MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs - Page 2 - RCCanada - Canada Radio Controlled Hobby Forum
RCCanada - Canada's Radio Control Hobby Forum
MAAC Model Aeronautics Association of Canada discussion area.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2017, 01:42 PM   #11
Sharpy01
RCC Master Contributor
 
I am: Marc S
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kenora, ON

Feedback: 3 / 100%
Posts: 1,481
Total Props: 40
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs


       Remove this ad - become a site supporter!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggtronic View Post
hello... thanks for sharing ! ... really interesting ! we are getting there...

will read this carfully & report...

me + Jean Guy Ouellet, we also submit a MAAC FPV rule change
at our last zone meeting : get rid of spotter rule in some FPV scenario...
it remain ridiculous to request a spotter to fly my inductrix FPV...
IMO: In advance of the regulations being enacted, MAAC does need to review and adjust FPV and Multi-rotor safety code issues and try and find the sweat spot where flyers and insurance liability can live together. It's essential as all recreational flyers under 35kgss are apparently going to be forced into "a recognized organization with a robust safety code". No need to read between the lines there.

My vision would involve MAAC reaching out to the movers and shakers in those interest areas and have them work directly with the board and insurance carrier to make it work. Insurance is the key ingredient and I'm sure there is a formula if the right people are in the room. That said, I don't see any way around some form of "spotter". The bottom line is someone must have unaided visual contact with the aircraft ..... or at least have persons in position and procedures to ensure that aircraft will not depart a defined area (low level wooded area, derelict industrial site etc). You will need to demonstrate that you have ability to maintain separation of any manned aircraft that enter your airspace. Full stop.

If you are flying FPV in such a manner that is beyond the unaided visual range of someone associated with that flight........ you require a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) issued by Transport Canada .... regardless of purpose . Full stop.
Sharpy01 is offline   Quick reply to this message.

Sponsored Links - Subscribe to remove this ad.
Old 01-11-2017, 02:29 PM   #12
adaptabl
RCC Senior Contributor
 
I am: Dave D
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tecumseh,Ontario

Feedback: 1 / 100%
Posts: 563
Total Props: 1
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs

I can see a lot more danger of a 25lb 150MPH+ jet than a .5KG FPV quad racer. A balance will be hard to set that is fair and makes sense for safety.
adaptabl is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 01-11-2017, 03:44 PM   #13
deaconFlyer
RCC Junior Contributor
 
deaconFlyer's Avatar
 
I am: B. McLaren
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ontario
Radio of choice:
Taranis & 9XR
# of RCs: 12+

Feedback: 0 / 0%
Posts: 140
Total Props: 1
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs

I have read the document and have just an observation particularly about the slide with 4.7 and any model device which is flying FPV:

All camera-equipped drones are not camera-based platforms. Some are built for FPV racing and rarely go more than 15m high or 50m away from the operator. Some are built for specific imaging purposes. The document lumps them all together.

Similarly, not all model airplanes are what I would classify as "low risk" ... there are many people flying FPV (both for racing and fun) and other high-performance, turbine based planes achieving 150++ kph which are coming in at 20kg or less.

I would suggest there is a marked difference between the risk level "flying FPV" (which IMHO immeidately means zero line-of-sight) and using a camera-equipped drone for photographic and video purposes.

In the end we have our ethics and safety records to fall back on. I worry that, in an industry that is rapidly changing, we may define and ultimately regulate ourselves out of enjoying a safe afternoon in an empty park.
__________________
... Luke 6:38

Last edited by deaconFlyer; 01-11-2017 at 03:52 PM.
deaconFlyer is offline   Quick reply to this message.
 
Old 01-11-2017, 03:51 PM   #14
Sharpy01
RCC Master Contributor
 
I am: Marc S
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kenora, ON

Feedback: 3 / 100%
Posts: 1,481
Total Props: 40
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaptabl View Post
I can see a lot more danger of a 25lb 150MPH+ jet than a .5KG FPV quad racer. A balance will be hard to set that is fair and makes sense for safety.
That's why you don't want the MAAC board arbitrarily deciding what is safe when possibly none on the board do more than dabble with FPV, racing, quads etc. Its the reason I promote the idea of getting the "correct people to the table".

....aaaaand, you need to NOT compare, but rather embrace those 25lb 150+MPH jets because our safety record, which includes those at the upper end of the risk scale, is what Transport Canada has used to justify the so-called "carve out"! Those are the guys that make it easier for the "new generation" of modelers to justify changes to safety code within their specific area of interest!. MAAC cannot label or segregate members from the overall picture or the issue will become divisive and ultimately weaken the association. IMO

....those with the right experience need to figure out and fly by some safety rules that will keep our insurance carrier happy and not draw the gaze of the flaming eyeball of Transport Canada. Flying Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) will swing that gaze in your direction and no MAAC membership will change that. There will come a day when BVLOS is trusted and accepted, but we are not there yet.

None of this is about the specific machines.........it's about operating safely in shared airspace, of which recreational modelers are one of many interests.

Everyone needs to know their airspace and demonstrate reasonable precautions used to manage any risk associated with that airspace. What you are flying is only one piece of the risk management puzzle.
Sharpy01 is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 01-11-2017, 04:06 PM   #15
Sharpy01
RCC Master Contributor
 
I am: Marc S
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kenora, ON

Feedback: 3 / 100%
Posts: 1,481
Total Props: 40
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs

Quote:
Originally Posted by deaconFlyer View Post
I have read the document and have just an observation particularly about the slide with 4.7 and any model device which is flying FPV:

All camera-equipped drones are not camera-based platforms. Some are built for FPV racing and rarely go more than 15m high or 50m away from the operator. Some are built for specific imaging purposes. The document lumps them all together.

Similarly, not all model airplanes are what I would classify as "low risk" ... there are many people flying FPV (both for racing and fun) and other high-performance, turbine based planes achieving 150++ kph which are coming in at 20kg or less.

I would suggest there is a marked difference between the risk level "flying FPV" (which IMHO immeidately means zero line-of-sight) and using a camera-equipped drone for photographic and video purposes.

In the end we have our ethics and safety records to fall back on. I worry that, in an industry that is rapidly changing, we may define and ultimately regulate ourselves out of enjoying a safe afternoon in an empty park.
My previous post somewhat covers some of the issues you raise.

The slide in 4.7 is Transport Canada's slide taken directly from their public presentation at Unmanned Systems Canada Conference in November of last year.

They will not be defining any specific type of aircraft. All will likely be classed as a a "remotely piloted aircraft" (RPA) and then divided by Risk categories. The regs, currently due out next year, will ONLY be for those operating within Visual line of sight (VLOS) and under 25kgs.

The exception is everything operating for recreational purposes under 35kgs within a recognized organization (of which MAAC is the only current one) can operate under the MAAC safety code and will not be subject to the Regs for everything else.

It is because of our organization, and its long-standing safety record that Transport Canada is intending to provide a "carve out" of the new Regs. They consider us, because of that safety record flying all the different types of model aircraft, ...AS THE LOWEST RISK GROUP. They are not interested in categorizing what we fly under the MAAC umbrella, only that we continue to do a safe job of it. WE get to make our rules as long as we don't stray BVLOS. That is why MAAC needs to get the FPV , camera carrying whatever right!

...... this is a very good thing considering the alternative.
Sharpy01 is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 01-11-2017, 04:12 PM   #16
stegl
RCC Supreme Contributor
 
I am: Len S
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kelowna
Radio of choice:
Jeti DS16 just need one radio as it does it all but still use my Airtronics SD10.
# of RCs: 10

Feedback: 27 / 100%
Posts: 2,918
Total Props: 18
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs

Put a prop on that 25 lb aircraft and 150 mph and that is ok then ? Agree the Turbine safety record speaks for itself . Princeton , BC interaction between full size and Jets works well and has done so for many years even when the odd full size pilots don't read their NOTAMS , And arrive unannounced . Called being responsible .

Regulations are usually put in place for those that "abuse the system".

Last edited by stegl; 01-11-2017 at 04:19 PM.
stegl is online now   Quick reply to this message.
Old 01-11-2017, 04:44 PM   #17
Sharpy01
RCC Master Contributor
 
I am: Marc S
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kenora, ON

Feedback: 3 / 100%
Posts: 1,481
Total Props: 40
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs

Quote:
Originally Posted by stegl View Post
Put a prop on that 25 lb aircraft and 150 mph and that is ok then ? Agree the Turbine safety record speaks for itself . Princeton , BC interaction between full size and Jets works well and has done so for many years even when the odd full size pilots don't read their NOTAMS , And arrive unannounced . Called being responsible .

Regulations are usually put in place for those that "abuse the system".
?? No, flying according to the applicable MAAC safety code in a safe and responsible manner anything under 78lbs is ok because thats the way it's always been, thats why T.C. is leaving us be.

In fact, the Regs were the result of industry looking for some clear rules to operating commercially so they could build sound business cases.

.... the Regs have been accelerated due to some irresponsible flyers.
Sharpy01 is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 01-11-2017, 09:35 PM   #18
ggtronic
RCC Apprentice
 
I am: GGtronic
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Radio of choice:
spektrum
# of RCs: 12

Feedback: 0 / 0%
Posts: 34
Total Props: -1
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpy01 View Post
IMO: It's essential as all recreational flyers under 35kgss are apparently going to be forced into "a recognized organization with a robust safety code". No need to read between the lines there.

I don't see any way around some form of "spotter". The bottom line is someone must have unaided visual contact with the aircraft ..... or at least have persons in position and procedures to ensure that aircraft will not depart a defined area (low level wooded area, derelict industrial site etc). You will need to demonstrate that you have ability to maintain separation of any manned aircraft that enter your airspace. Full stop.

If you are flying FPV in such a manner that is beyond the unaided visual range of someone associated with that flight........ you require a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) issued by Transport Canada .... regardless of purpose . Full stop.
i persist...its ridiculous to make spotter mandatory for MICRO size FPV flight...have you spoke
with Roger William or any FPV commity members lately ?
are you part of the FPV commity ? Sharpy = ? .... i`m Yves Auger
http://www.maac.ca/en/committees_det...ommittee_id=30

there was a serious discussion to remove spotter rule for some scenario
with Jean Guy Ouellette http://www.maac.ca/en/committees_det...ommittee_id=40

100% spotter rule mean 90% of fpv pilot will not join MAAC ! FULL STOP...lol

on the positive side :
camera active software stabilisation will soon make most of next
"phantom" platform weight less than 1kg ! (no more gimball weight)
moving them in your yellow safer zone
__________________
MAAC #38621 Yves Auger... FPV & park flying !
ggtronic is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 01-11-2017, 09:49 PM   #19
RC_MAN
RCC Supreme Contributor
 
RC_MAN's Avatar
 
I am: Peter D
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LaSalle, Ontario
Radio of choice:
Futaba 18 MZ
# of RCs: 8

Feedback: 14 / 100%
Posts: 2,352
Total Props: 8
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs

Where did the 9 Km rule in? I thought it was 5 miles (8 Km's)
__________________
MAAC Jet Committee Member
Deputy South West Zone Director
Member of JPO
Deputy Director - Pickled Pilot Squadron
RC_MAN is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Old 01-12-2017, 03:49 AM   #20
davidmc36
Level 3 Supporter
★ Site Supporter ★
 
davidmc36's Avatar
 
I am: David C
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Morewood, ON
# of RCs: 25

Feedback: 77 / 100%
Posts: 3,245
Total Props: 46
Re: MAAC Discussion Paper - Pending Regs

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC_MAN View Post
Where did the 9 Km rule in? I thought it was 5 miles (8 Km's)
5 nautical miles is 9 1/4 km

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
__________________
No Bounce-No Play
The one who dies with the most toys wins!
Electric flying is pretty much seeing how close to a dead short you can run without setting it on fire.
34453
davidmc36 is offline   Quick reply to this message.
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the RCCanada - Canada Radio Controlled Hobby Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Member names may only be composed of alpha-numeric characters. (A-Z and 0-9)

!!ATTENTION ADVERTISERS!! If you intend on advertising anything on this forum, whatsoever, you are required to first contact us here . Additionally, we do NOT allow BUSINESS NAMES unless you are an Authorized Vendor. If you own a business, and want to do sales on this site via posting or private message, you will need to follow the rules. Shops, Stores, Distributors, Group Buys without being authorized will see your account terminated.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Your Name
Your first name and last initial is required if you plan on using the forum.
Location
Which city & province you live in. This is mandatory for classified listings.
Radio of choice?
Which radio is your current favorite to use?
Number of RC Vehicles?
How many boats, cars, planes do you own?

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
vBulletin Message

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 AM.


vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.