[Hatch]

Well, they’ve posted the exemptions for small UAVs. I see they’ve also made some other changes to the “Do and Don’t” section. No changes to the inclusion of "model aircraft" in the text.

Here are a couple of changes. Note that this is applicable to recreational flying as well:

Old:
(Don't fly...) any closer than 5 miles (8 km) from any airport, heliport or aerodrome.

New:
...closer than 9 km from any airport, heliport, or aerodrome.

Old:
(Don't fly...) closer than 100 feet (30 metres) from vehicles, boats, buildings, structures or people.

New:
...closer than 150 metres from people, animals, buildings, structures, or vehicles.

So that’s actually worse, not better. Interestingly, the wording on one of the PDFs differs from the above, and is much clearer. This is how I’d like to see all of these guidelines written:

• Fly during daylight and in good weather
• Always keep your aircraft in sight
• Respect the privacy of others
• Don’t fly close to airports, in populated areas, near moving vehicles, or higher than 90 metres.

Note when I say that’s how I’d like to see them written, I’m talking about general conciseness and ease of compliance – not the content. According to this, they still expect people not to fly at night or over 300 feet AGL.

We have a statement from MAAC that these guidelines are not intended to apply to MAAC members who follow the safety code. What they mean for everyone else will I'm sure become clearer with time.

[cloudniner]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-...with-aircraft/

Since the beginning of this year, there have been nearly 200 reports of drones or model planes coming close to manned aircraft in over 30 states across the country.

On a few occasions, the FAA said pilots have been forced to alter their course. These near collisions come as the agency tries to safely manage drones within the national airspace.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/26/tech...tml?hpt=hp_bn1

[Lazy Ace]

Originally Posted by Hatch

Well, they’ve posted the exemptions for small UAVs. I see they’ve also made some other changes to the “Do and Don’t” section. No changes to the inclusion of "model aircraft" in the text.

Here are a couple of changes. Note that this is applicable to recreational flying as well:

Old:
(Don't fly...) any closer than 5 miles (8 km) from any airport, heliport or aerodrome.

New:
...closer than 9 km from any airport, heliport, or aerodrome.

Old:
(Don't fly...) closer than 100 feet (30 metres) from vehicles, boats, buildings, structures or people.

New:
...closer than 150 metres from people, animals, buildings, structures, or vehicles.

So that’s actually worse, not better. Interestingly, the wording on one of the PDFs differs from the above, and is much clearer. This is how I’d like to see all of these guidelines written:

• Fly during daylight and in good weather
• Always keep your aircraft in sight
• Respect the privacy of others
• Don’t fly close to airports, in populated areas, near moving vehicles, or higher than 90 metres.

Note when I say that’s how I’d like to see them written, I’m talking about general conciseness and ease of compliance – not the content. According to this, they still expect people not to fly at night or over 300 feet AGL.

We have a statement from MAAC that these guidelines are not intended to apply to MAAC members who follow the safety code. What they mean for everyone else will I'm sure become clearer with time.

When I read what you have posted it sounds to me like it may address two different groups. MAAC members flying under the MAAC safety code would more than adequately satisfy Transport Canada’s safety concerns. It sounds like the short version is the minimum requirements for those operating outside of MAAC either not aware or unwilling to abide by the MAAC safety code.

My opinion for what its worth.

[Lazy Ace]

Originally Posted by cloudniner

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-...with-aircraft/

Since the beginning of this year, there have been nearly 200 reports of drones or model planes coming close to manned aircraft in over 30 states across the country.

On a few occasions, the FAA said pilots have been forced to alter their course. These near collisions come as the agency tries to safely manage drones within the national airspace.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/26/tech...tml?hpt=hp_bn1

The US seems to be on a different path when addressing these problems than Transport Canada and MAAC. I am not too concerned with what goes on over there. Here in Canada that’s different do you have any data that affects the MAAC members? Are we in a better position or are we in about the same boat?

[bcsaltchucker]

Originally Posted by Hatch

Well, they’ve posted the exemptions for small UAVs. I see they’ve also made some other changes to the “Do and Don’t” section. No changes to the inclusion of "model aircraft" in the text.

Here are a couple of changes. Note that this is applicable to recreational flying as well:

Old:
(Don't fly...) any closer than 5 miles (8 km) from any airport, heliport or aerodrome.

New:
...closer than 9 km from any airport, heliport, or aerodrome.

Old:
(Don't fly...) closer than 100 feet (30 metres) from vehicles, boats, buildings, structures or people.

New:
...closer than 150 metres from people, animals, buildings, structures, or vehicles.

So that’s actually worse, not better. Interestingly, the wording on one of the PDFs differs from the above, and is much clearer. This is how I’d like to see all of these guidelines written:

• Fly during daylight and in good weather
• Always keep your aircraft in sight
• Respect the privacy of others
• Don’t fly close to airports, in populated areas, near moving vehicles, or higher than 90 metres.

Note when I say that’s how I’d like to see them written, I’m talking about general conciseness and ease of compliance – not the content. According to this, they still expect people not to fly at night or over 300 feet AGL.

We have a statement from MAAC that these guidelines are not intended to apply to MAAC members who follow the safety code. What they mean for everyone else will I'm sure become clearer with time.

All I can say to those 'suggestions' is ... LOL. not gonna happen in the real world. Zero thinking went into writing that crap. Made up on the fly by some guy in a cubicle who never even saw a picture of a model RC plane in his life. Or they cut&paste it from a safety code for 1/4 scale jet turbine models, hehe

And your ideas of 'guidelines' need some serious re-working also. Nonsensical as blanket guidelines. Need some input from real world modelers in all sub genres of the hobby.
- night RC flying is a long tradition and is done safely. http://youtu.be/Mbv7lZxo44g?t=58s
- flying in 'bad weather' can be done with the right kind of aircraft. Miniquad are fairly unaffected by 40kph winds, for example.
- flying micro models behind obstacles where you cannot see the aircraft, and near buildings and parked cars is also 100% safe even mini quads are pretty good for this, lower risk, can be flown indoors. These types of craft may not appeal to you but they have a HUGE future in RC modeling, and have achieved capability that appeal to serious hobbyists now.
- privacy has not been an issue for 99.9% of modelers. it's OK to say it in the guidelines, but not to imply it has been a real issue at all. A real RC modeler in my books is someone who flies for the joy of flight, not to make videos. But among those who engage in videography, I give them the benefit of the doubt - they are not into 'spying' either and it is very rude to assume they do.
- Don't fly close to airports. common sense. Should also check all the aviation charts for all kinds of other restricted and advisory airspace which are not airports!
- DOn't fly over 90 metres. This is not fair to impose as a blanket guideline inconsistent with history of RC modeling. There are many circumstances where flying over 90m is perfectly fine (eg in 1000 ft canyon, up the side of 1000ft cliff, etc). And has been for the 50 years of model soaring.. To more general global altitude limit for RC flying is 400 or 500ft, which is 140m, and more applicable to suburban areas than wilderness areas. A bit more reasonable, no need to arbitrarily take it down another 150 ft (50m). Though for me personally I rarely need to fly over 400 ft, there are RC soarers who do. Only time I would do that now is in wilderness when I fly off the top of a mountain peak, so I start at zero agl, 1500 above sea level, but the slope means I might be 1500 ft above the ocean directly below, and 5 seconds later 25ft above the mountain slope because of the shape of the slope, within 500ft, visual range of myself.

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by bcsaltchucker

All I can say to those 'suggestions' is ... LOL. not gonna happen in the real world. Zero thinking went into writing that crap. Made up on the fly by some guy in a cubicle who never even saw a picture of a model RC plane in his life. Or they cut&paste it from a safety code for 1/4 scale jet turbine models, hehe

And your ideas of 'guidelines' need some serious re-working also. Nonsensical as blanket guidelines. Need some input from real world modelers in all sub genres of the hobby.

I totally agree with you. All of those “guidelines” come from TC’s web page and the associated PDFs. I just thought it was interesting that they worded them differently on the PDF. Clear, straightforward guidance like “Don’t fly close to airports” makes much more sense than “Don’t fly with 9 km of an airport, heliport or aerodrome.”

It's kind of humorous that all of the press releases make reference to how the government is making it easier for commercial use of UAVs. They seem to be missing the fact that they're simultaneously making things more difficult for hobbyists.

Here's another point for those who might consider these "just guidelines." Transport Canada's wording does not seem to reflect that interpretation. The web page itself of course makes reference to what TC "expects" us to do, and then the associated press release from yesterday includes this statement:

"Recreational operators continue to be responsible to fly safely and should refer to Transport Canada’s website for information on any operating requirements."
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=909459

Expectations and requirements, in my mind, are fundamentally different from suggestions, or considerations.

[Thunder Chicken]

Sure, most serious modellers know the difference between a 'real airport' and farmer John's 'aerodrome' but we have to remember these 'guidelines were wrote for the average IQ person in society who can afford to buy and try to fly a ship of any shape/size. (the average IQ being well below grade 12 i'm sure....just go into Walmart today, being the end of the month after 'cheque day')
Some/most busy airports have class E controlled airspace around them. (mainly for control of IFR traffic) This airspace ring is from ground to 3000ft agl, within 5 miles. You can see why TC is playing it safe. Our club is 7 miles from a busy airport, so we had a note put in the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS) to let pilots know we were there.
In my opinion the 300ft agl rule is BS, TC can't enforce it, but if you do have an incident i bet they'll try to use that against you. That will be their 'you were violating CARS 602.45'. Trying to judge how high we are (without telemetry) is a crap shot at best. How many times have we gone to look for a crashed plane, and figured it was just 'over there' and sure, the direction was fine, but the distance into the field or woods was twice what you figured.......
Just know that full scale airplanes can fly pretty much at whatever altitude they want out in the middle of nowhere. Doing survey or other aerial work, we can be 100agl if need be. But, most modellers understand this, and respect the right of way rules.The stupid general population does not.

[Hatch]

Thanks for your post Thunder Chicken. I appreciate your input. As you've pointed out before, CAR 602.45 is the only actual regulation governing model aircraft operations at this point.

To me, the guidelines are strongly worded (expectations and requirements) for something that doesn't really have the force of law behind it. I guess that's what I'm struggling with. It's a matter of interpretation as to what constitutes a hazard to aviation safety, so why not just say "this is our interpretation and therefore you should follow these rules." That is probably what they meant to do, but it doesn't read that way (to me).

On one hand TC seems to hold the MAAC safety code in high regard, but on the other hand most of these guidelines don't have anything in common with the MAAC safety code.

Appealing to the average person is why I like the plain language version of what they've said. "Don't fly close to airports." Simple, makes sense, gets the point across.

I assume they changed from 8 km to 9 km since 5 nautical miles is 9.26 km.

[Lazy Ace]

As for it not happening I’m afraid you’re mistaken it was just announced in the paper this morning. Large write up explaining just what has been discussed so it would appear it’s a done deal. Is it enforceable well we will see when individual cases begin to come before the courts?

As to individuals having input that also is not going to happen there is a recognized national body representing modeling interests in Canada that have a representative who already sits on the board at Transport Canada. MAAC will be the ones they turn to for guidance. Modeling individuals MAAC members or not will be left little choice but to abide by what is agreed upon.

MAAC has stated I believe that this does not affect its members so I would think that flying by the MAAC Safety Code is sufficient. Not sure about non members flying by the Safety Code. All others it would appear would have to follow the new guide lines or possibly suffer the consequences.

[bcsaltchucker]

Originally Posted by Thunder Chicken

Just know that full scale airplanes can fly pretty much at whatever altitude they want out in the middle of nowhere. Doing survey or other aerial work, we can be 100agl if need be. But, most modellers understand this, and respect the right of way rules.The stupid general population does not.

Fullsize pilot have a legal obligation fly a minimum of 500ft from any person, building or vehicle - even in wilderness. This is the law that has been used to keep separation from model planes - if we stay under 500ft agl and close to ourselves then there should not be any conflict with fullsize aircraft, in wilderness or anywhere. And then there is the concept of see and avoid too. They probably cannot see a model aircraft, but the model pilot can see the fullsize aircraft from the ground very easily if the flying site is well chosen. And you can't just say 'well they're not going to notice you in wilderness' but the obligation is on the pilot to be able to see the ground is clear of people - if not they must fly higher and not on the deck at 100ft. also not legal to fly close to wild animals, found all over in wilderness. And just generally dangerous to fly low. Meanwhile in farmland where most RC fields are, planes and ultralights an balloons are found at low altitude in numbers 1000x denser than wilderness.

I mean the whole genre of slope soaring generally involves finding a windy spot in wilderness. I've never seen a maac club with a slope for soaring on site. Some of the spots where they once had permission to do it near the city looked pretty sketchy to me too (over roads and people). Naturally a wilderness type of RC flying I think.

We have fullsize aircraft choosing to fly low over our main flying field regularly in summer. Mostly because they know it is a RC flying site and coming for a looksee (though not a MAAC site - we also have a new maac field in our club, 30km away. Some of us flyers including me have our PPL, though I do not do such low flybys in suburbs. One of the RC flyers flew a rented fullsize heli and landed at our runway last year.). This site is in a city, edge of town. Yet these plane will fly at the 500ft minimum, which is borderline illegal for them. But we are generally safe because we do stay under usually 400ft and we can see and hear them from at least a couple miles away. Might not hear them if they are doing practice for forced approach though, which I have not seen done at our field yet (not a designated training area for fullsize planes). We do have a couple guys with paramotors launching and landing at our field. No conflict.

however I also know of a few RC fields located within a large PPL training area (Duncan BC area). I recall doing many forced approached into fields in this area - sometimes down to 200ft. No designations in NOTAM or the charts about the RC fields. Just see and avoid. Instructor had no idea about these RC fields.