[Dcheck]

I agree with keep it simple. Wait for TC to ask first, if we keep up the safety record we have they may never ask. MAAC reporting should stay where it is now, re-portable if there is injury or property damage. Unfortunately our Zone director has been asking for reports on mishaps that he deems re-portable where there was no damage or injury. If we build a database TC may ask to see it, MAAC would be in a very awkward position, especially if the answer was no.
I am going to make a big assumption that drone incident reporting is for commercial operators, over private property, people, we could drown them in paperwork.

[Dcheck]

I agree with keep it simple. Wait for TC to ask first, if we keep up the safety record we have they may never ask. MAAC reporting should stay where it is now, re-portable if there is injury or property damage. Unfortunately our Zone director has been asking for reports on mishaps that he deems re-portable where there was no damage or injury. If we build a database TC may ask to see it, MAAC would be in a very awkward position, especially if the answer was no.
I am going to make a big assumption that drone incident reporting is for commercial operators, over private property, people, we could drown them in paperwork.

[Sharpy01]

I'm not disputing any of your points, but I think some perspective on where this legislation came from is needed.

I was a member of the various committees and working groups that spent over a decade drafting the legislative framework that is now the new legislation.

The big takeaway from this was that the legislation was not driven by quads, drones or anything model related. The reason the legislation was developed in the first place was commercial access to the airspace. Private industry, Government agencies, police (of which I represented) and Fire etc wanted a clear set of rules and standards that would be recognized Canada wide so that they could conduct business or simply work with this new tool/tech.

The drive to enact the final legislation clearly was in response to the explosion of the quad/drone tech, but the fundamental foundation was commercial operations.

Throughout that process, MAAC had a rep sitting on all those committees with the prime goal of running cover for "traditional modelers", hoping that they would not be caught up in the legislation. ALL members of those committees, including government and private interests clearly stated their intent of NOT negatively impacting recreational flying....... that's where all the "dummy drone" stuff ultimately impacted our hobby.

As my role on those groups transitioned from policing after retirement to protecting my hobby, I strongly advocated that a definition of "model airplane" remain in the CARs, massaged to maintain that "recreational" division which would have allowed for an easy way to exclude hobbyists from overreaching Regs...... I lost, which left us with the exemption process, which fortunately we won on the decision to NOT have an expiry date.

Their intent is to create (someday) a framework for organizations such as MAAC, or any other approved organization that can demonstrate a "safety culture" and similar rules/codes similar to MAAC. ..... who knows when that will be...... until that time, we have the next, and ONLY method to keep recreational flyers free from some of the overreaching Regs. If/When they ever do enact such legislation, the exemption will not be required.

Nobody is hiding behind the exemption, we're just happy to have it. We've earned it and every other model flying organization in the western world wishes they had managed to get similar.

One mustn't forget that Canada is essentially the only developed country in the world with a fully developed set of Regs that deal with Remotely Piloted Aircraft, under 25kgs, operated within visual range. The legislation is enacted and not likely to change for a great long time, if at all because anyone who has ever been involved with enacting federal legislation knows just how long and complicated and political and, and, and .......

Hope that puts this a bit more in perspective.

Originally Posted by Mitchell Covell

I apologize for my earlier, lengthy, post on governance. In my defence, regulation is always about governance. I agree that the increased risks to the public posed by the accessibility and ease of operation of stabilized quad copters required some response from TC. I think that the distracted driving law is a good example of how this could have been managed. Distracted driving was already an offense under the unsafe operation of a motor vehicle law. What the distracted driving provision did was bring this to the public's attention and point out that it is a serious offense.
In a similar fashion TC could have passed legislation that 1. made any operation of an RPAS that resulted in unacceptable risk to the public, a privacy violation or disruption already punishable by law (chasing moose etc) an offense with the potential for large penalties ($ 25,000 ?) and/or jail time, depending upon the degree of risk etc involved and 2. made any operation of an RPAS within controlled airspace without a permit, unsafe operation of an RPAS.
Note that these two things are already covered under existing laws, but they would serve to inform the public that unsafe operation of an RPAS is a punishable offense with the potential for serious penalties.
Perhaps I am a chicken little, but freedom is never a "here today gone tomorrow" thing. It is eroded over time by continual legislative overreach. If I am not a member of MAAC then I cannot legally fly my model with a bit of snow on it : CARS IX 901.35(2) - there goes winter flying. Read section IX of the CARS. This is legislative overreach. I think it is foolish to hide behind the "MAAC members have an exemption argument". We are citizens of Canada first, members of MAAC second.

[Sharpy01]

Originally Posted by Bskik

I received the following from the Transport Canada Rule-making Committee.

I assumed that MAAC would be participating as one of the 125 stakeholders.
On reviewing the attachments, I noted that the attending stakeholders were not listed.

Now having heard that the FAA was conveniently overlooking the AMA, and that things there were being driven by big commercial UAV, whose input apparently would shut down any recreational UAV activities, I thought it was important to check that MAAC was still involved with RPAS legislation in Canada.

Thus I replied to the email with a request for a list of stakeholders.

To date the only response I have received is that the request has been sent to the relevant department.

Anyways, see below and attached….

CARAC Notice: Summary Report - Drone Talks: Planning for Success / Rapport sommaire - Parlons drones: Planifier pour réussir
CARAC Feedback <CARRAC@tc.gc.ca>
Attachments
Nov 28, 2019, 1:13 PM
to

Dear CARAC Members,
This email is to share – for general information – the summary report from a recent workshop that Transport Canada (TC) held with industry stakeholders on May 29-30, 2019.

Drone Talks: Planning for Success, was a two-day facilitated workshop event in Ottawa that focused on tackling key RPAS issues and challengesand planning for future success in Canada and abroad through early, meaningful discussion with stakeholders. Approximately 125 stakeholders participated, which included representatives cross-cutting different segments of the industry. The event featured workshops on the following topics:
· Airspace and RPAS Traffic Management (RTM)
· Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations
· RPAS airworthiness and certification
· RPAS pilot licensing and training

For each of these topics, TC officials presented a proposed approach and sought input through a series of discussion questions. Working in groups, stakeholders provided their feedback in-realtime through the use of a digital tool. The attached report is a summary of what we heard from stakeholders at the event.

We hope that you find the contents of the report informative. TC will be using the feedback in the report to guide future work on RPAS.

Please direct any questions directly to the RPAS Task Force at the following email address: TC.RPASInfo-InfoSATP.TC@tc.gc.ca.

Sincerely,
Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council
Transport Canada / Government of Canada
carrac@tc.gc.ca / TTY: 1-888-675-6863

Short answer is yes, MAAC is still a member of the CARAC committee.

However, CARAC is part of the process of rule-making for ALL aviation related legislation in Canada which means the vast majority, if not all, of what CARAC is currently working on does not involve RPAS so the MAAC rep would only be monitoring the email chain which we are always included on.

Next phase of RPAS CARAC is working on the legislative framework on RPAS under 25kg, beyond line of sight......... and that ain't happening right now.

[Mitchell Covell]

On a somewhat brighter note . . . I managed to make a jig today for the purpose of hot wiring a groove in the leading edge of the elevator for the torsion tube (Alu). Cutting a 5mm dia. groove with a hot wire is a finicky bit of work. Not giving up yet!

[Sharpy01]

Originally Posted by Mitchell Covell

On a somewhat brighter note . . . I managed to make a jig today for the purpose of hot wiring a groove in the leading edge of the elevator for the torsion tube (Alu). Cutting a 5mm dia. groove with a hot wire is a finicky bit of work. Not giving up yet!

... now, that is important stuff!