Well, the moment we have all been waiting for in Canada is finally here. Transport Canada has published the new UAV regulations. It is important to understand that these regulations effectively come in 2 parts. Basically, you have one set of regulations for UAV's less than 25kg and for simple operations. Then another set for UAV's larger than 25kg and/or complicated operations. Then, within those two groups, there are more groups. For the first, it's broken down into <2kg class, and 2<>25kg class.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-standards/Infographic_Permission_to_fly_a_UAV_Web_English.pdf
The rules allow quite free operation of <2kg UAV's. In a nutshell, you have to not be stupid, and fly safely. You can't be drunk. Know how to fly. Have a plan. And remain at least 30m away from people and things not involved in the operation.
For UAV's less than 25kg, there are a few additional, reasonable additions. You must have a fire extinguisher, and remain 150m away from people and things not involved.
The only question I have is, what does it mean for a building to "be involved in the operation"? If I am taking photo/video of a building, does that mean it's involved? I would assume so. But, what about neighboring buildings? Are they involved? Because, it is uncommon to have solitary buildings 150m away from any other buildings. If this rule is rigidly applied, then it means you can pretty much only fly larger craft in remote areas.
Now, for UAV's over 25kg and/or operations not meeting these simple rules, there is a much more complicated document which applies:
I've skimmed through this, and it appears to be similarly reasonable. There are various levels of permissions, etc. too much to get into in detail here.
Comments
It's a bit silly that drones are not allowed to carry lasers. Lidar could potentially make the drone more reliable or 'safe'.
Thanks again, Calvin. Very helpful.
George
I know that I have insured both traditional helicopters, multi rotors, fixed wings as well as blimps. The difference is minimal on the insurance. In some cases the difference in Premium between a heli and a multi-rotor has been about $50. Keep in mind there can be other factors that determine the rates as well. How much experience? Where is the equipment being operated as well as the type of UAV.
The weight can also be a factor.
Obviously the limit chosen as well as any options for physical damage can also determine the premium.
If a underwriter is familiar with a particular UAV it can be a little easier. It does not mean we can't insure a total custom build. I just may need a bit more information. Often I'll ask for a picture and specs of a unknown UAV. Many customs also start with some sort of purchased platform and are built up from there. Usually with enough supporting information I can get the insurance placed.
If Calvin or anyone else with insight cares to advise, much appreciated:
Does anyone have a sense of whether either insurance providers or Transport Canada look more or less favourably on multi-rotor setups vs traditional helis? (I think I can see a case for greater safety/reliability on either side). Or does it make little difference in itself?
And, as the content (even the name!) of this site attests to, the temptation to fiddle with just about everything is strong. I wonder, though, if I might be shooting myself in the foot in the bigger picture compared to just making the best of a 'reputable, off-the-shelf' system, with as few DIY mods as possible, even if I believe (or know) they would be improvements (even durability or safety improvements).
I've seen some suggestions in other countries that there are approved lists of airframe manufacturers, and you should (or must) stick to those.
(For example: http://www.transportrisk.com/approveduasmanufacturers.html )
I'm not aware of whether they exist here or not (?).
I realize there's only one way to be sure (and I'm working on that), but hopefully it's easy to see how any information would be helpful much earlier on in the process.
George
Thanks Calvin - that's informative and encouraging.
George
George, on the insurance side specifically, I was in Montreal when the new exemptions were released. I was able to sit down with Transport Canada as well as various underwriters and go through the requirements. The intent of most of our insurance markets is to follow the transport Canada rules. That being said, If you are operating under the SFOC Exemptions or with a SFOC, you are operating according to the rules and regulations of Transport Canada then insurance should not be an issue. Keep in mind every situation is a little bit different.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/ac-600-004-2136.html
Attached is the more detailed version of the SFOC requirements. Insurance for the most part is not a problem. Every once in a while there are certain situations that make it a little more difficult. Operating as a test pilot for new technology can some times be a bit more difficult. The SFOC exemption rules will not apply to everybody as many operators will not meet the requirements. They will need to take out a SFOC for anything that does not fall with in the requirements and that will apply to both the under 2kg category and the 2-25 kg category.
George, if you have specific questions on the insurance feel free to give me a call. I have provided quotes and policies to hundreds of UAV operators. There have been a few that we have not been able to provide terms for but it is few and far between.
Dan, even under 2KG you may require an SFOC. It will depend on if you can satisfy all of the Exemption requirements.
As the regulations, change so do the insurance options. We now have another company that is able to offer physical damage for the UAV in flight in some cases. Keep in mind everyone's situation and requirements are different.
Calvin Reich
UAV /Commercial Lines
Capri Insurance Services Ltd
1-877-272-2774
@Mauricio - I'd love to see a sample SFOC and how you've dealt with that.
@Rob,
you don't need to file a new SFOC every time you plan to fly... you can mention periods of time on the application. At least that's how we file ours and we have been approved several times, then we just renew the times and reapply.. pretty easy. email me and I'll send you our sample SFOC application.
They may not have eliminated SFOC applications for remote areas, either.
It really remains to be seen whether the insurance companies are interested. (Wonder if they had input into the process as 'stakeholders'?)
'Till now, they've demanded SFOCs, and may have too many applicants as it is. Are they going to suddenly decide to relax that requirement. "No need to go under Transport Canada scrutiny anymore, we'll take you without it". Leading almost certainly to many more applicants. Are insurers well known for suddenly becoming less cautious?
Is it more likely they will go the other way? "Stricter SFOCs leaves us even more protected, and we can't keep up as it is, (and we're really not interested in 'small fry' anyway) - SFOCs only, please!"
Would love to hear any news on how they're reacting to this.
If it proves to be that the SFOC is still ~ unavoidable for almost everyone, and it's now more complicated to get, the goal of reducing the workload on swamped Transport Canada UAV people could actually backfire (?)
They do seem to be trying to do the right thing, so I won't be surprised if it proves to be a work in progress.
George
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next