News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

 
Tim MacDonald said:
The court case over this incident https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/aviation-in-ontario.37388/page-4#post-2190549 was finalized recently.
airguide.info

Drone Pilot Sentenced to Jail and $156K Fine After DJI Mini 3 Collision With LA Firefighting Plane - AirGuide.info :: AirGuide Business – Aviation & Travel Business News + AirGuide Destinations – Airline & Travel News, Latest Airline and Travel News

A California tech executive has been sentenced to jail and ordered to pay restitution after his DJI Mini 3 Pro drone collided with a vital firefighting
airguide.info airguide.info
Click to expand...
FAFO. I'm glad the guy admitted his guilt. He's in a position to pay this; hopefully others will learn from this
 
Uh Oh!
Well this is interesting:
1758989993643.png


I don't know what to believe now. If you're in the heart of the city, or fly near any airport or helipad, you will be subject to the restrictions in CARS if flying an overweight Mini5Pro. TC needs to come up with an amendment that classes the Mini5pro as a microdrone even though manufacturing tolerances might mean the aircraft weights slightly more. This is one of those times where the spirit of the law needs to be taken into account. The Europeans did it and we should, too.

EDIT**What I mean to say is that obviously CARS applies everywhere but it will be hard to fly in the city with all the heliports and other regulations that make it very restrictive to fly without an advanced certification.
 
Tim MacDonald said:
Uh Oh!
Well this is interesting:
View attachment 684074

I don't know what to believe now. If you're in the heart of the city, or fly near any airport or helipad, you will be subject to the restrictions in CARS if flying an overweight Mini5Pro. TC needs to come up with an amendment that classes the Mini5pro as a microdrone even though manufacturing tolerances might mean the aircraft weights slightly more. This is one of those times where the spirit of the law needs to be taken into account. The Europeans did it and we should, too.

EDIT**What I mean to say is that obviously CARS applies everywhere but it will be hard to fly in the city with all the heliports and other regulations that make it very restrictive to fly without an advanced certification.
Click to expand...

Uh oh is right! My Mini 5 Pro weighs 252.85 grams.

So to fly it within the Class C controlled airspace requires the drone to be registered with TC and the operator to hold a Drone Pilot Certificate - Advanced Operations plus a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) issued by Transport Canada. Wow.

I was digging around trying to find this old (2020) Nav Canada VFR Terminal Area Chart (VTA) showing the airspace designations, but I see you posted the simplified version (much better). Anyway, for the curious, attached is the VTA.

Basically, anything up to 700' above ground level (AGL) under those concentric circles (red arrow) is uncontrolled Class G airspace. For 250g+ drones, Class G requires the operator to hold a Drone Pilot Certificate - Basic Operations, but no SFOC.

However, the area within the line designated by those square brackets (green arrow) is Class C down to the surface. That's the red area on your map. 😲

Fingers crossed that TC grants an alleviation deeming the Mini 5 Pro with the standard battery a micro drone.

IMG_5373.jpeg
 
I forgot to mention that in my post above, anything in red is Class C airspace right from surface level. That automatically means advanced ops as @TwinHuey pointed out. Even in sections not red, there may be conditions that make it an advanced operation, particularly if people are nearby, which, of course in a city like Toronto, there always are people.

I got my basic ticket back in 2019 when the licensing requirements were announced since the phantom 4 pro was my only aircraft. When the original Mavic Mini was released I abandoned any plans to get my advanced ticket since sub 250g microdrone category is the only way to go for me. To me, as a casual flyer, it is not worth the time and expense going advanced. It sucks that there will be a lot of people that purchased the Minipro5 thinking that because it was the next iteration of mini, it would be in the same category (microdrone) only to find out it isn't. Those folks now have to decide if they are going to return it (if able), fly it illegally, try and modify it to make it compliant, or go through the expense of getting an advanced license. What a mess!

I really hope this is amended. For those that don't know, Paul Bolt is the head of the RPAS task force at Transport Canada. If he says anything 250g and above isn't a microdrone, it doesn't get closer to the horse's mouth than this :(
 
Ya, this is a really unfortunate situation, and IMO, having rigid rules with no tolerance makes no sense in the real world. The Mini 5 Pro has a listed weight of 249.9g, but there will obviously be variances. I'm sure that was the case for the 4 Pro, and any other drone. I'm certainly not returning my drone over this. I have the Plus batteries, so all of this is moot for me anyways.
 
I know virtually nothing about drones, but suspect the people aboard a commercial aircraft or air ambulance might be appreciative of 'rigid rules' and their safety isn't being compromised by somebody's hobby of taking photos of Toronto harbour. I also suspect that people placing or finding small drones under the Christmas tree don't have the first clue about CARS.
 
lenaitch said:
I know virtually nothing about drones, but suspect the people aboard a commercial aircraft or air ambulance might be appreciative of 'rigid rules' and their safety isn't being compromised by somebody's hobby of taking photos of Toronto harbour. I also suspect that people placing or finding small drones under the Christmas tree don't have the first clue about CARS.
Click to expand...
Aviation is built on rigid rules
 
lenaitch said:
I know virtually nothing about drones, but suspect the people aboard a commercial aircraft or air ambulance might be appreciative of 'rigid rules' and their safety isn't being compromised by somebody's hobby of taking photos of Toronto harbour. I also suspect that people placing or finding small drones under the Christmas tree don't have the first clue about CARS.
Click to expand...
Their safety is not being compromised. We are talking the weight of a paperclip (3grams). There's been two UAV collisions with manned aircraft in Canada, one in 2017 over YQB before regs came into place when someone was flying at 1500ft (the aircraft landed with minor damage) and the YRP Buttonville incident in 2021 when the Cessna hit the YRP police UAV. 253 grams versus 249 is not going to do any additional damage. Realistically, with the software restrictions on the DJI products the only time you're likely to have an incursion will be during firefighting operations. An exemption to classify the the Mini5pro with standard battery as a microdrone could be done without the sky falling.
 
Tim MacDonald said:
Their safety is not being compromised. We are talking the weight of a paperclip (3grams). There's been two UAV collisions with manned aircraft in Canada, one in 2017 over YQB before regs came into place when someone was flying at 1500ft (the aircraft landed with minor damage) and the YRP Buttonville incident in 2021 when the Cessna hit the YRP police UAV. 253 grams versus 249 is not going to do any additional damage. Realistically, with the software restrictions on the DJI products the only time you're likely to have an incursion will be during firefighting operations. An exemption to classify the the Mini5pro with standard battery as a microdrone could be done without the sky falling.
Click to expand...

This feels extremely sensible.
 
PL1 said:
Aviation is built on rigid rules
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Rigid rules are useful when your safety margins are razor thin; that would make sense for launching people into space, but not for the regular airline industry that has to move around thousands of people per day. Imagine grounding a flight because 1 passenger ate an extra donut before the flight. This is what we're talking about here; 1-2g makes no practical difference in the outcome of a collision; if you think that's the case, the burden of proof should be on you to show us how a collision with a 250g drone vastly differs from one with a 252g drone.
 
Tim MacDonald said:
Their safety is not being compromised. We are talking the weight of a paperclip (3grams). There's been two UAV collisions with manned aircraft in Canada, one in 2017 over YQB before regs came into place when someone was flying at 1500ft (the aircraft landed with minor damage) and the YRP Buttonville incident in 2021 when the Cessna hit the YRP police UAV. 253 grams versus 249 is not going to do any additional damage. Realistically, with the software restrictions on the DJI products the only time you're likely to have an incursion will be during firefighting operations. An exemption to classify the the Mini5pro with standard battery as a microdrone could be done without the sky falling.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really focusing on what category of aircraft a particular product falls into, and agree that a gram or two one way or the other wouldn't make much of a difference in an incident, but stand by my view that far too many people treat these things as toys or fancy cameras and have no clue of the regulatory environment. In addition to conflicts, incursions and air space, there are privacy issues as well. Unfortunately, decent data is lacking. Depending on who you ask, privacy issues are either a police, privacy commissioner or TC issue.
 
lenaitch said:
I wasn't really focusing on what category of aircraft a particular product falls into, and agree that a gram or two one way or the other wouldn't make much of a difference in an incident, but stand by my view that far too many people treat these things as toys or fancy cameras and have no clue of the regulatory environment. In addition to conflicts, incursions and air space, there are privacy issues as well. Unfortunately, decent data is lacking. Depending on who you ask, privacy issues are either a police, privacy commissioner or TC issue.
Click to expand...
I haven't bought a new one in almost three years but do remember back then a leaflet inside the box about flying safely and some of the rules. Additionally, DJI (the most popular brand) use software restrictions to prevent flights too close to airports and other restricted areas. Even the privacy issue is a bit of a stretch considering that most of these things have a wide angle lens meaning it would literally need to be right in front of your face for some kind of privacy issue. Now that DJI has lost the biggest customer base (USA) it will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.
 
I realize we all take slightly different approaches when it comes to following the Canadian Aviation Regulations for drone operations.

I'm not trying to lecture anyone, but I do think it worth reminding ourselves how important it is to be extra cautious when flying in a busy aviation environment.

Most of us have seen the photos of the micro drone strike on the CL-415 firefighting aircraft in U.S. and the shocking damage it caused to the wing. The operator didn't just face a slap on the wrist - the incident led to criminal charges and jail time.

Image.jpg


And closer to home, on October 26, 2018, a drone pilot was convicted of a criminal offence after flying near the approach path at Yellowknife Airport - even though there was no contact with an aircraft. This was the first conviction of its kind in Canada.

I come at this with a background from my past career as a helicopter pilot. There are several helicopters operating in the Toronto area, and I know I have mentioned this before, so apologies for repeating it, but a sub 250 gram drone striking the tail rotor would almost certainly cause a failure with fatal results. Sure, it's a one in a million scenario, but so was the drone strike on the CL-415.

A tragic real world example of how vulnerable helicopters are to tail rotor strikes is the Hydro One crash in Ontario in December 2017. An unsecured bag contacted the tail rotor, leading to a complete loss of control and fatal crash. The Transportation Safety Board report demonstrates how a seemingly minor impact can lead to catastrophic consequences.

Air Transportation Safety Investigation Report A17O0264 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

www.tsb.gc.ca www.tsb.gc.ca

I'm not waiving a rule book at anyone - just reminding us that a little caution goes a long way when we're sharing airspace. :)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top