This just popped up on a Canadian Commercial Operator Facebook group and we're discussing the implications and legal possibilities. Apparently the operator claims that this has been cleared with Transport Canada, but nobody is sure yet what the details of that are.
This does not appear to fit in with existing commercial regulations. It seems unlikely that a commercial operator would be able to get a permit to fly in a crowded area like a ski hill. I have taken a guess as to what is going on here:
The operator is not operating the drone. They are renting drones to recreational users. Not much different than selling drones to recreational users. The user is the pilot in command, not a commercial operator. The user captures images of himself. Then the operator edits the footage. It would bypass all of the commercial regulations. Some disagree that this would be legally possible, but I don't see why it would not.
Currently, a person can rent a Uhaul truck, without being required to possess a commercial truck license. And I think it would be over-reaching if the government tried to stop a person from paying somebody to edit footage for them, no matter how it was captured.
The key to the whole gambit, is the drone rental, and the Follow-Me device is pivotal for that to work in this case. Some of the marketing material show a Phantom, but the video from Cape Productions clearly shows a 3DRobotics X8.
No matter how this situation is being managed, it presents a very interesting legal scenario, that could test some of the implications of the existing Canadian UAV Regulations.
Comments
May look like a viable business idea for them, until one day we`ll see in the news someone got hit in the head by a 3DR X8 going downhill....
It would be interesting to see their failsafe's. I can see someone goofing off halfway down the hill, or bailing, then the drone would hang around until the battery gets low-ish, but the elevation changes would be tricky to manage. It must only be used on one side of the mountain, or on certain runs.
Yes, it's done so that it follows a person. So that nobody needs to be manually controlling it. That makes the customer, the operator. So how is that possible? That is why I am guessing that they are renting drones to recreationalists who do the "piloting". There wouldn't be any need for the bracelet if there's a pilot flying it.
So much unclear about this.
Makes sense, but good to know about possibilities.
Rob, also just think of all those 35+ foot motorhomes on the road. Most of them driven with an average age over 70. Yet I don't here politicians/bureaucrats demanding extra licenses for these either.
I think its a "follow me" gps locator, the UAV follows the subject at 20-30 feet.
The operator is saying this is under SFOC, which means trained pilot. So why the armband? Camera aiming? Is that even a function?
So I can set up something similar and rent a drone to myself and take pictures of a nearby farm and then edit my flight and sell it back to myself and give the pictures to the farmer who pays me for the editing.. cool , I'm OK with that. sounds wonderful.
One might wonder why you can rent a Uhaul, but not a 2kg UAV.
I still remember the day I picked up a 24 foot Penske cube van, from a facility in Toronto, and headed out on the 401. I could not believe this was safe and legal. After a couple of hours I was used to it, but, holy cow.
If the situation is as I theorized, it raises very big questions. So the company which wants to sell video from a UAV, finds that it is legally easier to have completely untrained users operate the system, than to have trained, skilled pilots?