new drone regs

[cannuck]

Minister of Transport, former astronaut Marc Garneau, announced new regulations today that severely restrict recreational drone use in Canada.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-r...nada-1.3327477

"Under the new restrictions, which are effective immediately, recreational drone pilots are prohibited from flying their UAVs higher than 90 metres, within 75 metres of buildings, animals or people, or within nine kilometres of an airport. Night flights are also prohibited under the new restriction, which promises a fine of up to $3,000.

Recreational users are also required to include their name, address and phone number with their drones"

There will be a complete re-write of regs as the apply to UAVs overall, and IIRC, that will happen this summer some time. The one that will make city folk happy and pee off city toy drone owners is the 75 meters (250 feet) from buildings, people and animals. Pretty much kills ANY out-of-doors flight in any urban area. There is provision for commercial drones, that I assume must be licensed in some way.

Aside from the obvious aviation related issues, it seems they have dumped the problems of privacy onto the aviation community by using the sledge hammer of aviation safety.  That was some pretty slick political move!

The upside is that I should be able to get some really nice drones for the kids to use at the farm...wait a minute, I am within 9 kms of TWO airports. Oh well, haven't missed having one so far, so won't in the future.

[Boges]

Kind of makes it largely illegal in big cities. 

TBH I can't think of many productive recreational uses for drones. 

[The_Squid]

 

Most of this is going to be unenforceable...  people will carry on as usual.  

[Boges]

Just now, The_Squid said:

Most of this is going to be unenforceable...  people will carry on as usual.  

Probably. But if a police officer wants to fill a quota, they could just show up at a park and write some tickets. 

[Wilber]

At 9km from the runway an aircraft will be descending through 1500 feet on a normal approach and circuit altitude at small airports is 1000 ft so I can see some sense to that, but to make it apply to a 9km radius of all airports would seem like overkill.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Wilber

[?Impact]

What everyone seems to miss is the fine print. This applies to drones over 250g (about a half pound). This is similar to the regulations that have been in force in the US for quite some time. Your kid can still fly his toy.

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

TBH I can't think of many productive recreational uses for drones. 

Can you imagine a world limited by your personal limits?

[Wilber]

Where RC guys have thousands of hours invested in building and learning to fly their aircraft, anyone can buy a drone and learn to fly it quite quickly. I think the novelty would wear off almost as quickly for most people.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Wilber

[PIK]

If a drone flies over a inch of my property,down she comes.

[DogOnPorch]

42 minutes ago, PIK said:

If a drone flies over a inch of my property,down she comes.

 

40lb slingshot with marble ammo.

[cannuck]

21 hours ago, Wilber said:

At 9km from the runway an aircraft will be descending through 1500 feet on a normal approach and circuit altitude at small airports is 1000 ft so I can see some sense to that, but to make it apply to a 9km radius of all airports would seem like overkill.

That is the very definition of class D airspace - where NOTHING is supposed to be flying wihtout radio communications and transponder - except for special NORDO (no radio) procedures for registered airplanes with licensed pilots in daylight.

[Wilber]

19 hours ago, PIK said:

If a drone flies over a inch of my property,down she comes.

My sentiment as well.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Wilber said:

My sentiment as well.

Yep.

[dre]

On 3/17/2017 at 1:28 PM, PIK said:

If a drone flies over a inch of my property,down she comes.

You don't own your airspace.  Do planes and helicopters come down too?

Edited April 4, 2017 by dre

[Boges]

 

On 17 March, 2017 at 4:28 PM, PIK said:

If a drone flies over a inch of my property,down she comes.

With what? Your room-mounted SAM or an Anti-Drone Eagle? 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

 

With what? Your room-mounted SAM or an Anti-Drone Eagle? 

Catty and marbles. 

[Wilber]

5 hours ago, dre said:

You don't own your airspace.  Do planes and helicopters come down too?

 

There are all kinds of regulations regarding aircraft. In general, except for take off and landing, aircraft cannot fly below 1000 ft above ground over built up areas and 500 ft over rural areas. Of course there are exceptions for aircraft engaged in specialized jobs. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Wilber

[PIK]

21 hours ago, Boges said:

 

With what? Your room-mounted SAM or an Anti-Drone Eagle? 

Maybe a shotgun?? I live in the rurals, so I have lots of shooting room.

[dre]

16 hours ago, Wilber said:

 

There are all kinds of regulations regarding aircraft. In general, except for take off and landing, aircraft cannot fly below 1000 ft above ground over built up areas and 500 ft over rural areas. Of course there are exceptions for aircraft engaged in specialized jobs. 

It doesn't matter.... If you bring down any aircraft above your property you will be liable for damages whether its in compliance with regulations or not. You cant just destroy property that isn't yours, and you could very well cause damage to other objects and properties besides the drone.

You can learn the hard way like this retard if you want...

Quote

Merideth was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment. He was booked into the Bullitt County Detention Center, and released on Monday.

 

I wonder if any of the "its coming down" crowd on here actually thought through the consequences of shooting down an aircraft above a residential neighborhood.

On a semi related note... I would never be stupid enough to actually shoot down one of these things in the city, but there was one a few hundred feet above my house last summer, and a friend said "I wonder if its watching us". I said "Lets find out", so I sighted the thing in my ghost 410 (it wasn't loaded). The thing booked off in a real hurry.

I like drones btw.. I have a phantom 3 pro. The things a pile of fun to fly and I take footage of some of the cool scenery where I live, and some of my job sites as well. 

This law is disappointing. There was very good reason to establish some rules around safety and privacy, but this law just seems like a knee jerk reaction. Reminds me of when I was a kid and the city I lived in banned skateboarding and started taking boards away from little kids on the street. Just haters with too much power and too much time on their hands.

Anyhow! Have fun putting your neighbors at risk while destroying other peoples property. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[blackbird]

On 2017-03-17 at 6:40 AM, cannuck said:

Minister of Transport, former astronaut Marc Garneau, announced new regulations today that severely restrict recreational drone use in Canada.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-r...nada-1.3327477

"Under the new restrictions, which are effective immediately, recreational drone pilots are prohibited from flying their UAVs higher than 90 metres, within 75 metres of buildings, animals or people, or within nine kilometres of an airport. Night flights are also prohibited under the new restriction, which promises a fine of up to $3,000.

Recreational users are also required to include their name, address and phone number with their drones"

There will be a complete re-write of regs as the apply to UAVs overall, and IIRC, that will happen this summer some time. The one that will make city folk happy and pee off city toy drone owners is the 75 meters (250 feet) from buildings, people and animals. Pretty much kills ANY out-of-doors flight in any urban area. There is provision for commercial drones, that I assume must be licensed in some way.

Aside from the obvious aviation related issues, it seems they have dumped the problems of privacy onto the aviation community by using the sledge hammer of aviation safety.  That was some pretty slick political move!

The upside is that I should be able to get some really nice drones for the kids to use at the farm...wait a minute, I am within 9 kms of TWO airports. Oh well, haven't missed having one so far, so won't in the future.

I have to admit I liked Marc Garneau even though I'm not a Liberal, but I think this is overkill.  75 meters from a building seems excessive and yes it will make it very difficult to fly a drone in any city or town.  Even if you go to a  park, many parks are small and 75 metres or 250 feet is quite a long distance. 

The 9 km from any airport is also overkill.  That should be refined.  I don't know what kind of research they did to come up with that figure.  When was the last time any aircraft was flying below 500 ft even 5 or 6 km from an airport?  Many small towns or villages have a small airfield that is very lightly used located less than 9 km from town.  There should be special consideration for these airfields.  Aircraft should not be flying below 500 feet or more over populated areas.  I think there are regulations for aircraft as to how low they are allowed to fly over populated areas.  I wonder if he just made up that 9 km regulation on the fly without considering that small airfields near small towns are not the same as a large busy airport near a large city.  Small aircraft can also climb pretty fast when they take off and shouldn't be flying low several km from the airfield unless theyh have a reason.  I know there are crop dusting aircraft but this is a special situation which can be worked out.  The new regulations should be more flexible.  I would think some kinds of more flexible regulations would work if the government licensed recreational users.  They would then be more compelled to operate within the regulations if they were reasonable.

[blackbird]

They are planning to re-write and are probably open to input from anyone who is interested.  Now is the time to write to the Minister.

[Wilber]

Personally, except for designated areas, for safety, privacy and nuisance reasons, I don't think these things should be allowed in built up areas period, From a safety perspective, there is no difference between one of these things being shot down and one crashing because its owner lost control, mechanical failure or the batteries just died. There are no competency or maintenance standards for drone owners or their drones, they should not be operating were they can pose a risk to people and property. On the other hand, the 9 km from any airport is probably overkill in many cases.  RC fixed wing and helicopter owners  have managed to co-exist with the rest of society for decades, so it should be possible for drone owners to do the same.