[TwinHuey]

For those curious, here is the latest NOTAM issued for the Rogers Centre:

(G3913/25 NOTAMN
A) CZYZ B) 2510122300 C) 2510132300
D) OCT 12 2300-0300, OCT 13 1900-2300
E) PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.1 OF THE AERONAUTICS ACT, THE AIRSPACE
WITHIN RADIUS 0.3NM CENTRE 433829N 792321W (ROGERS CENTRE,
CENTRE APRX 0.6NM NE TORONTO / BILLY BISHOP TORONTO CITY
AIRPORT (WATER) (CPZ9), APRX 0.8NM NNE TORONTO / BILLY BISHOP
TORONTO CITY AIRPORT AD (CYTZ)) EXC THE AREA SOUTH OF THE
GARDINER EXPRESSWAY IS RESTRICTED DRG POLICE OPS. NO PERSON
SHALL OPR A REMOTELY PILOTED ACFT (RPAS, DRONE) WITHIN THE AREA
DESCRIBED EXC FOR POLICE OPS UNLESS PRIOR AUTH HAS BEEN RECEIVED
BY TPS COORD 416-671-2159
F) SFC G) 1000FT AGL)

For anyone not used to reading NOTAMs, here’s what the restriction around the Rogers Centre actually means in plain language:

Transport Canada has temporarily restricted the airspace around the Rogers Centre during police operations. The restricted zone is a 0.3 nautical mile radius (about 550 metres) around the stadium, from ground level up to 1,000 feet.

The restriction is in effect during these time windows:

• Oct 12, 7:00 PM–11:00 PM (EDT)
• Oct 13, 3:00 PM–7:00 PM (EDT)

During those times, no drones are allowed to fly in that zone unless you’re police or have prior authorization.

Anyone flying within that bubble during the restriction would be in violation.

NOTAM issued by NAV CANADA under the authority of Transport Canada.

 

[lenaitch]

Good points, and you're absolutely right that most front-line officers aren’t deep into the CARs — it’s a niche world even for people in aviation. That’s why I don’t think TPS acted on their own in the Rogers Centre situation.

Transport Canada has Regional Aviation Enforcement Offices, and the Inspectors there live and breathe this stuff. They know the regs inside out and they’re the ones who normally drive these files.

My guess is TC Enforcement was involved behind the scenes and worked with TPS to investigate and lay the charges. Sort of a “they load the gun, TPS pulls the trigger” arrangement.

It wouldn’t surprise me if TC wanted to set an example early under the new advertised-event rule, especially with a high-profile venue like the Rogers Centre during playoffs.

Could be. It's an area that is way out of my 'ken'. As mentioned, I have no clue regarding the enforcement authority of TC staff (demand identification/documents, arrest, obtain warrants, swear informations, etc. - all the stuff you need to be able to do to charge someone). The way the courts operates now, you have to be 'known' to the system and it would be unlikely that the TC agents would be unless they do a lot of court-directed activity rather than purely regulatory work. It may well be the TPS cops (who would be 'in the system') are using the TC agents as their expert witness. Cool gig for the TC folks - you get to watch a game while looking for drones.

I checked the federal Contraventions Act (basically, the authority to write a federal 'ticket') and the only Aeronautics Act offences that are identified there are for shining lasers.

 

[TwinHuey]

Could be. It's an area that is way out of my 'ken'. As mentioned, I have no clue regarding the enforcement authority of TC staff (demand identification/documents, arrest, obtain warrants, swear informations, etc. - all the stuff you need to be able to do to charge someone). The way the courts operates now, you have to be 'known' to the system and it would be unlikely that the TC agents would be unless they do a lot of court-directed activity rather than purely regulatory work. It may well be the TPS cops (who would be 'in the system') are using the TC agents as their expert witness. Cool gig for the TC folks - you get to watch a game while looking for drones.

I checked the federal Contraventions Act (basically, the authority to write a federal 'ticket') and the only Aeronautics Act offences that are identified there are for shining lasers.

When I was flying, it was the RCMP who handled this kind of thing with Transport Canada.

I was told they were federally sworn, so they had the authority to enforce the Air Regs directly.

Not that I had any… ahem… extensive dealings with RCMP and aviation regulations myself….

 

[lenaitch]

When I was flying, it was the RCMP who handled this kind of thing with Transport Canada.

I was told they were federally sworn, so they had the authority to enforce the Air Regs directly.

Not that I had any… ahem… extensive dealings with RCMP and aviation regulations myself….

I recall that as well. Back in the day, there were still small RCMP detachments scattered throughout Ontario and one member told us that any peace officer could demand five documents from a pilot:
- Certificate of Registration
- Certificate of Airworthiness
- Pilot Licence
- Radio Licence
- (forget the last one - pax manifest maybe?).

We used to 'pay attention' to some bush operators who were known to bootleg booze into remote FNTs and we would sometimes demand these documents as a way to both take a quick look in the aircraft and as a way to telegraph that we are watching. We really had no clue about these documents.