

randy.sauder Posted at 2017-3-30 14:15
I will add and/or emphasise a few important points on this issue:

It is my (educated) opinion that this investigation will lead to zero charges or fine.  I state this based only on a few facts, some that were reported.  Firstly, the Mavic was reported (by whom we don't know) to be "NEAR" the flight path.  Interestingly the official RCMP statement used the term 'near' not 'in'.  There were several Canadian media outlets that used the term 'IN' in their headlines.  Although 'near' or 'in' the flight path are each not stipulated in the regulation/order, "IN" connotes that the UAV was in violation of the airspace rules.  Also if the incident was REPORTED BY the STARS heli, this would highly indicate that the Mavic was likely to pose a threat to the heli.

Tip of the hat to you sir....Your analysis and rebuttal strategy of this case is superb.  If your not a lawyer, you should be.  You're the kind of guy I'd have on retainer.

M K ULTRA Posted at 2017-6-29 16:32
Tip of the hat to you sir....Your analysis and rebuttal strategy of this case is superb.  If your not a lawyer, you should be.  You're the kind of guy I'd have on retainer.

Thanks.  Don't get me started .  No I'm not a lawyer but my profession is entirely related to application and interpretation of safety codes, Acts and Regulations which includes liaison with such jurisdictional authorities both in Canada and the US.   I 100% believe we need clear regulations to support the safe use of UAVs, but they must be reasonable, based on current applicable science/data and risk-based.  The way the Canadian government is going about this is lacking all three. To compound this frustration to users (and potential users/operators) our RCMP has taken the role of interpreting our regulations and beginning to enforce them....both of which they have no jurisdictional authority in nearly all cases.  In one clear example, local police in the city of Calgary held an 'information session' to explain the regulations; and you can guess what they told the public..."You may not fly anywhere in the City of Calgary".  False.  This and other mis-truths are largely the fault of Transport Canada for including broad terms and definitions that can be interpreted in different ways.  Canadian regulations/standards etc are famous for doing this; in Canada we like to be 'grey' in many aspects of law so that their interpretations are left upto others (such as industry) to interpret how they see fit.  In Canada the police often enforce what they wish, and leave citizens no choice but to seek resolution in the courts; people seldom choose this and just suck things up, unlike in the USA (case in point, the courts recently overturn the FAA's order to require drone registration).  Transport Canada is closely watching the FAA successes and failures and adjusting their 'regulations' to try to tip-toe around some of the issue that the FAA has been unsuccessful at.  Example: for drone registration, TCanada is attempting to force drone owners to self register; this is strictly against our Aeronautics Act btw and our Transport Minister is over-reaching his authority in this and other regards.