[heli-insane]

For the record, I would like to state this video was not filmed by me. I seen this video being commented on this morning in my facebook feeds from friends here in Sudbury.

I would like to hear what the FPV flyers think of this video and if they agree with me that a flight at this height would definitely not be line of site and would require a (SFOCs).

In my opinion I would think several laws are being broken here. I would like to hear others opinions on this one.

Also this video has gone viral and was posted on CBC today as well.

Thanks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aC2...ature=youtu.be

[rpm]

I would have to agree with you Keith. I am always concerned this type of irresponsible behavior has the potential to destroy our hobby.

[Boatcrazy]

These videos and the related discussion have be hashed out numerous times.
As a multirotor enthusiast my self I think the more people talk about this including ourselves is what's helping to fuel the fire
I do not believe we should be giving so much attention to these irresponsible people.

Just my 2 cents.

[buffythesaint]

Too many assumptions here. No SFOC is needed to do this, if he wasn't paid. I can't tell from the video if he was so assuming he was is premature. I wasn't present as I think everyone here wasn't either. He still could be with in LOS, I just don't know from seeing the video, again making a presumption. Maybe he works there and had permission. Perhaps he was showing, to management, that an external inspection of the stack could be done with a MR and a HD camera, without shutting down the stack and sending people up to inspect. I think this video shows how a MR could do this kind of job safely, at a lower cost and less risk to people. This will not ruin the hobby.

[astrofler]

I dunno, not so sure I see any problem with this. For one thing it's for sure not as high as it looks. Those go pro cameras are notorious for distortion, especially distance. There are no airplanes likely to be flying near that stack. He looks to be flying sensibly. Who knows, perhaps he had all the paper work.

[buffythesaint]

I thought he did a good job on the flying. The most dangerous part is the stuff coming out the stack and settling down on Sudbury. The video really shows what mining does to the landscape.

[heli-insane]

This is definitely the best place to discuss this as I can see some of you find nothing wrong with this video while others definitely see how this could have a negative inpact on our hobby.

The Inco Superstack in Sudbury, Ontario, with a height of 380 metres (1,250 ft), is the tallest chimney in Canada and the Western hemisphere.

I live in Sudbury so I know that is a fact, another fact is you cannot walk onto INCO property with out clearance from their security. "worked there many times in the past"

The quad was taken off from the small community of Copper Cliff and then flown onto Vale Inco's property. Knowing the size of a DJI phantom vision 2 and this flight would definitely not be line of site flying at over 1,250 feet.

A quick read at Nav Canada and you will see that any out of site flying would require an SFOC. Quote

"More and more UAV operators are making applications for Special Flight Operations Certificates (SFOCs) where the UAV is to be operated beyond visual range. Once the applicant demonstrates the ability to conduct a safe operation, the Minister shall issue the special flight operations certificate. The SFOC process allows each application to be considered on it's own merits, and the operator must evaluate the risks associated with
the proposed operation and provide satisfactory risk mitigation measures."

With this in mind I am almost 99% positive this flight would require and SFOC.

I do not know if this is a legitimate business following Nav Canada guide lines and if it is then great job and video.

[Fuzzydog]

Recreational flights with a model aircraft never need an SFOC even if it is beyond LOS.
As was previously stated, there isn't any indication that this was a for hire flight. Therefore it was flown as a model aircraft, not as a UAV and no SFOC was required and Transport Canada doesn't even want to hear about the flight.
As long as there isn't some sort of a no fly zone over that area the pilot did not break any laws.
I do think it was irresponsible but it isn't the worst thing that has ever been done with a MR.

[Midair]

Originally Posted by heli-insane

A quick read at Nav Canada and you will see that any out of site flying would require an SFOC. Quote

"More and more UAV operators are making applications for Special Flight Operations Certificates (SFOCs) where the UAV is to be operated beyond visual range. Once the applicant demonstrates the ability to conduct a safe operation, the Minister shall issue the special flight operations certificate. The SFOC process allows each application to be considered on it's own merits, and the operator must evaluate the risks associated with
the proposed operation and provide satisfactory risk mitigation measures."

With this in mind I am almost 99% positive this flight would require and SFOC.

Beyond visual line of sight Transport Canada approval is news to me. Are you confident that TC is approving BVLOS in General airspace? I worked for a company doing precisely this work. including flare stack inspections, and as their Operations Manager, submitted up to 30 national long term SFOCs and a couple of dozen special circumstances SFOCs,annually; in the past three years I probably submitted and received approval for well over 120 SFOCs. Granted a lot could have changed since April and I'll admit that I'm not completely up to speed with any regs established in the past six months, but BVLOS is still a no no as far as I can determine. We flew BVLOS with both fixed wing and single rotor rotary winged aircraft, however, the flights took place in either military or sterile airspace. SFOCs are (were?) only required for commercial operations, they were never intended or required for hobbyists (with the exception of overweight - 35 kg and above - R/C aircraft).

Peter

[heli-insane]

Peter it seems this is definitely a good thread that is educating myself as well as others. That quote was pulled right from Transport Canada's webpage.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...s-uav-2270.htm

If my interpretation of the rules set by Transport Canada this video I posted I believe would require a SFOC.

Highly interested in knowing the facts.

cheers Keith