Recreational drone now illegal in most of Canada...
- Thread starter isopro
- Start date
You have to burrow down, they are there. In any case, we have both made our points. Crash and burn !
If the point of a forum is to share thoughts and ideas, gather information and learn, evaluate varying opinions, and gain knowledge, mission accomplished.
For better or worse.
But I could be wrong.
For better or worse.
But I could be wrong.
Very good points. Some or all of the same points we have all made.
Problem is, there are people here that say he is wasting his time by making his points on a YouTube video rather than joining a club or petitioning the government.
Sorry... couldn't help myself.
Problem is, there are people here that say he is wasting his time by making his points on a YouTube video rather than joining a club or petitioning the government.
Sorry... couldn't help myself.
I suggest you all put aside 30mins to watch this. He is a Canadian POLICE OFFICER in a major city and he is an avid drone videographer. Very interesting points made!
Last edited:
I completely agree understand your point.
I will never consider my p3 4k a model aircraft. It is a UAV.
I also watched the Ottawa cop and understand his points but we have to come up with something not as negative.
None of us like being regulated to death so there has to be a compromise
None of us like being regulated to death so there has to be a compromise
+1 watching the above video.
I can't condemn his passion, because I understand how the restrictions evoke that kind of response.
He certainly does drive home the point that WORDING MATTERS, in case I haven't said it enough.
As yes, maybe this wasn't a unilateral decision and Mr. Garneau had input from the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council, but then that just makes it all the more embarrassing that the message was so poorly formulated, worded and disseminated.
I can't condemn his passion, because I understand how the restrictions evoke that kind of response.
He certainly does drive home the point that WORDING MATTERS, in case I haven't said it enough.
As yes, maybe this wasn't a unilateral decision and Mr. Garneau had input from the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council, but then that just makes it all the more embarrassing that the message was so poorly formulated, worded and disseminated.
I wanted to take off from my boat in the middle of the ocean, no one around for miles and miles and catch the sunset. Illegal to fly close to a vessel and the second the sun drops its night time. If a bird or any other animal at all enters the area it's illegal also. Never mind If you try to avoid the animal and go up, well you just broke the height restriction also. You can say your perfect and don't break rules but if you start or fly your drone anywhere at anytime in Canada you are breaking at least one law. You can act all high and mighty, that you don't break the law and justify why these laws now exist but if your flying in Canada now (you are a Criminal.)
So as it stands right now this DOES NOT APPLY TO DRONES.
Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft - Transport Canada
Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft
Interpretation
Definitions
1 (1)
"unmanned air vehicle means a power-driven aircraft, other than a model aircraft, that is designed to fly without a human operator on board. (véhicule aérien non habité)"
Application
Recreational Purposes
3 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Interim Order applies in respect of model aircraft having a total weight of more than 250 grams (0.55 pounds) but not more than 35 Kg (77.2 pounds).
(2) It does not apply to
a.unmanned air vehicles; and
b.model aircraft operated at events organized by the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada (MAAC) or at airfields located in a zone administered by MAAC or a MAAC club.
Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft - Transport Canada
Interim Order Respecting the Use of Model Aircraft
Interpretation
Definitions
1 (1)
"unmanned air vehicle means a power-driven aircraft, other than a model aircraft, that is designed to fly without a human operator on board. (véhicule aérien non habité)"
Application
Recreational Purposes
3 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Interim Order applies in respect of model aircraft having a total weight of more than 250 grams (0.55 pounds) but not more than 35 Kg (77.2 pounds).
(2) It does not apply to
a.unmanned air vehicles; and
b.model aircraft operated at events organized by the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada (MAAC) or at airfields located in a zone administered by MAAC or a MAAC club.
As Transport Canada says on page 3, "Recreational Purposes":
"...
(2) It does not apply to
"...
(2) It does not apply to
- unmanned air vehicles; and....."
Again... WORDING MATTERS!
I hate to jinx what obviously can be used in our favour, but one has to wonder WHY this doesn't apply to UAV's when the entirety of his presentation was flanked with "No Drone Zone" signage and fancy downloadable No Drone Zone posters.
I hate to jinx what obviously can be used in our favour, but one has to wonder WHY this doesn't apply to UAV's when the entirety of his presentation was flanked with "No Drone Zone" signage and fancy downloadable No Drone Zone posters.
...and why he tweets about the Prince's helicopter nearly suffering a catastrophic crash due to a drone.
Sorry I talked to transport Canada and according to them that loop hole trick doesn't apply and won't work. They mean/apply to phantoms and other similar (drones). That's the target of these laws. No way out of that.
It's just baffling.
Of course I'm sure they INTENDED to include drones... but what were they THINKING? What was the thought process when all these educated, professional people sat around and started a sentence with "does not include"...
What was the meaning they were expecting to convey? They were obviously trying to "not include" SOMETHING... what was it?
I'm embarrassed for them.
Of course I'm sure they INTENDED to include drones... but what were they THINKING? What was the thought process when all these educated, professional people sat around and started a sentence with "does not include"...
What was the meaning they were expecting to convey? They were obviously trying to "not include" SOMETHING... what was it?
I'm embarrassed for them.
What are the police being told in the briefing rooms? What does a cop say when you show him that exclusion? How does a judge interpret that if you fight the fine?
MY GOD IT'S RIDICULOUS!!
MY GOD IT'S RIDICULOUS!!
I have no doubt they did tell you that and I'm sure you're correct, but did they say how and why the terminology still applies to Phantom style aircraft? Did they offer any clarity on the intent of the terminology?
Similar threads
