[g.p.]

The people that came up with these numbers have obviously never flown thermal gliders, discus launch gliders, or F5B gliders. Thermals don't even really start until higher than 300ft. My Virage F5b does 300 km/hr straight up. A 3 second motor run has it way, way higher than 300ft.

And still no provisions for night flying. Night flying for a plane that is set up for it is perfectly safe. Maybe even safer since it is so visible.

Can't make mountian ranges and private farmers fields MAAC approved fields. Guess I'm still a criminal. No point for MAAC in my future.

[davidmc36]

Seriously folks.

If you technically break some of the height rules flying from an isolated field or mountain top that is not in controlled airspace or whatever, and never cause any ruckus or damage, and stay clear of crowds of people......I just don't see TC pursuing you even if some keener reports you.

That's not what they are going after. They want to have some ammunition to be able to slam down on stupid flying like close to things that are vulnerable or into approach paths and the like.

I mean, the interim rules have been there for a while and judging by many comments lots of people have been ignoring it anyway and the only case of muscle flexing I know of the guy was flying around downtown.

Look at the reporting form:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviati...port-form.html

If the only thing there that could be checked off is "High Altitude" then the questions could be asked:

Was it high enough to endanger 1:1 aviation? Was it in controlled airspace? Was it so high the operator could not see it to control it? Simply blowing through 300 ft in an otherwise safe situation is not going to put you in the 3000 dollar club. They have bigger fish to fry like crawling up our back-sides every year or less looking for shortcomings on flying buses that carry people.

[OLD PRAIRIE RED NECK]

Originally Posted by mgfiest

if you can not fly 1 football field high and 5 football field long.. I say restrictive is not the word you should be using.

gp below has you pegged!

Originally Posted by g.p.

The people that came up with these numbers have obviously never flown thermal gliders, discus launch gliders, or F5B gliders. Thermals don't even really start until higher than 300ft. My Virage F5b does 300 km/hr straight up. A 3 second motor run has it way, way higher than 300ft.

Can't make mountian ranges and private farmers fields MAAC approved fields. Guess I'm still a criminal. No point for MAAC in my future.

Actually you can! I registered 360 acres of my neighbor's hay and pasture land as an alternate glider field to our club with MAAC.

Originally Posted by davidmc36

Seriously folks.
If you technically break some of the height rules flying from an isolated field or mountain top that is not in controlled airspace or whatever, and never cause any ruckus or damage, and stay clear of crowds of people......I just don't see TC pursuing you even if some keener reports you.

The age old "if no one saw it, it's not a crime" way of thinking!

No offence intended here David but we have a dog(and a son now that I think about it)that operates that way. The dog is not allowed past the kitchen or on the down stairs bedroom bed. If the bedroom door is left open, you WILL find dog hair on the bed and every now and then the contents of the kitchen garbage turns up buried in the couch cushions!

No, the intent of the regulators is not to target those that fly sensibly but those that enforce the laws may not know or care about that!

[davidmc36]

But they do. The ones who actually lay fines will be driven by CAR's. And no fine has to be paid just because some LLE reports it. You can argue your case at the Tribunal. It says so in the document. Yes it could be a pain going to argue it, but the ones who are in the branch that wrote the regs will be the ones deciding how much or even if there will be a fine levied.

[mawz]

Originally Posted by mgfiest

if you can not fly 1 football field high and 5 football field long.. I say restrictive is not the word you should be using.

I'm a glider pilot.

I normally launch over 300' on my Histart, winch and electric even higher (up to 200m). A typical flight will have me up around 7-800' for the majority of the flight, and I might go even higher (I regularly get up near my club's 1200' ceiling)

The height restriction in particular is a huge problem for certain disciplines, particularly soaring and IMAC.

That said, most of the affected disciplines tend to be the ones who also participate at MAAC fields (and thus are excempted). Soaring is an exception, as it has a long history of lone wolf pilots flying anywhere they can get permission.

[OLD PRAIRIE RED NECK]

Originally Posted by davidmc36

But they do. The ones who actually lay fines will be driven by CAR's. And no fine has to be paid just because some LLE reports it. You can argue your case at the Tribunal. It says so in the document. Yes it could be a pain going to argue it, but the ones who are in the branch that wrote the regs will be the ones deciding how much or even if there will be a fine levied.

LLE = Local law enforcer?

He/she and a local judge will be the ones involved initially unless I am missing something. Chances of them knowing the "original intent of the law" are slim to none. Appealing to some Tribunal in eastern Canada sounds pretty time consuming and EXPENSIVE once lawyers, lost wages and travel/ accommodations are taken care of. I'm thinking paying the $3000 fine would be the sensible way forward.

[davidmc36]

I will admit I don't know for sure how it might go initially if a Local Authority pursued your activities but it would only seem logical that TC would take point investigating whether any charge should actually be laid.

There are offices across the country. Would you have to go to YOW???? Surely not.

Assuming it is on place now as proposed:

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection.../prb0111-e.htm

"In keeping with practice established by the Civil Aviation Tribunal, it is intended that the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada would conduct hearings and appeals in a fair, but informal, non-legalistic and expeditious manner. They would take place in the community of the complainant and in the official language of his/her choice"

[Tigron]

Originally Posted by Helno

I guess it is time for an update.

Here are the new rules.

We still have to wait for the final rule to be published before the open comment period. Hopefully everyone here will constructively comment.

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/20...is-eng.php#na5

Well, from the point of flight restrictions, this new rules looks much more reasonable than the initial one. At least now we have a distinction of aerodrome types and safety distance by model weight. Good start!
Unfortunately, privacy information such as full name and address is still there.

[davidmc36]

Although it does not actually state it, I suppose full name would be their intent.

In the absence of some sort of registrant number, how else can it be traced without some level of individual information on it?

If nothing else, maybe you would get your craft back if lost.

Sorry if I don't see the drama of putting your name etc. on it. Mine have email and MAAC number also.

[OLD PRAIRIE RED NECK]

My understanding was that the initial enforcement would be up to local police. Then one could go the Tribunal route after conviction? I will be interesting to watch the process unfold. Hopefully not on my dime!!

I am all for names and addresses in the plane (are they expecting it on the outside, visable in flight?) but MAAC number? Not so much. That in my opinion is an open invitation to sue. Like - here is my insurance policy - fill your boots!

Would you publish your insurance policy number on the side of your car?