Jesse Tahirali, CTVNews.ca
Published Sunday, December 28, 2014 7:05PM EST
Published Sunday, December 28, 2014 7:05PM EST
Trying to make money with a drone can be costly, as one Montreal man recently found out.
Julien Gramigna was slapped with a $1,000 fine for using his unmanned aircraft to take a video of a house for sale last June.
Though he had permission from the homeowner and the real estate agent, Transport Canada wasn’t happy with the fly-by. According to the government, Gramigna didn’t have permission to operate the aircraft for commercial purposes.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/drone-flyover-lands-montreal-man-1-000-fine-1.2164432#ixzz3NG9xoJvH
Comments
Interestingly, the exact text of the exemptions are here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regserv/affairs/exemptions/docs/e...
And here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regserv/affairs/exemptions/docs/e...
These do not include definition of "built-up". The definition of built-up is in the Adivsory Circular. I wonder what is the weight of law of the AC? Is this the definition of built-up which the minister intended? Or is it something TC officials came up with?
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/ac-600-004-2136.html
Oh, good news, the SFOC application process is not a secret anymore. Just want to clarify that point. There was about a 2 week period where this document has been removed from the TC website with no explanation.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/general-recavi-uav-...
The short-form of the exemption rules are here:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regserv/affairs/exemptions/docs/e...
This does not have a definition of "built-up" however. That definition is in the Advisory Circular AC 600-004. The text is thus:
Obviously there is a huge degree of interpretation needed here. But by the strictest interpretation of that text, 2 houses spaced close together, 50 miles from anything else, would make it a "built-up area". It still leaves lots of questions... is a saw-mill facility a "built up area"?
Rob, do you have a link with TC's interpretation of "built-up areas?" This is the one part of the regulations which I find most difficult to understand.
Regarding this topic, it would be nice to know if he had insurance. I would not feel any sympathy if he didn't.
Gary, do we know if he was flying the S800 or Phantom at the time? Could be he promotes use of the S800, but uses the Phantom for some jobs?
And would you buy an S800 without having any idea about the industry? Yes, absolutely, people are! They sell them at B&H. For a professional Photographer, the $3000 is just another hardware expense, of which they deal with many.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1085512-REG/dji_cb_sb_000013_...
I went into the local photography store this summer, and was talking about this stuff to a guy working there. He operates a small photography company on the side. He rented an S900 from B&H, and used it to shoot video in downtown Toronto! He had no idea of the regulations. He also had no idea what he was doing, and almost crashed it.
I do imagine that this guy is playing dumb. He probably knew exact what was going on. Is it professional to play dumb now to get sympathy? No. I do think he should be using this opportunity to highlight the deficiencies in the current regulations.
@Rob I read that email and realize its not easy there, but at least there is something to work towards. What upset me about this chap was he was keen to be shown in the media with a Phantom and say stuff that inferred he could do no harm with a sub 2kg platform whilst actually operating an S800 commercially. He can't have it both ways, claiming not to know about the regs and making it look like he only operates small platforms. Would you really buy an S800 without having a clue about the industry?
Another way of looking at all the limits in the new stuff is at least its a start and your regulators are thinking about it. The USA has not even started embracing these small concepts. The NPRM was quietly pushed aside for the great safety announce and unless the small rule happens very soon there is not a hope of anything happening in 2015, they expect 100k comments that will take a while to address and 2017 suddenly looks just the job.
So he flew over a house with the owners permission... The Canadian version of the FAA didn't like it and made him a scapegoat! So yes he is flying commercially, his website says it too loudly for someone who isn't following all the regulations. So yes... the flyer could have been much more discrete... but I still think he is the scapegoat.
Did I just describe the wild west that the industry is now? I did.... because look around there are countless renegade flights, that are doing it for some sort of compensation and this will continue if regulatory agencies try to shoe-horn manned flight regulations on all unmanned aerial systems.
There will only be more autonomous objects in the near future and if they are to be regulated, we need regulations that actually fit for what most people are doing with them, we need regulations that are catered to the actual situation.
Since the NTSB gave the FAA jurisdiction and judgement towards all remote control flight things have been coming down hard on all sorts of flyers. So what do we do? Look into small http://www.smalluavcoalition.org/ and have your voice heard on the open regulatory commentary that is going on right now with http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2014-0557-0001
Another example of how unworkable our new Canadian regulations are. This photo was taken standing on the roof of my Land Rover. We're in the middle of a large vacant area. There isn't a city within 100km. It's accessible only by driving about 8 hours on a logging road in a 4WD truck.
Again, how much better would it be, from a Phantom, or maybe even something a little bigger? Well, you could not do it under these new exemptions. There's a town called Clova Quebec (population 50, and the only settlement within 50 km) nearby, which is defined as a "built-up area" for purposes of the regulations. So again, if you want to take photos commercially here, you must apply for an SFOC, following the now-secret process, and then wait 20+ days for approval.
Martin, that is the question. Did somebody complain? I doubt it actually. I'm guessing that they knew about him, and many others, and just chose this opportunity to hand out the fine, because the story will draw attention to their new regulation regime. Question is, are we going to see a whole bunch more operators being fined, this is just the first in a wave? Or they just chose this guy to make an example of? I haven't seen any reason why this guys was singled out, some accident that occurred on this flight, etc.
I doubt they would level hefty fines that would force somebody into a court case. This is probably just a shot across the bow. A ticket that sends the message, but is not worth fighting.
How did tc choose to pick this guy to dump on? Was it just somebody having a suck attack and reported it. If tc or the faa (both to be refered to from now on as Hydra) wanted to couldn't they ticket each video/photo infraction.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next