This is an interesting article by an author which sums up his interpretation of the current laws and regulations applying to drones, UAV's and UAS.

http://dronelawjournal.com/#NPRM

Also see the thread below titled "DRONE PILOT ASSOCIATION"

Just to be clear, these rules affect non commercial use as well, or just commercial use?

Can't say that I agree with all of the "proposed regulations". It's not like I have any say this, either.

Some of regs appears to be contradictory:
• must remain within visual line of sight of the operator or visual observer.
• may be flown in minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from the operator.

If the "minimum weather visibility" is 3 miles, why are we limited to visual line of sight (and vice versa)?
Can the "visual observer" use binoculars?

Thanks for sharing

It seems to mirror a lot of the laws already in place in Canada...Height restrictions to 300ft in Canada,   VLOS but the pilot is not allowed FPV though.  Flying under the exemptions will give you 58 conditions that you must follow...Most of them I agree with and a good portion of them are things that we normally do anyway if you are responsible...And of course there are things that I think need to be changed. I disagree that you cannot have any impact. This forum proves that most are responsible and try to fly safely.   Forums like this can prove how effective the laws are.  If you dont write your politicians and be respectful it will be the abusers that will have more regulations and laws imposed on us. You van use forums like this to show that there are responsible people out there and most of us are doing our best to comply.  If you want to see Canadas regulations they are well laid out and can be seen at:  It will probably be close to what your laws will look like.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilavi ... recavi-uav-2265.htm

metalios Posted at 2015-3-6 22:33
Just to be clear, these rules affect non commercial use as well, or just commercial use?

melalios,

Your very question seems to be "up-in-the-air" (debated) right now.

By the appearance of your avatar you might be in Europe.

If so, the U.S. FAA has no jurisdiction there like here in the U.S.  

Wildcat Willie Posted at 2015-3-6 23:46
It seems to mirror a lot of the laws already in place in Canada...Height restrictions to 300ft in Ca ...

Well put Wildcat.

Thanks for posting Canadian regs.
(are they actually law now?)

With all the new rules and regs, you will only be able to fly in your basement.  Time to sell it so I'm not the last one.  

vonbaron1 Posted at 2015-3-7 00:20
With all the new rules and regs, you will only be able to fly in your basement.  Time to sell it so  ...

I might be in the market - how much?

Yes..it is actual law...The perception in Canada is that we are ahead of most of the world for Govt Regulations in place...They came in effect in October November 2014...I started out filling out an SFOC (Special Flight Operations Certificate) and that was 65 pages then they changed things and that document was 135 pages...Then they came up with Two exemptions based on the weight of the craft.  It became a lot easier then. You read through the regulations for you weight class and if it was for commercial use.  Under the exemptions for the I1 there are 58 conditions. If you comply with them there is a drop box at the end where you tell Transport Canada who you are, the manufacturer, type of aircraft, serial number and what you are going to be doing...Hit submit and then you are good to go as long as you comply.  If you cant then you have to work your way through the 135 page SFOC....That doc takes time and a lot of patience.    There are a lot of similarities between our laws and your proposals...

Wildcat Willie Posted at 2015-3-7 02:24
Yes..it is actual law...The perception in Canada is that we are ahead of most of the world for Govt  ...

Are you happy with how it's set up in Canada Wildcat?

If I read and understood this properly it sounds pretty streamlined.
What say you?

Yeah it actually is in a scary kind of way.  The Canadian Govt and its bureaucracies are usually not so proactive.   Government agencies are usually not ahead of the curve but are more akin to a beached whale....I think what is happening is that drone/UAV activity is exploding and they are being overwhelmed and they need to move quickly to protect the airspace and to try to get ahead of things.  

If I recall correctly reading the entire proposal on the FAA website and the notes from the Sunday conference call on the 15th this was all reflective to commercial pilots only and the only mention of recreational applications was still matching that of the existing standards practiced by the AMA.

InspiredOne Posted at 2015-3-6 22:44
Can't say that I agree with all of the "proposed regulations". It's not like I have any say this, ei ...

This is not a contradiction, and is based more on aviation based terms and requirements.

When the ground school requirement is taken, these terms will be more readily apparent.

The general weather conditions in the area will require three miles aeronautical visibility (not sure if it is statute or nautical). This is to protect you and the the aviation side of this issue from an airspace conflict.

I am sure that you would want to be able to see an airplane in the vicinity that is moving much faster than your drone to ensure you avoid it.

The airplane should not be that low, but emergencies are also possible, or the airplane could be doing  approved training or photography or etc. over a remote area.

Hope this helps and is not taken wrong.

DJK: Hope this helps and is not taken wrong.

No, not at all.