Transport Canada rolled this out yesterday.
Expects you to follow these basic Do’s and Don’ts or else there will be fines involved.
Do
- Only fly your aircraft during daylight and in good weather (not in clouds or fog).
- Always be able to see your aircraft with your own eyes – not only through an on-board camera, monitor or smartphone.
- Make sure your aircraft is safe for flight before take-off. Ask yourself, for example, are the batteries fully charged? Is it too cold to fly?
- Know when to apply for a Special Flight Operations Certificate
- Respect the privacy of others – for example, avoid flying your aircraft over private property or using it to take photos or videos without permission.
Don’t fly:
- Any closer than 5 miles (8 km) from any airport, heliport or aerodrome.
- Higher than 300 feet (90 metres) above the ground.
- Within restricted airspace (such as military bases, prisons, forest fire areas).
- Closer than 100 feet (30 metres) from vehicles, boats, buildings, structures or people.
- In populated areas or near large groups of people (such as at sporting events, concerts, festivals, firework shows).
- Where or when you could interfere with any first responders (fire department, police, etc) as they conduct their duties.
- Near moving vehicles. Avoid highways, bridges, busy streets or anywhere you could endanger or distract drivers
Link to notice: Transport Canada Website - Flying an Unmanned Aircraft
Isn't this just wonderful. I feel a warm sensation in my heart...wait my arm is tingling.
Comments
I know what you mean. We were just audited by Transport for our EASA (European authority) certification. The current international document was signed in April 2014 and is still not up on Transport's site but was up on EASA's site with the required 30 days. So i was using the one from Transport's site and will be receiving findings because I was not using the latest.
Again Transport is never wrong:)
LOL, yeah, I'm going through bureaucratic hell right now with Ministry of the Environment. It's not fun.
I am required by law to submit some documents. But the documents are no longer available. It seem the IT department did not talk to the regulations guys.
Yes if they want they could lower it again...
When Transport hosted the regulations you could see when 602.45 was created or modified. I would bet that the original date of that reg is when we were only flying radio controlled aircraft line of sight without auto pilots. Changing a regulation takes a long time, I am still using exemptions in the shop (AMO) for 5 yr that are to be incorporated into regulation changes (sometime) they just keep rolling them over.
This is how Transport makes new regulations, take an old regulation and read new criteria into it..... similar to the FAA and probably for the same reason, they can't change or incorporated regulatory changes to keep up to technological change...
So are the new guidelines proper, the guidelines will be used as regulations. Regulations that have not followed proper parliamentary procedures for regulatory creation.
Again one mans view:)
So 602.45 is basically being used as a catch-all. This is the "And other duties as required" of an employment contract. :)
The problem is, it could be used very broadly. "They could say "flying higher than 10 feet is a hazard to aviation." "Flying anything but a Parkzone foamy is a hazard to aviation." etc.
Rob
So when we search the CARS regulations (now hosted by the Justice Department) I can see how they put it together.
For me I am only a hobbyist.
101.01(1) defines my 3Kg hex as a "model aircraft" not a UAV
102.01(c) removes my hex to from all regulations but where "model aircraft" is specifically mentioned.
602.45 is the only other place in the regulation search that turns up "model aircraft."
602.45 is what they are basing part of their guidelines on " or in a manner that is or is likely to be hazardous to aviation safety." This is where they interpenetrate the safe separation to be at 90 m AGL for the "model aircraft" it also stipulates hazardous to aviation safety nothing else.
So from this I see
Do
Don’t fly:
So now that they have polished the "Safety Guidelines" they can use 602.45 for any infraction to the "safety guidelines" because it is a "hazardous to aviation safety". So now we have new regulations where there were none before....
This is one man's view...
Canadian Aviation Regulations - SOR/96-433 (Section 101.01)
101.01 (1) In these Regulations,
“model aircraft”
“model aircraft” means an aircraft, the total weight of which does not exceed 35 kg (77.2 pounds), that is mechanically driven or launched into flight for recreational purposes and that is not designed to carry persons or other living creatures; (modèle réduit d’aéronef)
“unmanned air vehicle”
“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)
Subpart 2 — Application
Application
102.01 These Regulations do not apply in respect of
(a) military aircraft of Her Majesty in right of Canada when they are being manoeuvred under the authority of the Minister of National Defence;
(b) military aircraft of a country other than Canada, to the extent that the Minister of National Defence has exempted them from the application of these Regulations pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Act; or
(c) model aircraft, rockets, hovercraft or wing-in-ground-effect machines, unless otherwise indicated in the Regulations.
Model Aircraft, Kites and Model Rockets
602.45 No person shall fly a model aircraft or a kite or launch a model rocket or a rocket of a type used in a fireworks display into cloud or in a manner that is or is likely to be hazardous to aviation safety.
Emile, I wonder the exact same thing. Would TC's regulations, and the SFOC process stand up to a court challenge? Under what law or regulation is all of this based on?
Chris, I notice that too. I don't think we ever had "400 feet" as a limit, but 100m. So it seems we lost 10m.
300 feet??? Did we just loose a hundred feet of flying space ?
Again I see guidelines not based on regulatory references? Similar to the FAA Transport creates regulations through the publication of what they would like to have us do. I thought we had a parliamentary system to create rules for the population, Transport has not been given this privilege. I have nothing against regulations that have gone through proper democratic processes....