Notice of Proposed Amendment 2026-005 RPAS: Remote Identification, Community-Based Organizations, and Designated Airspace 

Under Construction

If you made it to this page, welcome. This page contains my response to NPA2026-005 published to CARAC by Transport Canada. This page is a work-in-progress and will continue to be updated until the comment submission deadline on Sept 9, 2026. This page was last updated September 14, 2026.  

Introduction:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on NPA 2026-06. This document contains feedback written by Tom Hastie on the subject NPA. I feel that this is an important regulatory package and it has the potential to set the long-term direction for both commercial and recreational RPAS operations in Canada. The opinions expressed in this document are those of Tom Hastie and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any other organization. As a (nearly) lifelong member of the model aircraft community, the regulatory analysis here comes from the point of view of a model aircraft pilot. As will be discussed below, CAR Part IX was not written with the model aircraft community in mind, and the CBO component of this NPA, if implemented correctly, has the possibility of providing much needed relief to a hobby that has been severely impacted by the CAR Part IX regulations. If there are any questions or clarifications on the comments provided here, I would be happy to discuss. I can be contacted by email at tom@tomsbasement.ca. 

About Me: 

I am an aerospace engineer who got his start as a kid learning to fly R/C Model Aircraft with my father. The hobby sparked a life-long interest in aviation. Along the way I have worked on certified navigation systems and avionics, I have participated in the standards development organizations that developed the Remote ID protocols and developed international and domestic airworthiness standards and regulations for RPAS. I contributed to the initial releases of ArduPilot back when it ran on an ATmega328. I also hold an active Canadian Glider Pilot License and Private Pilot License, enjoy flying sailplanes, instructing new glider pilots and flying the glider tow-plane. I still participate in the hobby that started it all and actively build and iterate on new model aircraft designs. At this stage I am passing on a love of aviation to the next generation as I teach my own children how to fly. I am concerned that the Remote ID regulations as proposed here would further stifle a hobby that has already been decimated by the CAR Part IX RPAS regulations. 

Summary: 

This section summarizes my most important comments about each component of the proposal. For further discussion and details see below where section-by-section comments on the NPA text are presented.

Remote ID Component:

Please don't mandate Remote ID for VLOS operations. 

• This NPA presents Remote ID as a key enabler of future complex, automated Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations. While I agree that an RPAS Traffic Management (RTM) system is required for these future automatic BVLOS operations, the current de facto standard for Broadcast Remote ID (ASTM F3411 using Bluetooth and Wi-Fi) will NOT support this end state. It currently has range and compatibility problems that will not support future operations. Airspace management is a key service required for safety. As such, RTM needs to be implemented using standardized communication protocols over licensed and segregated spectrum.  Requiring that the existing Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) operations equip with Bluetooth/Wi-Fi Broadcast Remote ID will not support a robust, extensible, RTM system and place a huge technological burden on current legal VLOS operations.  

• If the justification for VLOS Remote ID is security, mandating Broadcast Remote ID for VLOS operation will have a minimal impact on security. Conversations around RPAS security are often divided into the three groups of "careless", "clueless", and "criminal". While there may be a case to be made that Remote ID can assist in locating "careless" and "clueless" operators, it will most certainly not assist with issues created by the "criminal" operators. On the contrary, reliance on Remote ID for security purposes only creates a new threat vector for attackers. A criminal actor can use Remote ID transmissions to spoof many drones in any particular area. These spoofed signals can either be their own attack (i.e. creating delays at an airport), or they can be used to create a diversion (in the case of threats to secure facilities). Above all, any operators who truly do not want to be seen will operate RPAS that are not transmitting Remote ID, or they will broadcast Remote ID that identifies them as someone else. Requiring VLOS operators to equip with Broadcast Remote ID will not address security concerns related to RPAS. 

• If the justification for VLOS RID is public acceptance, Remote ID does not help drone operators with public acceptance. Rather than improving public acceptance by encouraging dialog between the general public and drone operators, remote ID gives observers a way to report drone operators directly to the government. In my own experience public acceptance comes from two-way conversations with curious observers. Generally, these interactions are simple and friendly. Beyond the fact that Remote-ID does not really work towards public acceptance, there are privacy issues regarding the transmitted data. Even if there is no way for a member of the public to associate a remote ID identification with me personally, I still have concerns over my drone Remote ID being reported to law enforcement (either erroneously or intentionally).

For VLOS operations there is no proof that an operator, performing VLOS per the rules, will have any issue avoiding collisions with other aircraft. The only time there is a risk of collision is when the operator has already ignored their 901.11 responsibilities and flown too far away to maintain VLOS. Remote ID is not required to avoid a collision with another aircraft when operating VLOS. 

A Remote ID mandate will not be enforceable. As noted in the NPA, some compliant Remote ID modules only have a 200ft range. In addition to short range, compatibility issues exist that mean that not all handheld devices can receive all Remote ID transmissions. Apple, for instance, restricts third party developers from accessing the raw WiFi stack – thus preventing reception of WiFi based Remote ID signals. Furthermore, Remote ID module manufacturers are already producing Broadcast Modules for pilots concerned about privacy that have minimal performance. Broadcast Remote ID, as it exists today, is not a solid foundation for a robust and future-proof RPAS Traffic Management System. 

Remote ID also opens a new attack vector for nefarious actors. If a location needs to be protected against drones (i.e. airport, penitentiary, other secure installation), and a Remote ID scanner is installed as the primary means of detecting RPAS, a bad actor can simply use Remote ID either as a diversion or as the attack itself. For example: 

• Penitentiary: A criminal element could use a Remote ID transmitter from one location to distract security forces while a drone without Remote ID is used to perform the criminal mission from another direction. 

• Airport: If one wanted to disrupt traffic at an airport that was using Remote ID to detect drones in nearby airspace, one could simply plant a remote ID transmitter somewhere near the airport. From a nearby roof, the remote ID transmitter could send signals showing that there are multiple drones at multiple critical locations around the airport. The airport will need other means of detection to determine which drones are real and which drones are decoys. 

The concept of Remote ID was a direction by the US Department of Homeland Security in 2017 when the UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee was concerned about "rogue" drones in the US National Airspace. In the nearly 10 years since those recommendations were made, the RPAS community has evolved beyond the need for RPAS to be detectable by consumer handheld devices. Adoption of Remote ID in the US airspace did not go smoothly, with many many recreational RPAS pilots citing concerns about privacy, compatibility, lack of availability of Remote ID equipment, and the general lack of effectiveness of using Bluetooth and Wi-Fi protocols for aircraft traffic management. Canada should not building a future RPAS Traffic Management System on a 9 year old recommendation from the United States that is based on outdated technology and whose adoption in other jurisdictions has been problematic to say the least.

I encourage Transport Canada to investigate the multitude of technologies that have been developed over the past 10 years to both detect and counter small RPA. A safety and security framework that relies on these technologies will be much more robust and future proof than relying on Bluetooth and Wi-Fi Broadcast Remote ID. It would also allow a future RTM system to be designed from the ground up using licensed aviation spectrum and sufficient transmitted power levels to form a solid basis for complex RPAS operations. 

Community Based Organizations Component

It is an excellent idea to rely on safety procedures and best practices developed by CBOs as an "alternate means" to CAR Part IX for conducting safe operations.

My primary comment on the CBO framework, is that in order to ensure that the CBO regulations do not suffer the same fate as the MAAC exemption, it is critical that the regulations be structured such that they punish the individual member rather than the Organization in most cases of a non-compliance incident. Except for a very few key cases, an individual who violates CBO rules should simply be excluded from any CBO regulatory-carve out and be subject to the regulations that already exist under CAR Part IX. 

A key problem with the proposal as described in the NPA is the assumption that all model aircraft operations will be Remote ID exempt because they are performed under the modified CBO rules. I have concerns that while the fixed model club sites will fit within the CBO framework, the concept of MAAC "Personal Flying Sites" and "Off-site Flyers Program" will not. I, personally, conduct most of my model aircraft activity away from club sites, using empty sports fields, rural lakes and other locations that are suitable. These operations have been performed safely for decades without the technological burden of Broadcast Remote ID. As discussed elsewhere in this document, applying remote ID to these operations exposes me to privacy risks, adds weight and technological complexity to my otherwise simple model, and does not contribute to traffic management, safety or security in any meaningful way. 

GeoAwareness Zones Component

I agree that 5.1 and CYR are not the correct tool for restricting airspace to small and medium RPAS.

Displaying these areas to pilots needs to be an optional feature of RPAS. Not all RPAS will be able to display a map with up to date geozones. Further, RPAS pilots who are actually in compliance with CAR 901.11 VLOS rules should be monitoring their aircraft location visually rather than consulting a map during flight. GeoAwareness zones should be available in the DSST or similar web sites and pilots should be responsible for these online tools to be aware of applicable airspace restrictions (as part of their CAR 901.27 responsibilities). 

NPA 2026-06 Section-by-Section Commentary

The details below include reproductions of specific sections of NPA 2026-06 with comments and discussion. For clarity, I have highlighted the specific passages of the NPA that relate to the associated comment. 

900.13 - Registration

Reg Text

(1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system that includes, as an element of the system, a remotely piloted aircraft having an operating weight of 250 g (0.55 pounds) or more unless the remotely piloted aircraft is registered in accordance with this Division.

Regulatory Intent

The registration of RPA weighing more than 250g is intended to accomplish the following: 

• Allowing traceability from an RPA to the owner in the event the RPA is found. 

• Encourage good behaviour by RPAS pilots (as the operator knows the RPA is traceable back to them). 

• Give TC insight into the types and quantities of drones being used in Canada. 

Reason this regulation is problematic to the model aircraft community

The 1-to-1 registration concept doesn't work well for the model aircraft community mainly because they don’t own and operate aircraft in the same way as traditional Part IX pilots. They crash and reassemble parts over and over into new aircraft. They often have large fleets that can extend into dozens of discrete aircraft. Some models might crash on the first flight and never fly again. Some aircraft are proof of concept experiments that won’t be used more than a few times. Others may last for decades. Store bought model aircraft are generally not serialized by the manufacturer, and the builder/owner generally performs a lot of customization work on their aircraft. There is nothing that really ties a particular Registration number to an airframe. Given all this, the $10 fee to register each and every airframe on the Drone Management Portal becomes an administrative and financial burden on the average model aircraft pilot. MAAC has a requirement that members put their unique member identification number on each of their aircraft. This member number provides the traceability and encouragement of good behaviour that are two key parts of the regulatory intent of CAR 900.13. The remaining item, insight into the types and quantities of drones operated in Canada, could easily be met by a data item shared by the relevant CBO with Transport Canada. I believe it would significantly clean-up the Drone Registration Database if model aircraft were removed and simply addressed by an annual quantity provided by the relevant CBO.  

900.14 - Registration Number

Regulatory Text:

No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless the registration number referred to in paragraph 900.16(3)(a) is clearly visible on the remotely piloted aircraft.

Regulatory Intent

The intent of this regulation is to ensure that if an RPA airframe is found (especially, if it is found in a restricted location) the RPA can either be returned to the operator (or an investigation into why the RPA was in a restricted area can be started).  

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

The "Scale Aircraft" interest group of the hobby often spend weeks/months/years trying to make their models indistinguishable from a real aircraft except for the size.  MAAC allows members to put the required markings (MAAC Member Number, and phone number) inside the aircraft (behind a wing or panel, etc.) to avoid non-scale markings on a scale model. During scale model aircraft contests the judges stand 3m away from the model and points are deducted for all elements of the model that don’t match the full-scale version of the aircraft. Guidance currently from TC is that the Reg number needs to be visible on the outside of the aircraft (ref AIM RPA 3.1). Scale modelers are asking to be allowed to put the registration number on the model somewhere where it can't be seen when the model is assembled, but is obvious if you, say, remove a wing or hatch. If CBO members were allowed to mark their aircraft in this way, it would continue to meet the regulatory intent of CAR 900.14.  

900.18 - Cancellation of Certificate of Registration

Regulatory Text:

(1) A registered owner of a remotely piloted aircraft shall, within seven days after becoming aware that

any of the following events has occurred, notify the Minister that

(a) the aircraft is destroyed;

(b) the aircraft is permanently withdrawn from use;

(c) the aircraft is missing and the search for the aircraft

is terminated;

(d) the aircraft has been missing for 60 days or more;

or

(e) the registered owner has transferred legal custody

and control of the aircraft.

…

Regulatory Intent

This regulation is based on a similar regulation in traditional aviation (CAR 202.57) and seeks to ensure that the database of Registered RPA stays current and applicable. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

A traditional crewed aircraft is a much larger asset than most RPAS, and this is especially true of the average model aircraft hobbyist. Recreational model aircraft owners often don’t know if their aircraft is “permanently withdrawn from use”, or if it will be flown again several years down the road. A crash that initially might seem irreparable can often be fixed given time and willingness to do so (in fact this is a key element of enjoyment many get from the hobby). Navigating this requirement to de-register model aircraft when they are not flown can be difficult for many in the model aircraft community.  

This can become an especially big issue for owners of large recreational fleets, which might sit unused for several years until they are sold, used for parts or otherwise disposed of. There have also been comments from the model aircraft community that the need to deregister RPAS when a pilot/owner dies can be a burden on family members at a difficult time (for essentially no benefit to the safety and security of Canadian Airspace). For the RPAS registration framework to be improved by the CBO regulatory update, the requirement to deregister aircraft should be addressed. This would be addressed (as noted above) if the CBO framework allowed for CBO members to mark their aircraft with their CBO member number, rather than an aircraft registration number. 

901.23 - Procedures

Regulatory Text:

(1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless the following procedures are established:

(a) normal operating procedures, including pre-flight, take-off, launch, approach, landing and recovery procedures; and

(b) emergency procedures, including with respect to

(i) a control station failure,

(ii) an equipment failure,

(iii) a failure of the remotely piloted aircraft,

(iv) a loss of the command and control link,

(v) a fly-away, 

(vi) flight termination, and

(vii) the detection and avoidance of conflicting air

traffic and other hazards.

(2) If the manufacturer of the remotely piloted aircraft system or the person who has made a declaration referred

to in section 901.194 in respect of that model of system provides instructions with respect to the topics referred to

in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), the procedures established under subsection (1) shall reflect those instructions.

(3) No pilot shall conduct the take-off or launch of a remotely piloted aircraft unless the procedures referred to in subsection (1) are reviewed before the flight by, and are immediately available to, each crew member.

(4) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless the operation is conducted in accordance with the procedures referred to in subsection (1).

Regulatory Intent

The intent of this regulation is to ensure that RPAS pilots have procedures to deal with the most common situations that might arise during RPAS operation. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that for the various contingencies and emergencies, the pilot has a plan to mitigate the risks that could be caused. This regulation also ensures that, if the RPAS manufacturer has specified operating procedures, that these procedures are respected. Finally, this regulation ensures that the procedures can be accessed by the pilot and crew if needed.  

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

Currently, guidance in the AIM states that established procedures shall be in either written or digital format. The term “Established Procedures” is also used elsewhere in the CARs (ref 602.62, 604.50, etc.) where it implies that the term refers to written procedures that are maintained by a Part VI or Part VII operator. 

While these types of established procedures are valuable when ensuring safety and coordinating a team of pilots, members of the model aircraft community do not establish formal procedures in this manner. The community-based organization establishes a safety code that provides high level guidance for operations as well as prescriptive rules when necessary to ensure the level of safety of all operations are maintained. Within this framework, each model aircraft pilot establishes their own informal personal procedures based on their experience, risk tolerance, the exact aircraft they are flying, and the conditions of the day.

Model aircraft do not come with detailed operating manuals, and the nature of their operation means that consulting procedures (written or digital) during flight is often impossible. Each member fully understands the parts of the MAAC safety code that are relevant to their operation and generally does not need to have these codes "accessible during flight". The CBO framework should allow the CBO to define what procedures are required to ensure the safety of their operations and mandate whether these procedures need to be "immediately accessible during flight".   

901.25 – Maximum Altitude

Regulatory Text:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at an altitude greater than

(a) 400 feet (122 m) AGL; or

(b) 100 feet (30 m) above any building or structure, if the aircraft is being operated at a distance of less than 200 feet (61 m), measured horizontally, from the building or structure.

(2) A pilot may operate a remotely piloted aircraft at an altitude greater than those set out in subsection (1) if the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

Regulatory Intent

A major concern that led to the Part IX regulations was the fact that stabilized drones could be flown higher and farther than the pilot could see the aircraft. This led to a concern of midair collisions with crewed aircraft. The altitude limit of 400ft AGL was set to segregate RPAS operations from traditional aircraft operations to address this risk.

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

The 400ft AGL ceiling is a huge problem for the model aircraft community because: 

- most of their aircraft don't have altimetry systems. Altitude is estimated based on visual judgement and experience. 

- Especially for larger models (such as turbine jets), the standard turnaround maneuver (a half cuban eight) will generally be taller than 400ft AGL and is much safer than a horizontal turning maneuver (it keeps the aircraft over the protected area, closer to the pilot, and further from the ground).

- RC Sailplanes need to climb well above 400ft AGL to make use of thermals. 

- The VLOS nature of model aircraft operations means that model aircraft pilots are far more focused on the airspace surrounding their model than most other "drone" pilots (if you lose sight of a model aircraft, the aircraft will crash). Traditional aircraft that might come near their area of operation are instantly heard/observed by the pilot and easily avoided. 

The 400ft AGL limitation on recreational model aircraft has effectively stopped the activities of RC Soaring, Contest Aerobatics, Large Scale Turbine operations in Canada. A CBO framework should allow for operations above 400ft, given that an equivalent level of safety can be demonstrated. The decades of safe operations prior to the existence of CAR Part IX demonstrates the model aircraft operations can be performed safely without a 400ft AGL altitude limit.

901.27 – Site Survey

Regulatory Text:

No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless, before commencing the operation, they determine that the operational volume is suitable by conducting a site survey that takes into account the following factors:

(a) the type of airspace and any requirements applicable to the flight geography, including any specified in a NOTAM;

(b) the altitudes and routes to be used for approach, take-off, launch, landing or recovery;

(c) the proximity of other aircraft operations; 

(d) the proximity of airports, heliports and other aerodromes;

(e) the location and height of obstacles, including wires, masts, buildings, cell phone towers and wind turbines;

(f) the predominant weather and environmental conditions and the weather forecast for the duration of the flight;

(g) in the case of a VLOS operation, an extended VLOS operation or a sheltered operation, the horizontal distance from any person not involved in the operation;

and

(h) in the case of a BVLOS operation, the distance from any populated area or sparsely populated area.

Regulatory Intent

It is important that an RPAS pilot is aware of their surroundings during an operation. This regulation ensures that important aspects of the operational area are considered by the operator when planning a flight.  

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

There is confusion amongst recreational operators regarding what is the expected format of a site survey, how often it must be done, in a club field situation whether or not it needs to be done by every person operating, and if one site survey can apply to operations for an entire day of activity. 

For established model aircraft fields, most aspects of the site survey are done when the field is first established (i.e. items b), c), d), e), and g)). Item f), weather is covered by the pilot being present at the location for the flight (they won’t fly if they’re uncomfortable with the weather). For item a) and NOTAMS, there are other mitigations that make it unnecessary to check NOTAMS prior to each flight (i.e. recreational pilots at a club field will notice a crewed aircraft or other limiting factors in their airspace and stop flying). CBOs should be able to define their own procedures related to site surveys to address CAR 901.27 requirements. 

901.30 - Availability of Manuals

Regulatory Text:

(1) No pilot shall conduct the take-off or launch of a remotely piloted aircraft unless the operating manuals

applicable to the remotely piloted aircraft system of which the aircraft is an element are immediately available

to crew members.

(2) No pilot shall conduct the take-off or launch of a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation

under Division VI unless the RPAS operator’s RPAS operations manual is immediately available to crew members.

Regulatory Intent

This is a carry-over from traditional aviation where the Pilot Operating Handbook is expected to be on board the aircraft and available to the pilot. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

The problems with this regulation are closely related to the problems with CAR 901.23 (Procedures). Most recreational model aircraft are not supplied with manuals, and in general modelers do not write manuals for their aircraft. Actual operation is based on the judgement and experience of the pilot, and there are mitigations in place to eliminate any risks in the event judgment and experience are insufficient.  Fundamentally, in the case of MAAC operations, the MAAC safety code ensures the safety of people and aircraft not involved in the operation. Finally, the nature of model aircraft operations makes it impossible to refer to an operating manual during flight. The CBO framework should be designed so that CBO members are not required to have paper or digital operating manuals available during the flight. 

901.31 - Instructions and Manuals

Regulatory Text:

No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless it is operated in accordance with the operating manuals applicable the system and, if applicable, the RPAS operator’s maintenance control manual and RPAS operations manual.

Regulatory Intent

RPAS are varied and are not standardized as most traditional aircraft are. As experts in a particular RPAS, the manufacturer is expected to provide manuals and instructions needed for the safe operation of the RPAS. If instructions or manuals are provided, then operators are expected to follow those instructions and manuals.  

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

Similar to 901.31, this is an issue because most model aircraft are not supplied with detailed operating instructions, and many recreational modelers modify their aircraft. 

In the model aircraft and homebuilt RPAS community there should be relief for those who have alternate risk mitigations in place. For example, even though the manual that came with this model plane says "don't fly if the propeller is chipped", or "don't use a different battery", the risk mitigations that exist in the MAAC safety code ensure that the only hazard in doing so is that the plane might crash, and the probability of injury to anyone not involved in the operation is very minimal. 

A CBO framework should allow modelers/homebuilders to rewrite operating manuals because they have operational mitigations in place. The regulations of CAR Part IX are not meant to protect the RPAS, they are meant to protect people. Therefore, if a CBO can demonstrate that their procedures are sufficient to protect people not involved in the operation, compliance with specific manufacturer operating limitations should not be required.

901.35 - Icing

Regulatory Text:

No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system when icing conditions are observed, are reported to exist or are likely to be encountered along the route of flight unless the aircraft is equipped with de-icing or anti-icing equipment and equipment designed to detect icing.

(2) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system with frost, ice or snow adhering to any of the critical surfaces of the remotely piloted aircraft.

...

Regulatory Intent

The intent of this regulation is to ensure that RPA are not flown when icing could affect safe operation. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

Model aircraft are often flown during the winter months, and alternate mitigations are in place that allow flights in snow and ice to be done safely (i.e. The MAAC safety code ensures that a crash due to icing won't hurt anyone). Given this the CBO framework should allow it to be left to the pilot discretion as to whether the amount of snow or ice accumulated on the aircraft is acceptable. 

901.38 – Use of First-Person View Devices

Regulatory Text:

(1) Unless the operation is conducted under Division VI, no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft

system using a first-person view device unless a visual observer maintains unaided visual contact with the airspace

beyond the field of view displayed on the device in order to detect conflicting air traffic and other hazards and take action to avoid them.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), means a device that generates and transmits a streaming video image to a control station display or monitor, giving the pilot of a remotely piloted aircraft the illusion of flying the aircraft from an onboard pilot’s perspective.

Regulatory Intent

This regulation is written with “FPV Goggles” in mind. When an operator is “under the hood” and operating with goggles on they lose some situational awareness of people and airspace around them. The use of a visual operator is to ensure that the operation can maintain VLOS and airspace awareness while the pilot is using the FPV goggles.

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

This regulation actually matches the MAAC Safety code which requires a spotter for FPV operations to ensure that there are no people entering the area, and there aren't other aircraft flying through the airspace. Generally, this is easily done at MAAC Club fields where there often other people present to act as VO. 

However, many FPV pilots might fly alone in a known area without a VO. The CBO framework should allow the CBO to provide alternate means of safe FPV operations. In many cases these operations might qualify as sheltered operations (i.e. FPV flight near and through abandoned buildings). 

901.41 – Advertised Events

Regulatory Text:

(1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system at any advertised event except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system for the purpose of an

operation to save human life, a police operation, a firefighting operation or any other operation that is conducted

in the service of a public authority.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), means an outdoor event that is advertised to the general public, including a concert, festival, market or sporting event.

Regulatory Intent

This regulation is intended to ensure that RPAS operations around large groups of people are performed safely. The SFOC ensures that RPAS operators flying at advertised events have experience and safety procedures in place to do so safely. Initially, this regulation was intended for advertised events that were not aviation related, such as professional sport events or musical concerts. It is important that operators flying RPAS in close proximity with large groups of the general public have the right equipment, procedures and training to do so safely. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

Recreational operators will often have “open house” events where they advertise to the public that the club is open for non-pilots to visit and watch the flying. They also often have events where members of other clubs are invited to fly/compete/demonstrate/etc. At the moment, some model aircraft open house events have been interpreted as "Special Aviation Events", and have had the requirements of CAR Standard 623 applied to them. 

Model aircraft "fun-fly" events, contests, and special interest get-togethers are some of the most important events the model aircraft community. They generate public interest to grow the hobby, and they foster flying and building skill development. With the loss of the MAAC exemption, the thriving contest community in Canada was effectively grounded. The current interpretation of these events as "Special Aviation Events" that require the full scrutiny of CAR Standard 623 continues to be a huge and unnecessary burden to these events. 

Part of the CBO framework needs to allow CBO to develop their own rules to use when holding these open house events. MAAC already has a robust process for event approval, and specific safety rules and procedures to ensure that these events can be held safely. At the moment, the event application process, is driven by the need to comply with the Transport Canada regulations. The overly complex process for event approval is driving many clubs to cancel long standing annual model aircraft events, or driving these events underground. Many clubs have taken all event announcements off social media to ensure that their weekend fun-fly events cannot be mistaken for an "advertised" event. Driving event organization underground like this is the opposite of what should be happening, and does not benefit aviation safety, or the growth of the model aircraft community.  

901.48 - Records

Regulatory Text:

(1) Every owner of a remotely piloted aircraft system shall keep the following records:

(a) a record containing the names of the pilots and other crew members who are involved in each flight and, in respect of the system, the time of each flight or series of flights; and

(b) a record containing the particulars of any mandatory action and any other maintenance action, modification or repair performed on the system, including

(i) the names of the persons who performed them,

(ii) the dates they were undertaken,

(iii) in the case of a modification, the manufacturer, model and a description of the part or equipment installed to modify the system, and

(iv) if applicable, any instructions provided to complete the work.

(2) Every owner of a remotely piloted aircraft system shall ensure that the records referred to in subsection (1) are made available to the Minister on request and are retained for a period of

(a) in the case of the records referred to in paragraph (1)(a), 12 months after the day on which they are created; and

(b) in the case of the records referred to in paragraph (1)(b), 24 months after the day on which they are created.

(3) Every owner of a remotely piloted aircraft system who transfers ownership of the system to another person shall, at the time of transfer, also deliver to that person all of the records referred to in paragraph (1)(b).

Regulatory Intent

This regulation is derived from traditional aviation and is intended to ensure that there is traceability in the operations and maintenance performed on RPAS. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

Maintenance of model aircraft is such a fundamental component of the model aircraft hobby, that if an operator were to fully comply with CAR 901.48, it would result in hundreds of pages of paper to support the simplest of model aircraft. Nearly every flight involves adjusting control settings, replacing worn parts, adjusting weight and balance, and repairing minor damage. For most, this is a normal, routine and enjoyable part of the hobby. We repair and maintain our model aircraft fleet to comply with MAAC safety regulations, but also to protect our investment in each model. 

Maintaining a log of maintenance and flights does not provide a clear safety benefit.  Most in the model aircraft community don’t share their aircraft (so the pilot/crew will never change). Most in the model aircraft community don’t have any maintenance requirements that are based on the number of flights performed by the aircraft (so they don’t need to know how many flights have been performed). It would also be difficult for any inspector to verify that a log is correct. It’s common for modelers to have many (into the dozens) of aircraft airworthy at a time, and fly dozens of flights on a visit to the club field. The paperwork associated with logging all these flights can grow quickly, and for no apparent increase in safety or security.

For item (b), if one takes the definition of maintenance, modification, or repair at their most basic level, then the average model aircraft operator does far more maintenance/modification/repair than the average operator of a consumer camera drone. 

- propellers and other structural parts break on rough landings and are replaced between flights. 

- bolts vibrate loose and are tightened.

- engine settings are adjusted.

- control surfaces throws and programable mixes are adjusted. 

- structures are repaired following both normal use and crashes. 

- adjustments are made for the current flight conditions (CG, propeller or blade pitch).

All of these are examples of things that, depending on the definition, could qualify as maintenance/repair/modification.

Some operators may do more maintenance/modification/repair than actual flying. (when flying RPAS as a hobby, people gravitate to the part of the hobby that interests them most). Some aircraft get no maintenance (you fly them until they crash). Other aircraft might get maintenance and modifications between each flight.

Some of these actions are mandatory (the aircraft won't fly or will probably crash if the action is not taken). Others are optional (the aircraft will still fly, maybe it will be difficult to control, maybe performance will be degraded but still safe). However, regardless of the nature of the task, the model aircraft operational limitations (MAAC Safety code, distance from people, nature of the operation) ensures that it is very unlikely that crashes caused by improper maintenance/repair/modification will hurt people not associated with the operation.

The main concerns of the model aircraft community are: 

- If the definition of maintenance/modification/repair are unclear, can a hobbyist be fined if they don't make a record every time they modify, repair, or inspect their aircraft? How would a Transport Canada Inspector be able to prove that maintenance was done but not logged?

- If the safety framework around the model aircraft community allows them to crash (either from improper maintenance, or for other reasons) safely, then what value does logging maintenance and flights provide?

- There are no flight currency, or pilot skill requirements for maintaining an RPAS Pilot Certificate (you don't need to demonstrate that you have performed a certain number of take-offs or landings in the last 6 months for instance). Therefore what does maintaining a log of flights on my aircraft provide?  For modelers with large fleets, the paperwork quickly becomes burdensome. How could a TC inspector possibly prove that a flight log for a particular aircraft is incomplete or incorrect? 

The CBO framework should allow for CBO to develop record keeping requirements that are appropriate for the risk of the operation. 

901.49 – Incidents and Accidents – Associated Measures

Regulatory Text:

(1) A pilot that operates a remotely piloted aircraft system shall immediately cease operations if any of the following incidents or accidents occurs until such time as an analysis is undertaken as to the cause of the occurrence and corrective actions have been taken to mitigate the risk of recurrence:

(a) injuries to any person requiring medical attention;

(b) unintended contact between the aircraft and persons;

(c) unanticipated damage incurred to the airframe, control station, payload or command and control links that adversely affects the performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft;

(d) any time the aircraft is not kept within horizontal boundaries or altitude limits;

(e) any collision with or risk of collision with another aircraft;

(f) any time the aircraft becomes uncontrollable, experiences a fly-away or is missing; and

(g) any incident not referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f) for which a police report has been filed or for which a Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Report has resulted.

(2) The pilot of the remotely piloted aircraft system shall keep, and make available to the Minister on request, a record of any analyses undertaken under subsection (1) for a period of 12 months after the day on which the record is created.

Regulatory Intent

The intent of this regulation is to ensure that if accidents occur, they can be tracked and if needed, patterns can be addressed. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

In general, this is acceptable because most of the key subsections of the regulation include words like “unintended” or “unanticipated”. In general, recreational operators always anticipate that their aircraft will crash, and have operational mitigations in place to ensure that the crash doesn’t create a hazard. The unspoken rule amongst most model aircraft pilots is that one doesn't fly an aircraft that they hope to get back. Because crashes are anticipated, crashes of model aircraft would not be subject to CAR 901.49 analysis requirements. However, I'm not certain that this is the intended interpretation of this regulation. 

Also, injuries can and do occur when operating model aircraft (propeller lacerations being most common). However, typically there is no formal analysis following an injury; operators naturally try not to repeat situations that previously led to injury. An injury analysis of "oops I better not do that again", is likely not the intent of CAR 901.49.

The CBO framework should allow CBO to propose their own crash investigation and injury tolerance policies and develop their own safety management system to ensure that safety of the general public is maintained. 

901.54 – Pilot Requirements

Regulatory Text:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the person

(a) is at least 14 years of age; and

(b) holds either

(i) a pilot certificate — small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) — basic operations issued under section 901.55; or

(ii) a pilot certificate — small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) — advanced operations issued under section 901.64.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the operation of the remotely piloted aircraft system is conducted under the

direct supervision of a person who can operate such a system under this Division, Division V or Division VI.

Regulatory Intent

The age limit in 901.54 comes from traditional aviation. The minimum age to hold a Student Pilot Permit is 14. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

The 14-year age requirement is a problem for many kids. Some kids will have a parent involved in the hobby who can supervise, but not all will have access to an adult with a Basic RPAS Certificate. 

Kids who start in model aviation often become adults who have careers in aviation and this should be encouraged. If restrict participation on model aviation to kids older than 14, we end up excluding a lot of kids from a rewarding activity.  As mentioned above, I started in the hobby of model aircraft when I was 8 years old, and it turned into a lifelong interest and a career in aviation.

The CBO framework should allow for CBO to develop ways of including youth in the activity in a safe and responsible manner. 

901.56 – Recency Requirements

Regulatory Text:

(1) No holder of a pilot certificate — small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) — basic operations, a

pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations or a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft

— level 1 complex operations shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the

holder has, within the 24 months preceding the flight, 

(a) been issued a pilot certificate — small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) — basic operations under section 901.55, a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations under section 901.64 or a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations under section 901.90; or 

(b) successfully completed 

(i) any of the examinations referred to in paragraph 901.55(b), 901.64(b) or 901.90(e), 

(ii) any of the flight reviews referred to in paragraph 901.64(c) or 901.90(f), or 

(iii) any of the recurrent training activities set out in section 921.04 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

Regulatory Intent

This regulation is based on traditional aviation and is intended to ensure that RPAS pilots stay up to date with operating rules and regulations 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

The recency requirements, especially the activities listed in 921.04 are designed by Transport Canada with the intended audience of a multi-rotor operator in mind. In general, multi-rotor operations are very different from model aircraft operations, and therefore the recency activities currently don’t do a good job of addressing the knowledge requirements of the model aircraft community. 

For MAAC pilots it is more relevant to stay current by reviewing updates to the MAAC safety code rather than completing the Transport Canada pilot recurrent training activities in 921.04. 

The CBO should framework should include the ability of a CBO to develop safety seminars that could be endorsed by TCCA as valid means of maintaining currency. This is already done in the gliding community (where annual safety seminars can meet the requirements of CAR 401.05).  A CBO like MAAC should be able to develop safety seminars that are applicable to their operations. These could become a part of the regular meetings held at various clubs, and attendance at one of these MAAC seminars would cover the 921.04 requirement.

901.62 - Application

Regulatory Text:

This Division applies in respect of the following operations of a remotely piloted aircraft system:

(a) the operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation, (i) in controlled airspace,

…

…

(iv) within three nautical miles from the centre of an airport, or within one nautical mile from the centre

of a heliport; 

(b) the operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft to conduct an extended VLOS operation in uncontrolled

airspace;

(c) the operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a sheltered operation;

(d) the operation of a medium remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation, …

Regulatory Intent

This regulation defines the types of operation that require the pilot to hold an Advanced Pilot Certificate. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

Most recreational model aircraft operators do not want to operate near or over people. The primary model aircraft operation that is affected by this regulation is the operation in controlled airspace and occasionally operation near airports and heliports. 

Some MAAC members who have safely operated in controlled airspace for quite some time have difficulty completing the Advanced Certificate Exam. The main reason for this is that in addition to controlled airspace, the Advanced Certificate Exam was written with operations near/over people in mind as well as operations at airports and heliports. The examination is also written with the assumption that most RPAS being operated are stabilized multirotor aircraft. Most model aircraft operations are un-stabilized and manually flown fixed wing or rotorcraft. This means that very little of the knowledge requirements on the Advanced Certificate exam actually apply to model aircraft, and prior to attempting the exam a model aircraft pilot needs to learn a lot of new information that they have never seen before. Furthermore, the costs associated with an Advanced Pilot Certificate tend to assume that the candidate intends to perform commercial for-profit operations. The exam is $10, the issuance of the Advanced Pilot Certificate is $25, and the flight review generally costs approximately $200. When taken together, the requirement for an Advanced Pilot Certificate can become a barrier for many people looking to operate fixed wing model aircraft at an established club field that happens to be in controlled airspace.

There are many (often elderly, or people younger than 16) model aircraft pilots who have been eliminated from flying at their local model aircraft field because of their inability to pass the Advanced Pilot Certificate. On the other hand, model aircraft pilots do not want to exercise the full privileges of an Advanced Pilot Certificate (flight near and over people, or operation of RPA up to 150kg). The CBO framework should allow CBO to justify that their pilot training curriculum provides an equivalent level of safety to that of an Advanced Pilot Certificate within their scope of operations.  

901.63 – Pilot Requirements

Regulatory Text:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the person

(a) is at least 16 years of age; and

(b) holds either

(i) a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations issued under section 901.64, or

(ii) a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the operation of the remotely piloted aircraft system is conducted under the direct supervision of a person who can operate such a system under this Division or Division VI.

Regulatory Intent

The minimum age of 16 for an Advanced Pilot Certificate is based on the minimum age for a traditional pilot license. It is intended to ensure that those pilots who are performing the envisioned Advanced Operations (which are generally commercial operations) have the maturity and responsibility to do so.  

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

Other than the age concern which has already been discussed above, another major concern from MAAC members is the fee that most flight reviewers charge. Existing Part IX drone schools tend to charge in the neighborhood of $200 to complete an Advanced Certificate Flight Review. While the situation has improved (I personally provide Flight Reviews to MAAC members free of charge), depending on the location, finding a flight review can be a financial and logistical problem for many model aircraft pilots. 

As mentioned above, the CBO framework should allow for a CBO to justify that their pilot training curriculum has an equivalent level of safety to an Advanced Pilot Certificate when considering the risks and mitigations of their specific operations.

901.65 – Recency Requirements

Regulatory Text:

(1) No holder of a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations or of a pilot certificate

— remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system

under this Division unless the holder has, within the 24 months preceding the flight,

(a) been issued a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations under section 901.64 or a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations under section 901.90; or

(b) successfully completed

(i) any of the examinations referred to in paragraph 901.55(b), 901.64(b) or 901.90(e),

(ii) any of the flight reviews referred to in paragraph 901.64(c) or 901.90(f), or

(iii) any of the recurrent training activities set out in section 921.04 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

Regulatory Intent

This regulation is based on traditional aviation and is intended to ensure that RPAS pilots stay up to date with operating rules and regulations 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

Refer to the analysis for 901.56 above for details. In short, the recurrent training activities of CAR Standard 921 are targeted at drone operations and are not well suited to the needs of a safe and responsible model aircraft pilot. The CBO framework should allow the CBO to develop, maintain, and administer its own tailored recurrent training programs similar to what is done today in traditional aviation. 

901.69 - Manufacturer Declaration — Permitted Operations

Regulatory Text:

No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division to conduct any of the following operations unless a declaration to the Minister has been made in accordance with section 901.194 in respect of that model of system and in respect of each of the technical requirements set out in Standard 922  applicable to the operation:

the VLOS operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace;

…

Regulatory Intent:

This regulation is intended to ensure that RPAS used for Advanced Operations have a level of safety, design assurance, and reliability required to accomplish those operations safely. This regulation places technical responsibilities on RPAS manufacturers who intend for their products to be used in higher risk RPAS operations.  

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

Access to controlled airspace has been extremely difficult for the model aircraft community since the loss of the MAAC exemption. The two problematic requirements are the required safety assurance declaration, and the requirement for an Advanced Pilot Certificate. The advanced certificate requirement was discussed above in 901.62. 

CAR 901.69 effectively requires that RPAS used in Controlled Airspace meet CAR Standard 922.04. Unlike typical RPAS that comply with 922.04 using technological means (i.e. GPS), MAAC model aircraft have operated safely for decades in controlled airspace by mitigating the risk through operational procedures. Model aircraft are operated VLOS, and always close enough to the pilot that the position of the aircraft can be determined visually. This disconnect has led to at least a few Safety Assurance Declarations (i.e. Tom's Basement) that are effectively using operational mitigations to address what was intended to be a technical requirement on the RPAS. This is not how the safety assurance declarations framework was intended, and having all MAAC members make safety assurance declarations against 922.04 would be difficult to manage with the existing DMP process flows. The declaration system was designed with mass produced RPAS in mind, not one-off amateur-built aircraft. Furthermore, many MAAC member pilots who have demonstrated the ability to safely operate model aircraft in controlled airspace do not have the technical knowledge to responsibly make a safety assurance declaration against CAR Standard 922.04.

The CBO framework should allow CBOs to demonstrate that their operations can be safe using means that do not fit neatly within the Safety Assurance Declaration and CAR Standard 922 frameworks.  

901.71 – Operations in Controlled Airspace

Regulatory Text:

(1)No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace under this Division unless an authorization has been issued by the provider of air traffic services in the area of operation and, if requested, the following information has been provided to that provider:

(a) …

(2) Despite section 901.25, a pilot may operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace under this Division at an altitude above those referred to in that section if an authorization to that effect has been issued by the provider of air traffic services in the area of operation.

(3) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace under this Division unless the authorization

referred to in subsection (1) is easily accessible to the pilot during the operation.

Regulatory Intent

This regulation ensures that RPAS operators who fly in controlled airspace submit adequate information about their operation to NAV Canada. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

As written, this requirement assumes that each pilot needs to submit a separate NAV Drone request for every registered aircraft operated at a club field. As is the case for many regulations in Part IX, this works fine for many commercial drone operations, but does not work for model aircraft at a MAAC Club setting. Most of these flights are between 0 and 10 minutes long, and the NAV Drone mobile app, as it works currently, makes operators define their operation “from scratch” for each flight. This can take 3-5 minutes depending on the operator’s recent familiarity with the app. Futhermore, it becomes frustrating to users when these operations tend to be “auto-approved”, and from the standpoint of several operators operating at the same location, there is no apparent benefit to have each individual pilot submit a NAV Drone request. 

At the moment it is difficult to get agreement from NAV Canada for simplified access to airspace. In the past, model airplane clubs that were situated on or near controlled airports were able to generate agreements with the local tower and operate safely. Typically the agreement was a phone call to the tower at the start and end of operations with the commitment to monitor a cell phone during operations. The requirements of CAR 901.71, however, make agreements like this impossible. 

The CBO framework should allow the CBO to make alternate agreements with NAV Canada to support the operation of RPAS in controlled airspace. 

903.02 - Application for Special Flight Operations Certificate - RPAS

Regulatory Text:

For the purposes of an application for a special flight operations certificate — RPAS, the following

operations are low-complexity operations: 

the operation, other than for the purpose of providing a commercial air service, of a remotely piloted aircraft

system that includes a remotely piloted aircraft that is not registered in accordance with Division III;

and

the operation of a system at an advertised event.

…

Regulatory Intent

This regulation requires that an SFOC be attained prior to performing certain higher risk operations. For the purposes of this regulation, the intent of “Advertised Event” was meant to be large public gatherings such as sporting events, concerts, and festivals. 

Reason this regulation is problematic for the model aircraft community

As has been discussed above, the original intent of the advertised event regulation was not meant to apply to RPAS related advertised event. During the initial public outreach for CAR Part IX, TC indicated that advertised events were meant to apply to concerts, festivals, and other exhibitions where the public was in attendance, and an RPAS operator might also be filming the event. TC public outreach initially stated that a group of RPAS enthusiasts, flying together would not be considered an advertised event because all of the participants were there to fly and observe RPAS, and therefore would be considered "part of the operation". 

However, over time, the Transport Canada stance on RPAS events has changed, and recently any gathering of model aircraft pilots that was advertised to the general public (i.e. a club "open house") has fallen into the advertised event category, and triggered a large amount of background paperwork as well as SFOC fees. The CBO framework should allow the CBO to define a standard process for advertised events that might not always trigger the need for direct Transport Canada oversight. 

As discussed in the CAR 901.41 analysis above, a major issue for the model aircraft community currently is that model aircraft events have been interpreted as "Special Aviation Events" under the CARs. This leads to the full application of CAR standard 623. Applying safety regulations intended for traditional aviation airshows to model aircraft shows and contests does not make sense given their relative risk level to the public and aviation. In addition, it serves to drive many events "underground" which tends to reduce the level of safety at these events.