These new regulations coming are already guidlines but soon they will be enforced with fines. As a former private pilot, I completely understand why they are doing this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ ... c-garneau-1.4027486

Living in Canada, yes we have our own drone bylaws and regs.

But it's understandable when so few, mess it up for so many.

Since your location is listed as American, who do you follow for local drone laws?

RedHotPoker

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

http://forum.dji.com/thread-88983-1-1.html

RedHotPoker Posted at 2017-3-16 11:27
Living in Canada, yes we have our own drone bylaws and regs.

But it's understandable when so few, mess it up for so many.

Canadian laws. Not sure why I'm listed as in the US. I am right on the border and have asked a moderator to fix it or give me a fix but no response. You're right the few messing it up for the many.

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-3-16 12:07
http://forum.dji.com/thread-88983-1-1.html

Yeah. I saw that but too late.

Draiter Posted at 2017-3-16 11:29
Dumb, dumb, dumb.

No. Not dumb. Aircraft, like Cessnas, Pipers etc. can fly as low as 500 feet over an unobstructed area. They cannot see your little drone flown by a novice with no pilot training. The 9KM or 6Mile zone around airports is called a control zone and by the way is a worldwide standard where aircraft are ascending and descending. You seriously think it's OK to interfere with that?

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 12:43
No. Not dumb. Aircraft, like Cessnas, Pipers etc. can fly as low as 500 feet over an unobstructed area. They cannot see your little drone flown by a novice with no pilot training. The 9KM or 6Mile zone around airports is called a control zone and by the way is a worldwide standard where aircraft are ascending and descending. You seriously think it's OK to interfere with that?

Yes, & aside from those smaller aircraft, let's not forget military and air ambulance helicopters. ;-)



RedHotPoker

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 12:43
No. Not dumb. Aircraft, like Cessnas, Pipers etc. can fly as low as 500 feet over an unobstructed area. They cannot see your little drone flown by a novice with no pilot training. The 9KM or 6Mile zone around airports is called a control zone and by the way is a worldwide standard where aircraft are ascending and descending. You seriously think it's OK to interfere with that?

Yes, I think it's stupid. If you fly near an airport, then sure that's idiotic, but 9km is just ridiculous.

Draiter Posted at 2017-3-16 13:37
Yes, I think it's stupid. If you fly near an airport, then sure that's idiotic, but 9km is just ridiculous.

See that's why we have these regulations. Control zones for aircraft are 9km from the control tower and people like you don't get it.

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 15:44
See that's why we have these regulations. Control zones for aircraft are 9km from the control tower and people like you don't get it.

Not that it affects me here but they have gone way beyond banning flight in controlled airspace.

Your new laws ban flying within 9km of anywhere aircarft take off.
This is an example in Calgary Most of those strips do not have Towers or CTA

RedHotPoker Posted at 2017-3-16 13:19
Yes, & aside from those smaller aircraft, let's not forget military and air ambulance helicopters. ;-)

We have drones patrolling the border here as well as well as Coast Guard aircraft so you have to follow the regulations.

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 15:44
See that's why we have these regulations. Control zones for aircraft are 9km from the control tower and people like you don't get it.

Oh I get it and i think it's still stupid. These rules are overkill, plain and simple and will never be enforced, except in the most extreme cases.
You can say this and that, whatever you wish. Almost all instances involving suspected drones occur right next to airports, not 4, 5, or 9 bloody kms away ffs.

No you don't get it. I have my pilots license and people like you are the reason they are putting in regulations.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/n ... 7/?click=sf_globefb

Draiter Posted at 2017-3-16 15:52
Oh I get it and i think it's still stupid. These rules are overkill, plain and simple and will never be enforced, except in the most extreme cases.
You can say this and that, whatever you wish. Almost all instances involving suspected drones occur right next to airports, not 4, 5, or 9 bloody kms away ffs.

With $3000 fines you will probably get some enforcement. It makes financial sense for them to do so.

Do you have that sort of cash to donate if you take the chance?

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 15:50
We have drones patrolling the border here as well as well as Coast Guard aircraft so you have to follow the regulations.

Spare us the lecture on rules and regulations, we get that every day. These laws are simply a shotgun reaction by a government that has not put any real thought into how to regulate their airspace, and have taken the cheap way out with a sledgehammer approach. Few other countries in the world have introduced such draconian rules.

Geebax Posted at 2017-3-16 15:58
Spare us the lecture on rules and regulations, we get that every day. These laws are simply a shotgun reaction by a government that has not put any real thought into how to regulate their airspace, and have taken the cheap way out with a sledgehammer approach. Few other countries in the world have introduced such draconian rules.

If you think that we as individuals flying our drones can defy the regs, you are pretty naive. It's the ones that think that they can do whatever they want that ruin it for all of us. With this new technology available to just about everybody, there have been too many issues that have caused the so called "shotgun appraoch." I don't like it any more than you do but when you get people flying in control zones and think its OK, seriously?

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 16:10
If you think that we as individuals flying our drones can defy the regs, you are pretty naive. It's the ones that think that they can do whatever they want that ruin it for all of us. With this new technology available to just about everybody, there have been too many issues that have caused the so called "shotgun appraoch." I don't like it any more than you do but when you get people flying in control zones and think its OK, seriously?

Can you please point out where I said I condoned dangerous flying?

No, I though so. I have been on this forum for a long time, and I am sick of posters coming on here with high-handed moralistic preaching about how to fly safely. The fact is, we don't need to be preached at, because 99.9% of those on here will fly within the law.

And prefacing your comments with 'As a former private pilot' does not give you the moral high-ground either, there are plenty of us who are either current or former pilots, and we also know what is safe.

This is a lame piece of legislature by a government with no carefully thought out plan for dealing with drones, and it stinks. It is bad law and I hope for the sake of Canadians that it is revised.

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 15:57
No you don't get it. I have my pilots license and people like you are the reason they are putting in regulations.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-toughens-rules-for-operating-recreational-drones/article34318007/?click=sf_globefb

I have my commercial pilot's license. I've flown in the military, for Air Canada, Fed Ex, and DHL. and let me tell you.... They are stupid, and useless.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out actual close calls, versus "thought I saw something." Not only that, prove that it is recreational drone pilots and not SPOC  pilots that are causing the issue.
Guaranteed, cops have better things to do, than fine someone flying their drone with their child 8.5 kms from an airport, and 60m from a damn building.

Geebax Posted at 2017-3-16 16:20
Can you please point out where I said I condoned dangerous flying?

No, I though so. I have been on this forum for a long time, and I am sick of posters coming on here with high-handed moralistic preaching about how to fly safely. The fact is, we don't need to be preached at, because 99.9% of those on here will fly within the law.

It's not a personal attack on you so relax. A Canadian beginner thought the 9km rule around airports was ridiculous. This is a worldwide ICAO standard for control zones and there are reasons for it. The altitude rule is another standard to separate drones from aircraft. Pretty simple actually if you understand flight rules for aircraft. I don't totally agree with the 1500 meter line of site rule but what caused these rules to be put in place?

I am wondering if those who drafted this legislation thought that Aircraft taking off was only the commercial operations and they meant to stop unmanned operations within the control zone. That would make sense of the 9km spec. However with the huge amount of aerodromes and heliports this restriction just about rules out flying near most populated areas.

Cabansail Posted at 2017-3-16 16:40
I am wondering if those who drafted this legislation thought that Aircraft taking off was only the commercial operations and they meant to stop unmanned operations within the control zone. That would make sense of the 9km spec. However with the huge amount of aerodromes and heliports this restriction just about rules out flying near most populated areas.

Actually, with the catch-all phrase of prohibiting operation of a drone within 9 miles  "somewhere aircraft can take off or land" it rules out 95% of Canadian airspace. Crap law making, nothing less.

What app do you use to identify the no fly zones?

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 16:30
It's not a personal attack on you so relax. A Canadian beginner thought the 9km rule around airports was ridiculous. This is a worldwide ICAO standard for control zones and there are reasons for it. The altitude rule is another standard to separate drones from aircraft. Pretty simple actually if you understand flight rules for aircraft. I don't totally agree with the 1500 meter line of site rule but what caused these rules to be put in place?

Interesting that the USA, with vastly more airports and more aircrafts movement did not see fit to introduce such a restrictive set of rules.

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 15:50
We have drones patrolling the border here as well as well as Coast Guard aircraft so you have to follow the regulations.

Border drones? We don't need no stinking border drones!!  Hahaha


I am sorry, for everyone who lives near an airport. All those noisy jets are a real nuisance...
Strict restrictions? If it hadn't been for disrespectful people flying near passenger jets, and getting reported, numerous times. . .

Sometimes a simple phone call is all it takes, to get permission, in a restricted zone.
I asked the security officer at a near hostpital, if I could take off, from their air ambulance landing pad, on a calmer, less windy day, and he said yes. Because they know well ahead, when to expect an incoming patient, to the emergency trauma entrance.

RedHotPoker

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-16 16:30
It's not a personal attack on you so relax. A Canadian beginner thought the 9km rule around airports was ridiculous. This is a worldwide ICAO standard for control zones and there are reasons for it. The altitude rule is another standard to separate drones from aircraft. Pretty simple actually if you understand flight rules for aircraft. I don't totally agree with the 1500 meter line of site rule but what caused these rules to be put in place?

"what caused these rules to be put in place?"

From the article it would seem that Transport Minister Marc Garneau's overactive imagination is a large factor.  “I am taking measures now, before a drone hits an airplane and causes a catastrophic accident. That’s the kind of nightmare scenario that keeps me up at night,”
Mr. Garneau, .... has become concerned about the number of reported drone incidents, which have more than tripled from 41 when data collection began in 2014 to 148 last year.
Just like the USA where reported drone incidents have increased, most of the reports are dubious at best and a large number would be better classified as UFOs rather than drones.
Reports like this one: http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/two-hur ... ble-drone-1.3160113
... which was 10K feet up and 22 miles offshore and later investigation found that it wasn't a drone.
That one was investigated more than most because crew were injured.

The new rules are a kneejerk emotional response by someone that doesn't care about facts.
If you have a 90 metre altitude limit , why is there a need for a 9km radius exclusion zone to keep drones and planes apart?
What height are planes flying at 9km out? ....  it's a lot more than 90 metres.
Commercial jest would be around 2000 feet up on descent or 3500 feet on climb.
And no flying within 75 metres of buildings, vehicles or people??  What's that about?
Mr Garneau doesn't like real estate photographers or roof inspections.  Have they been particularly troublesome in Canada?

Mr Garneau has come up with a perfect solution to a problem that doesn't exist and rather than enhancing safety, it will probably have the opposite effect because setting unreasonable restrictions will encourage many to ignore stupid rules.

I was surprised they actually relaxed the rules here. When I see those rules being openly breached here it maked me wonder when we will get the same knee-jerk reaction here.

Cabansail Posted at 2017-3-16 20:39
I was surprised they actually relaxed the rules here. When I see those rules being openly breached here it maked me wonder when we will get the same knee-jerk reaction here.

I'm afraid it will get worse here.

Callatis Posted at 2017-3-16 17:12
What app do you use to identify the no fly zones?

skyvector.com

Labroides Posted at 2017-3-16 20:18
"what caused these rules to be put in place?"

From the article it would seem that Transport Minister Marc Garneau's overactive imagination is a large factor.  “I am taking measures now, before a drone hits an airplane and causes a catastrophic accident. That’s the kind of nightmare scenario that keeps me up at night,”

I don't agree with all of it either. For example. I fly out of my yard over Lake Erie. as long as I fly under 300 foot altitude limit, I'm not harming any person or property if I'm 4000 meters out. The only risk is splashing my drone. I don't agree with the 75 meter rule either. We just had a big windstorm a week ago and many people lost shingles on our roofs.. I used my drone to inspect not only my mine, but several of my neighbors because its safer than climbing up a 24 foot ladder. The 9km control zone is a different matter altogether though. A class D control zone covers the landing zone of an airport basically and is from the ground to 2500 feet and a 9km circumference. Circuit height is 1000 feet and as I mentioned before aircraft generally have to be at least 500 feet above any obstacle outside the Class D zone. Fines for ignoring the rules as you suggest can get you a fine of up to $3000.00

Now this is interesting. If you have successfully completed ground school training and along with a bunch of other conditions, you can get exempt from the regs with conditions.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviatio ... ns/docs/en/2879.htm

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-17 02:28
skyvector.com

Thanks Johnyv! I also installed AirMap, available in App Store as well. Easier for newbies like me Thanks God my area is OK but Transport Canada is encouraging the population to call 911 and report drone users

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-17 02:42
I don't agree with all of it either. For example. I fly out of my yard over Lake Erie. as long as I fly under 300 foot altitude limit, I'm not harming any person or property if I'm 4000 meters out. The only risk is splashing my drone. I don't agree with the 75 meter rule either. We just had a big windstorm a week ago and many people lost shingles on our roofs.. I used my drone to inspect not only my mine, but several of my neighbors because its safer than climbing up a 24 foot ladder. The 9km control zone is a different matter altogether though. A class D control zone covers the landing zone of an airport basically and is from the ground to 2500 feet and a 9km circumference. Circuit height is 1000 feet and as I mentioned before aircraft generally have to be at least 500 feet above any obstacle outside the Class D zone. Fines for ignoring the rules as you suggest can get you a fine of up to $3000.00

Soooo, with all your high and mighty talk, you just admitted you would break the rules. 300 feet is over 90 meters, 4000m is greater than 500 meters and inspecting roofs, is closer than 75m to a building....

Callatis Posted at 2017-3-17 06:17
Thanks Johnyv! I also installed AirMap, available in App Store as well. Easier for newbies like me  Thanks God my area is OK but Transport Canada is encouraging the population to call 911 and report drone users

Yeah. It's not good.

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-17 08:31
Yeah. It's not good.

I couldn't get the radius area of no fly zone for all the mentioned air planes, helicopters, batman, and anything else flying in Canada.

"I'm not harming any person or property if I'm 4000 meters out."

You must have some real damn good eyeballs to maintain LOS for 4000 meters or two and a half miles.. I'm done reading your high and mighty holier than thou BS drivel.

Draiter Posted at 2017-3-17 08:31
Soooo, with all your high and mighty talk, you just admitted you would break the rules. 300 feet is over 90 meters, 4000m is greater than 500 meters and inspecting roofs, is closer than 75m to a building....

High and mighty? This is not a confrontational thread. I'm just posting what I have learned.  Splitting hairs on the 300 foot height. Its actually 295.2 feet. And if you re-read my post I was using the 4000 meter figure as an example. I have flown over the water much farther than that but that was before the announcement on the new regulations. prior to this they were only recomendations.

I would suggest if you have nothing constructive to add to a thread, keep your smug comments to yourself.

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-17 09:49
High and mighty? This is not a confrontational thread. I'm just posting what I have learned.  Splitting hairs on the 300 foot height. Its actually 295.2 feet. And if you re-read my post I was using the 4000 meter figure as an example. I have flown over the water much farther than that but that was before the announcement on the new regulations. prior to this they were only recomendations.

I would suggest if you have nothing constructive to add to a thread, keep your smug comments to yourself.

Ahhh, yes, here we go.... What have you contributed, other than to argue with anyone who says these regulations are stupid....
3 feet over the 90m limit, is still 3 feet..... and you would be fined $3000 for your failure to follow regulations. It's not splitting hairs.... Regulations are regulations..... 3 feet, 2 feet, or 1 foot ...
See how it works?
Soooo, I will continue to post my comments, if you are too insecure or incapable of ignoring them, that's your problem.

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-3-17 09:49
High and mighty? This is not a confrontational thread. I'm just posting what I have learned.  Splitting hairs on the 300 foot height. Its actually 295.2 feet. And if you re-read my post I was using the 4000 meter figure as an example. I have flown over the water much farther than that but that was before the announcement on the new regulations. prior to this they were only recomendations.

I would suggest if you have nothing constructive to add to a thread, keep your smug comments to yourself.

LOL, all you have been is confrontational. Someone calls you out on your BS and bam, everyone else is the bad guy.