The proposed Canada drone laws have been published:

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr ... ce-avis-eng.php#na5

They have created another category of drones, between 250 gms and 1 kg. Those have much lighter restrictions. Unfortunately the Phantom series comes in 200-300gms higher and has much stricter requirements.

The Mavic and Spark fall under the lighter category. I probably would have bought a Mavic if I knew this, but the P4P was the one I really wanted. I would like to see this changed to allow drones somewhere around 1.5 to 2kg to fall under the lighter category. It is not yet law, and there is now a proposal that we can provide feedback on.

I suggest anyone with a Phantom provide feed back either through the formal channels or via their MP's to have this changed.

I view the recent "Interim Order No. 8" (June 27) to be a direct insult to those of us who have taken the time to contact the Minister of Transport with honesty in the expression of our concerns. I am not sure if I detect direct MAAC influence, but it would appear that our concerns have fallen on deaf ears and that "Interim Order No. 8" has tighten the regulations. "Interim Order No. 8" not only ignores our concerns, but also the global safety record of this activity.

The Minister of Transport and "Interim Order No. 8" treats us like children, even to the point where we have to put our name, address and telephone number on the AC (which may violate the privacy act). Our interest in this activity is multi spectral, and does not even come close to the interests of MAAC. We are mature, law respecting individuals with common sense, with the flight experience to operate safely and appropriately under all circumstances.  

JW5255 Posted at 2017-6-28 13:02
I view the recent "Interim Order No. 8" (June 27) to be a direct insult to those of us who have taken the time to contact the Minister of Transport with honesty in the expression of our concerns. I am not sure if I detect direct MAAC influence, but it would appear that our concerns have fallen on deaf ears and that "Interim Order No. 8" has tighten the regulations. "Interim Order No. 8" not only ignores our concerns, but also the global safety record of this activity.

The Minister of Transport and "Interim Order No. 8" treats us like children, even to the point where we have to put our name, address and telephone number on the AC (which may violate the privacy act). Our interest in this activity is multi spectral, and does not even come close to the interests of MAAC. We are mature, law respecting individuals with common sense, with the flight experience to operate safely and appropriately under all circumstances.

It's a shame that some disrespectful drone pilots have created enough bad news, that these restrictions ever happened. Now we are all forced to abide or get fined. The best thing about private MAAC sanctified RC fields is there are no negatively thinking onlookers to threaten our days of fun.



RedHotPoker

If they are going to resort to this craziness then they should do it like they did alcohol and boating licenses in the US. Make it where people that have operated under the previous regulations be grandfathered in and make it so that people over the age of 18 or 21 or whatever at the time the legislation is enacted be allowed to continue as before. That way the laws dont effect those that purchased their equipment under a different set of regulations and the regulations will only apply to persons that came of age under the new regulations. Taking away citizens freedoms is a slippery slope but if you never had such freedoms then you cant really complain. A lot of people spent thousands of dollars on what is essentially a useless devise now  and has decreased substantially in value with the stroke of a pen. At the very least allow a graduated licensing program that severely limits inexperienced pilots but allows more experienced pilots the freedom to do more. If I was given the option to either quit flying or prove my ability and knowledge through testing I would gladly fly for an instructor and take knowledge tests. They could use graduated licensing as a revenue stream to help enforce the hobby aviation laws. It could all pay for itself. There should be a means to fly if you prove that you fly safe instead of blanket laws to stop the few bad actors and punish the pilots that follow safety guidelines and regulations. The Canadian laws, even the ones that pertain to commercial uas are just not workable. To do some real estate aerials in a neighborhood you need permission from every homeowner within 100 feet of the location. That could be dozens of property owners you need written permission from. That is going to stiefel commercial uas operations in Canada. There just has to be a better solution than resigning all quads to the toy box. Were not all children and all quads arent toys. Were just a few years away from all aerial platforms being aware of each other in real time. If there is a manned aircraft in the area of a uas then the pilot will get a notification and the uas will be forced to land until the manned aircraft leaves the area which will be just seconds. Im not saying it will work like that but it can. These laws are just to far reaching in their content. Technology can and will make air traffic safer for everyone but its not about safety, especially sine there have been absolutely 0 confirmed uas/civil aviation accidents. People think you will spy on them with your uas which is just absurd. What, are you gonna spy 10 minutes at a time with a wide angle lens? I cant make out a face at 50 feet, i couldnt possibly spy on you without your knowledge. If you dont want a uas to follow you then just drive 60mph and you will leave a drone in the dust. How much spying can you do 10-20 minutes at a time? That would get boring real quick. People either overestimate the tech or underestimate the tech. Some folks think we can just hang out over their house all day non stop. You cant and why would you? Other folks think these things are just flying around autonomously and their lives are in danger and thats because the media just loves to play on peoples fears and insecurities. If Canada tried to outlaw internet trolling because people say that trolling leads to suicide people would absolutely demand some facts to support their claims cause everybody loves to troll from time to time so trolls will push back but when Canada says drones are unsafe and need regulation they support that claim with 0 facts and no one seems to care. Its all just politics. People want to feel like the government is protecting them so politicians need an antagonist to throw punches at that cant throw punches back. We are an easy target.  Just like nobody is gonna complain when you throw a pedophile under the jail (for good reason) and nobody is going to complain when you shut down a few hobby aviation enthusiasts. Were the friggen child molesters of the aviation world yet we havent done a thing to deserve that monocure yet here we are. Were easy to hate therefore an easy target and thats what it all boils down to. Sport bikes are FAR more dangerous and just as anonymous if they want to be . Why not ban them from city roads? Money, thats why. What really *isses people off is the fact that there is absolutely nothing that people can do when they see a drone. Calling the police is gonna do what? If you fly near their house they want someone to be locked up and they want somebody to pay for it even though the pilot did nothing wrong. Its a perceived  threat. The perception is if your flying a drone your doing something illegal and you need to pay. I saw a video where these cops were just pulling their hair out trying to chase down a drone because somebody called and said they saw a drone. They were running around like chickens with their heads cut off. They didnt even know why they were chasing it. Just because they couldnt catch it they wanted to catch it. Ok, so you found the pilot, now what? They bless the guy out and give him a utter verbal thrashing for what? They had no idea what the laws were pertaining to UAS's. They tried for an hour to find some law that they could charge the guy for breaking. He broke no law and did nothing wrong but he was the bad guy for flying his quad safely around his neighborhood. They made it out like he was just a total POS and he better not let it happen again, even though he broke no law. So now the guys terrified to fly his quad from home anymore even though he has every right to they still tel him not to. Total BS, and this is what were dealing with worldwide.

RedHotPoker Posted at 2017-6-28 14:45
It's a shame that some disrespectful drone pilots have created enough bad news, that these restrictions ever happened. Now we are all forced to abide or get fined. The best thing about private MAAC sanctified RC fields is there are no negatively thinking onlookers to threaten our days of fun.

Being forced to use my equipment under MAAC's blessings is senseless.  I use it for photography and videography, which would be kind of fruitless to practice at a "meet".  Photographers for the most part are solitary and seek out the places where the landscapes are unique and the colours are vibrant.  I have no interest in being around a group of enthusiasts who slot their time for flying from a grassy field behind old McDonald's barn.  MAAC should stick to model aircraft and stay out the way and business of those of us who are using this equipment as camera platforms.

JW5255 Posted at 2017-6-28 16:28
Being forced to use my equipment under MAAC's blessings is senseless.  I use it for photography and videography, which would be kind of fruitless to practice at a "meet".  Photographers for the most part are solitary and seek out the places where the landscapes are unique and the colours are vibrant.  I have no interest in being around a group of enthusiasts who slot their time for flying from a grassy field behind old McDonald's barn.  MAAC should stick to model aircraft and stay out the way and business of those of us who are using this equipment as camera platforms.

Nice shot. Beautiful actually...
I understand how and why you are upset. It's very restrictive, at this time. Perhaps soon, if we all pull together and express our feelings, this could be relaxed somewhat.
If you want and have the ability to get licensed you would have a little more freedom. Plus you could sell your pics and monetize your videos.


RedHotPoker

RedHotPoker Posted at 2017-6-28 22:05
Nice shot. Beautiful actually...
I understand how and why you are upset. It's very restrictive, at this time. Perhaps soon, if we all pull together and express our feelings, this could be relaxed somewhat.
If you want and have the ability to get licensed you would have a little more freedom. Plus you could sell your pics and monetize your videos.

The only thing that is stopping me from selling photos is that for some reason most clients seem to think that a license is required  to fly in Canada.  The question I get is: "do you have a licence?", I reply "No, but..." and they are gone before can explain that there is no licensing in Canada (Got the media to thank for that one.).  Photos taken at specific client request, as I understand, requires a SFOC.  My general photos, taken without a SFOC are mine, and I will do whatever I want with them.  My property, my art, my right !

JW5255 Posted at 2017-6-29 07:14
The only thing that is stopping me from selling photos is that for some reason most clients seem to think that a license is required  to fly in Canada.  The question I get is: "do you have a licence?", I reply "No, but..." and they are gone before can explain that there is no licensing in Canada (Got the media to thank for that one.).  Photos taken at specific client request, as I understand, requires a SFOC.  My general photos, taken without a SFOC are mine, and I will do whatever I want with them.  My property, my art, my right !

You are right that your photos and videos are your property. Correct.
But if we desire to make any cents from our devices, we need to pay the government a tax.
Plus the fews to register our photography platform. I agree that it sucks, but it's our government that stinks. They suck more than a Hoover vacuum. ;-)

Going under the table, may seem best, but if you get caught, it may cost you more than the license.


RedHotPoker

RedHotPoker Posted at 2017-6-29 13:00
You are right that your photos and videos are your property. Correct.
But if we desire to make any cents from our devices, we need to pay the government a tax.
Plus the fews to register our photography platform. I agree that it sucks, but it's our government that stinks. They suck more than a Hoover vacuum. ;-)

I pay taxes (GST, Federal, Provincial), and always disclose my business activities and revenue source. The only true issue here is clarity and rationale of the rules prescribed by TC.   No need to do anything under the table or without a contract and/or receipt.  Not my failing, it is TC.

JW5255 Posted at 2017-6-29 13:40
I pay taxes (GST, Federal, Provincial), and always disclose my business activities and revenue source. The only true issue here is clarity and rational of the rules prescribed by TC.   No need to do anything under the table or without a contract and/or receipt.  Not my failing, it is TC.

I am 110% agreement with your sentiments. Yes, you are correct, we get taxed up the YingYang already.
When people have a yard or garage sale, the money isn't taxed.
Yet we drone and RC heli Pilots are dealt a crap hand if we wish to sell our drone/heli footage and pics.

Seems like a double standard. But let's face the truth. A great photograph can easily sell for many thousands of dollars.  A wonderful video, might reach in excess of a cool $M. ;-)
Particularly if monetized and uploaded to YouTube or other websites, where the popularity can grow like a wild fire, virally.
Gifting is tax free... ;-)

RedHotPoker

I am with you all 100%. It is a pointless law that will do little to nothing to improve air traffic safety. But I must admit I understand why some might think passing this type of regulation is important. There are some in our group that gives us all black eyes. In the USA you can't fly over active wild fires yet it happens all too often. Case in point. Right now there is a fire raging near Prescott Arizona. They have had to shut down the slurry bomber flights many times due to thoughtless people flying drones and trying to get pictures. This allows the fire to rage on unimpeded. We need to do a better job of policing our own ranks. I'm not sure how to do that, but until we get the tiny minority of idiot drones operators under control, we can expect more of this type of dumb legislation in Canada and the USA.

These laws are already being considered in Australia by politicians who don't have a clue, & as you say brought on but idiots doing the  wrong thing with drones

Regards
Eric

I really do sympathise with you guys in Canada. The proposals are draconian to say teh least and completley out of proportion to any percieved 'threat' that may come from a drone flight. I would also agree that so much of this is brought about by thougtless people flying their aircraft in a reckless way, not caring if it comes back to bite the community, becasue they will carry on regardless of the regulations. Sadly though you can see almost daily in this and similar forums, where responsible pilots criticise the actions of, or offer advce to,  one who has flown recklessly only to be shot down in flames by many others defending the right to fly beyond VLOS and about 400 ft or whatever. Aleady people are looking for ways arounnd the geofencing that DJI has carefully put into the mix to stop peeple flying illegally. It was bound to happen, but should it be supported by responsible flyers, and perhaps responsible forums? It is time that responsible pilots banded together and fought for the rights of those who do fly legally in every country. It would be helped if the testing process were cheaper. For the PfCO here in the UK I will not get much change out of $2500. I have learbed so much, and it has made my operations much safer, but I am lucky to have the money. Even a simplified test for hobby fliers shoud become a requirement , especially if the srones are not in the toy category.
I hear that new regualtions are to be introduced over here soon, probably courtesy of the (EU), we may then fight a similar battle.

Our transport minister said the main emphasis was because he was having trouble sleeping thinking about the possibility of a drone striking a plane. This fear is unfounded, as far as I know and of this date, a collision between aircraft and a consumer drone has never happened. Even with some idiot pilots, airspace is a big place and there's much less risk than even stepping in your car for a drive. Also, I doubt a drone of less than 2Kg would do much damage to any plane. There are birds that are MUCH larger than that that get hit every day. So why the draconian laws the restrict legitimate users in low risk situations? I live in the boonies, but there is a grass strip that has a farmer has with no published contact info, that may fly twice a year a few km's from my house that restricts my flight. Under the updated rules, if I had a Mavic, I'd be ok, but not a Phantom. Not sure if 1KG was just a handy number or deliberately excluded the Phantom line. I hope it changes from that.