MAAC is Denying Members Rights and Obligations

Ever since MAAC’s Exemption from the requirements of Part IX of Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) was announced, in 2019, there has been confusion about member’s rights and obligations with respect to contacting Transport Canada and Nav Canada.  Much of the misinformation has been provided by MAAC itself, to its members.  This has resulted in, among other things, a spate of suspension of members for what can only be described as “trumped up” charges.  This article will set the record straight on what the Government of Canada (as represented by Transport Canada) expects fliers of RPAS to do in various situations and compares these expectations with what MAAC has enacted upon its members.

In this article you will find:-

  • Information about the Transport Canada publication “Aeronautical Information Manual” and, in particular, that document’s subsection on Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA).  Links to those documents are provided so that the reader can confirm what is expected by Transport Canada.  The RPA publication will be extensively quoted here.
  • It will be shown that Transport Canada recommends two freely available site information apps and considers either of these to be sufficient for the safe operation of RPAS.  MAAC’s choice (at great expense to its members) is not included in this recommendation.
  • There will be discussion of Transport Canada’s appeal to Canadian citizens to contact them, of the confirmation of this – in writing – to a MAAC member (subsequently communicated to the MAAC Board), and of MAAC’s continued request for its members not to contact Transport Canada or Nav Canada in spite of this knowledge.
  • It will be shown that MAAC has unilaterally extended the restrictions that Transport Canada designed for RPA operation and applied them to non-RPA operation.  This action is in disregard for what is in the best interests of a portion of MAAC’s membership and is the result of misunderstanding of Transport Canada’s position, and the logical reasons for it, by MAAC’s current leadership.
  • There is discussion of the fact that Transport Canada expects qualified RPA operators, who wish to fly at or near airports, to contact the airport operators in order to co-ordinate their activities.  MAAC’s recommendation to its members is in direct contradiction of that expectation and, again, is not in the best interests of those members, of overall flight safety, or of MAAC’s future growth and development.
  • There is discussion of the Aeronautics Act – which is the Act providing authority to the Minister of Transportation to determine where restrictions shall be placed upon Canadian airspace.  It is shown that MAAC has usurped the authority of the Minister by taking upon itself the role of determining where in Canadian airspace its members may fly.
  • Finally there is an appeal to MAAC’s membership to put control of this organization back into the hands of people who will obey the law, who will act in the best interests of all of MAAC’s members – in all their great diversity – and who will create and enforce a structure that will foster the growth and development of the hobby/sport in all of its aspects.  The current leadership’s mode of bullying and misinformation has damaged MAAC severely.  New direction, under new leadership, is desperately needed if this association isn’t to be led into oblivion.  Severe damage has already been done, the task of rehabilitation will not be an easy one, but the recovery of our recreational activity is an objective that is worth the effort.

Note:  In this article you will find reference to two acronyms – both of which are used by Transport Canada.  RPA refers to a Remotely Piloted Aircraft and RPAS refers to a Remotely Piloted Aerial System – which includes the control system as well as the aircraft itself.

Background

Over the last several years MAAC has been at odds with various of its members over the subject of contacting Transport Canada and Nav Canada, and also over contacting airport operators, including the air traffic controllers (Nav Canada in most cases).  This article is intended to clarify the situation for MAAC’s membership and also for MAAC’s leadership.

In an effort to make sure that users of airspace in Canada (controlled and uncontrolled) understand their responsibilities, functions, and procedures, Transport Canada has compiled an extensive manual known as the Aeronautical Information Manual – with the document number T14371E.  The short form of this is TC-AIM and that acronym can be used in internet search engines to obtain a pdf copy of it.  In its current form that manual consists of over 490 pages.  The bulk of the content refers to full-size aviation matters but there is a section on the procedures for Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA).  The section on RPA consists of 33 pages – a lot more manageable, but still a lot of material.  The short form TC-AIM-RPA is the acronym that, used in a search engine, will produce a pdf copy of just that section.  The legislation and regulations (CARs) are couched in legal language but are the most authoritative source for the requirements.  The Information Manual provides more detailed explanation, in more approachable language, to allow the user to better understand their obligations.  So – while the regulations remain the legal definition of the restrictions imposed, the Information Manual provides guidance as to the intent and how to interpret what is required.

Let us look at some of the content of the information manual, in areas that are pertinent to what we, as members of this association, have been told by our leadership.

The Drone Site Selection Tool – Why Do We need RPAS Wilco?

Transport Canada advises that there are two tools available for the determination of sites suitable for the flying of RPAs.  Here is an excerpt from the relevant section of TC-AIM-RPA:-

  • 3.2.3.3 Drone Site Selection Tool
  • This online interactive tool provides information regarding airspace restrictions around airports, heliports, and aerodromes to facilitate flight planning and ensure compliance with the regulations. It was designed to help RPA pilots determine areas where drone flight is prohibited, restricted, or potentially hazardous. The Drone Site Selection Tool can be found at https://cnrc.canada.ca/en/drone-tool/
  • The tool is powered by a Google Earth engine that uses colour to identify areas that require additional caution or where RPA flights are prohibited according to a basic or advanced RPA operation category. Users should start by selecting the appropriate category of drone operations (i.e. basic or advanced). Areas filled with red are prohibited. Areas filled with yellow require additional caution due to other air traffic. Areas filled with orange require permission from NAV CANADA, Parks Canada, National Defence, or an airport operator.

In the above-quoted section, only the NRC tool is mentioned.  In a later section, 3.2.15.3 – identifying classes of airspace, the NavCanada tool is mentioned and the link is provided:-
https://www.navcanada.ca/en/flight-planning/drone-flight-planning.aspx
Throughout the rest of the document only those two site selection tools are mentioned and are recommended for the RPAS flier.

From this it can be seen that Transport Canada (and fairly obviously Nav Canada) are quite comfortable with the use of either of those tools that are available free – they consider that either one will provide the required level of information for safe RPAS operation.  That raises the question “Why does MAAC spend the money that it does on an alternative tool, when the job can be done to the satisfaction of the aviation regulator by software that is available free?”

There is a further question raised by this.  A person wishing to fly an RPAS in uncontrolled airspace that is not within 3 nm of an airport or aerodrome, if he/she has a pilot certificate issued by Transport Canada, may fly anywhere in that uncontrolled airspace (with some restrictions about proximity to buildings, other people, etc.)  There is the obvious caveat about trespassing on private property – and the use of public lands such as parks, etc.  Such a person, however, may fly over any area that is not in controlled airspace as long as they have the permission of the owners of the property in question.

Let us look at the cost of using the RPAS-Wilco app.  That is actually not an easy matter – the financial accounting to the membership doesn’t reveal any such expenditure, it is ‘buried’ somewhere in a larger bundle of expenses.  This difficulty remains, despite the fact that the governing legislation – the Canada Not-For-Profit Corporations Act (CNCA) – specifically requires that the accounting records be available to the directors and that they may request a copy of part or all of such records.  Requests to examine the records, by a director of the corporation, have been denied, in direct contravention of the CNCA.  One piece of such information has come to light, however.  In the records for the 2022 financial year an expenditure of $63,800 appears and is said to be for “Nav Canada database license for RPAS-Wilco”.  If that description is to be believed it seems that MAAC is paying the annual fee for use of Nav Canada’s database by RPAS Wilco.  At the very least, an expenditure was approved that was described as being for that purpose.  In the notes to the document this item is further clarified as “Annual license fee to support RPAS Wilco”.  What is also not clear is whether MAAC is paying a further annual license fee to RPAS Wilco for the use of their software by its members.  Also, it was announced a while ago that RPAS Wilco would be discontinuing the distribution of its software to individuals.  The cost of continuing to have this software available to MAAC has not been revealed – neither has any benefit to MAAC, above what is available through the two free apps that are endorsed by Transport Canada, been explained.

The one thing that we do appear to know is that there is at least an annual cost of $63,800.00, payable to Nav Canada.  Yet Transport Canada is of the opinion that there are at least two programs (aka “apps”) available without any charge at all, one of which is produced by Nav Canada, either of which would be completely adequate for the operation of RPAS in Canada.

One of the more important functions of the Board of Directors of a Not-For-Profit Corporation is ensuring that funds are used prudently, and only in the interest of the Corporation.  This Board has neglected that fiduciary duty.  A very large sum of money has been expended, and continues to be spent, on RPAS Wilco.  The equivalent function is available, from highly reputable sources, at no charge at all, and is recommended by the agency that regulates RPAS activity.

Flying in Clouds.

Flying of RPA in clouds is prohibited.  The relevant section of TC-AIM-RPA starts out as follows:-

  • 3.2.22.5 Clouds
  • RPA pilots are prohibited from entering clouds as the RPA would no longer be within VLOS.

The rest of the section discusses the meteorological significance of clouds so is not reproduced here.  The intent of the prohibition is quite clear – the requirement that an RPA be within VLOS at all times would be violated by flying into (or above) a cloud.  Strangely, the prohibition doesn’t extend to flying above clouds – perhaps that is because, in the case of broken cloud it would actually be difficult to determine whether the RPA was above or below the clouds when flying in the space between them as observed from the ground, although still within VLOS.  In the case of complete cloud coverage whether the RPA was in the cloud or above it is irrelevant – the RPA is out of VLOS.

Now let’s discuss MAAC’s extension of this prohibition.  Under MAAC’s rules it is forbidden for all model aircraft, including non-RPA machines, to fly into, between, or above clouds.  The claim is made that this is in the interest of safety.  This claim only goes to illustrate the difference between the understanding of aviation safety held by those at Transport Canada who are charged with that responsibility and that of the people at MAAC who have been appointed to that responsibility.  The purpose of having the RPA in VLOS at all times is so that the RPA pilot can take evasive action in the event that another aircraft appears in the immediate vicinity.  Transport Canada’s restriction is by far the most practical – do not fly into clouds (either horizontally or vertically).

For aircraft that do not have pilot control the VLOS rule is simply irrelevant from a safety point of view.  For the purposes of this discussion when we refer to non-RPA model aircraft we are referring to the Outdoor Free Flight category – the Control Line category being so far from a hazard that it requires little comment here.  Having the non-RPA aircraft in view does not affect the possibility of a collision.  This is not just true from the point of view of the flier – who cannot be considered to be a “pilot” and cannot take evasive action.  From the point of view of the on-board pilot of a full-scale aircraft there is very little difference between the situation where the model is in plain sight or whether it is flying within a cloud.  Why do we say this?  If the model and the full-size aircraft are flying at the same altitude (which is when a collision is possible to occur) the pilot will see the model from a front or side view.  That presents the least visible area to the full-size pilot.  Depending upon the size of the model it might become visible at 60 yards, possibly less, much depends upon the background, the position of the sun, and many other factors.  At 120 mph (a typical cruising speed for a light aircraft) the aircraft travels 176 feet in one second.  There will be one second between the time at which the model becomes visible and the time at which the collision occurs.  Even that, however, overstates the situation.  In order for the pilot to actually see the model at 60 yards he/she must be looking in the exactly right direction at that precise instant.  Pilots, of course, are trained to scan the field of view in front of them – looking at specific areas briefly and then moving on to another – they might not get back to the first area in a sequence for a minute or two.  Pilots also have other tasks to perform which require them to look in other directions.  Whether they are flying in cloud, in which case they will probably not be paying a lot of attention to what is in front of them, or flying in a cloudless sky, the chance that the pilot will see a model before a collision occurs is more or less the same – just about nil!

Why is it then that Transport Canada considers that the operation of non-RPA model aircraft does not present a hazard that requires regulation?  Firstly, of course, there is the lesson of history.  Non-RPA models have been flown for almost 100 years with not a single incident of a collision with a manned aircraft – worldwide!  Then there is the size, weight, flight characteristics, and frangibility of such models.  They are relatively small, relatively light, slow in speed, and very delicate.  The majority of non-RPA models are in the size range up to about 50” in wingspan and weigh a few ounces.  Large ones can be 75” wingspan and weigh 20 – 30 ounces.  Some specialized non-RPA models can have very thin, high aspect-ratio, wings of 100” but will still weigh no more than 26 oz.  So, the consequences of a collision are not likely to be very serious for the full-size aircraft – but will probably be catastrophic for the model.

Another consideration concerning the hazard presented by non-RPA model aircraft is the comparison with other, especially natural, hazards.  An article in Model Aviation Canada has shown that Canada Geese (and all the other birds) present a far higher risk of collision with manned aircraft than non-RPA models do – by a factor of many millions of times more likely.  Not only that, a Canada Goose weighs from 100 to 160 oz (about five times that of a comparable-size model) and is structurally far less delicate.  The risk from a Canada Goose is not only greater in probability, it is greater in damage potential.

A further factor in this risk assessment is the style of operation of non-RPA model aircraft.  The fliers of this style of model aircraft are very much aware of the fact that, although the model’s general progress will be downwind, the exact path of their flight is somewhat unpredictable.  Because they will not return to the launch point, the flier will have to retrieve them from some distant point at the termination of the flight.  For that reason the fliers choose to fly only over very large open spaces, far from hazards such as trees, buildings, lakes, and other inaccessible places such as aerodromes.  The models are also set to glide in circles, so as to minimize the retrieval distance, and have an on-board timing device that ensures that they descend after a relatively short flight duration – usually 2 minutes in most Canadian locations, though 3 minutes can be set in some locations.  The time of a flight is what is recorded and any time over the set maximum (2 or 3 minutes) is counted as only that maximum.  There is no incentive to make longer flights and, in fact, longer flights only carry the risk of losing the model altogether – or at least not retrieving it in time to make another flight.

For comparison, let us discuss the risks of RPA operation.  Those machines are, on average, far less delicate, much heavier, much faster in flight, much more prevalent, and are in the air for much greater durations.  The risks are many times higher for these machines than for their non-RPA brethren.  In addition to those factors – they have pilot control!  That might be seen by some as reducing risk but, in fact, that is not necessarily the case.  Because the flier has some control over the machine’s flight path there is a much greater tendency for them to be flown in situations where the risk of interaction with full-size aircraft, and other people, is far greater.

Given all of these factors, Transport Canada made the very wise decision to regulate the operation of RPAs and not to regulate the operation of non-RPA model aircraft.  That was a conscious decision, which has been confirmed on a number of occasions, both to MAAC’s representatives and to individual MAAC members.  The risks from non-RPA were miniscule, the benefit of regulation was virtually non-existent.  In its greater wisdom, MAAC has decided, however, that it should extend Transport Canada’s restrictions to non-RPA model aircraft.

One of the reasons given for this decision is that doing so would convince Transport Canada that MAAC is a reliable partner in the quest for aviation safety.  Nothing could be further from the truth – by flouting Transport Canada’s consciously-made decision, MAAC’s representatives have insulted the very people that they wish to negotiate with on behalf of MAAC.  That is not a good strategy for success.  By their actions MAAC’s representatives to Transport Canada have demonstrated that not only do they not share Transport Canada’s assessment of risk to aviation safety, but they do not understand that their role in such negotiations is to uphold and protect, as far as is possible, the rights and interests of MAAC’s membership – all of its membership – not to override Transport Canada’s role to protect the safety of aviation in general.  MAAC lost the Exemption that it had from Part IX of CARs because its administration failed completely in its duty to have in place sound records showing the status of the flying fields that its RPAS fliers utilized.  Further – it issued qualifications to people for whom it had no record of competence.  These actions by the administration of our association only served to reinforce Transport Canada’s position that we are not an organization that can administer an Exemption from the RPAS rules contained in Part IX of CARs.  Our second-guessing of their assessment of the requirement for regulation on certain unmanned aircraft operations can only serve to emphasize that we are not an organization that is cognizant of its function and responsibilities.

Here is the question, as it was asked of Transport Canada by a member of MAAC, and the answer that was received:

  • Qu. Does Transport Canada still take the position that the provisions of MAAC rules as they existed in 2019 provide sufficient assurance that free flight, control line, and indoor model aircraft do not pose sufficient threat to full-size aircraft to warrant further restrictions from Transport Canada?  The first two of those categories are not remotely piloted in any sense.  For the third category (indoor), some are piloted and some are not but those that are piloted weigh substantially less than 250g.
  • Ans. It is our interpretation that free flight and control line model aircraft are not RPA and therefore not governed by CARs Part IX. Model aircraft operated solely (entirely?) indoors are not regulated by the CARs.

Another reason given by MAAC for extending the restrictions imposed by CARs on to categories of model aircraft that are specifically not considered by Transport Canada to require their regulation is that an incident involving a non-RPAS aircraft could affect the Exemption that we used to have.  Here is what appeared on MAAC’s website:

Can I still fly Free Flight models above 700’?

Yes, however, this part of our hobby is under review. While The Exemption does not explicitly apply to true free-flight model aircraft, its purpose is to ensure full-scale aviation and public safety. If there were to be a reported close call or accident between a large MAAC operated free flight model aircraft and a full-scale aircraft, especially in controlled airspace, the consequences to all of MAAC could be devastating.

A member of MAAC asked the question directly of Transport Canada, to determine whether that reasoning had any basis in reality.  Here are the questions, and the answers:

Question #1.  Is Transport Canada considering expanding the application of Part IX of CARs to cover the operation of Free Flight and Control Line models – and consequently expanding the MAAC Exemption and its conditions to apply to those types?

Question #2.  With the Exemption in its current form, if there was an incident involving a Free Flight or Control Line model and a full-size aircraft or a member of the public, would that be likely to result in the Exemption from Part IX (which specifically applies only to RPAS over 250g) being revoked.

Ans 1. To being to address your questions. TC does not consider Free Flight and control line models to be remotely piloted and therefore they do not meet the definition of RPAS. Part IX does not apply and no changes to this situation are envisioned.

Ans 2. Regarding an incident between a non-RPAS model aircraft and a traditional aircraft, I’d refer to the comment above about Part IX and any amplifying direction or exemption regarding Part IX as not being applicable.

This might seem to be irrelevant, now that the Exemption is no longer in effect anyway (a situation that was caused by the very people who were responsible for the above misdirection) but it is important because it illustrates the level of misdirection that those currently leading MAAC from one catastrophe to another are willing to provide.

Contacting Transport Canada.

MAAC has for some time now attempted to prevent its rank-and-file members from contacting Transport Canada.  This occurred during the process of negotiating with Transport Canada prior to the introduction of the regulations in Part IX of CARs, and it has continued since.  As mentioned in another article, this has even been used as an illegitimate excuse to suspend the membership of at least one highly respected, long-term, member of MAAC.

In contrast to this ‘policy’ of MAAC’s, Transport Canada itself encourages contact from citizens of Canada.  That is only as one should expect from a Department of the Government of Canada.  Here is the response received from Transport Canada when a member of MAAC contacted them and asked the question specifically.

  • Qu. Does Transport Canada require that no member of MAAC, other than a single named contact, be allowed to communicate with either Transport Canada or NavCan on matters relating to the operation of model aircraft in Canada?
  • Ans. Any Canadian is welcome to reach out to TC for questions or to engage in the regulatory development process.

We find the second part of that answer to be particularly enlightening.  Transport Canada welcomes us to “engage in the regulatory development process” – MAAC strictly forbids us to do so and has kept all such information completely secret.

Contacting Airport Operators

The AIM has some quite specific things to say about the responsibility of RPA pilots to contact airport operators.

  • 3.2.35 Operations at or in the Vicinity of an Aerodrome, Airport, or Heliport
  • Operations in the vicinity of or at aerodromes, water aerodromes, airports, and heliports are higher risk. Operations inside a 3 NM (5.6 km) radius from the centre of airports or a 1 NM (1.8 km) radius from the centre of heliports are prohibited to RPA pilots holding a basic certificate (CAR 901.47) and are reserved for RPA pilots holding an advanced certificate. RPA pilots shall always keep the RPA in VLOS, shall give way at all times to traditional aircraft, and shall not interfere with an aircraft operating in the established traffic pattern (CARs 901.11, 901.17, 901.18, and 901.47). When operating an RPA at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome, water aerodrome, airport, or heliport, the RPA pilot should contact the aerodrome operator to inform them of the RPAS operation, regardless of whether the RPA is operated in controlled or uncontrolled airspace.
  • Although aerodrome operators can prohibit someone from using their premises, they cannot forbid the use of the airspace surrounding an aerodrome, airport, or heliport.  Airspace access is regulated through the CARs, and any aircraft or pilot meeting the requirements therein could use the airspace.
  • Please note that aerodrome, water aerodrome, airport, and heliport operators don’t have access to NAV Drone RPA flight authorization information. If you choose to operate your RPA in one of these areas and see traditional aircraft operating, it is recommended to land the RPA and reassess the situation. If you notice regular aircraft activities at a location, it is recommended to contact the aerodrome operator to better understand the local traffic circuit procedures and to coordinate your RPA operations.


This makes it quite clear that, even though contact with airport operators is not mandated, it is recommended practice.  The reasons for it being recommended should be self-evident to anyone interested in promoting safety.  (NB. In the Transport Canada document it is defined that the word “shall” denotes an action that is demanded by the regulations and the word “should” denotes an action that Transport Canada recommends as good practice.)

There are some other interesting facets to these instructions that are worthy of note.  For instance, it is said that RPA pilots shall give way to traditional aircraft (by which we assume that full-scale manned aircraft are meant).  This is a sensible and practical rule – based on the premiss that the RPA operator is likely to be aware of the full-scale aircraft before the full-scale pilot becomes aware of the RPA.  This is in contrast to MAAC’s rules – which declare that the RPA pilot is responsible at all times to avoid collisions with full-size aircraft.  That is an unreasonable onus – it is quite possible (though, one would hope, extremely unlikely) that a full-scale pilot could deliberately collide with an RPA – or behave sufficiently unpredictably that avoidance is not possible.  An even more serious matter, however, is that MAAC’s rules, defining the responsibility for a collision, are unreasonable and could have liability implications for the members – a sensible approach would have been to follow Transport Canada’s lead and define only the obligation to give way.

It is also interesting that RPA flight authorization (from NavCan) is not relayed to the relevant airport operators.  So, while you might have authorization, from the NavDrone app or directly from NavCan, the people who are most affected by the fact that you could be flying there are not aware of it.  Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the airport operators apply to NavCan for the authorization, or at least endorse the individual or club’s application for permission?  That way everyone would know what is going on.  That is not prohibited by either Transport Canada or Nav Canada.

Operations at or in the Vicinity of an Airport or Heliport—Established Procedure.

Section 3.4.5 of the AIM-RPA document explains how to conduct operations (of RPA) in the vicinity of an airport.  The section is quite long so only parts of it will be quoted here.  As described above, the full document can easily be downloaded if the reader wishes to refer to it.

  • 3.4.5 Operations at or in the Vicinity of an Airport or Heliport—Established Procedure
  • This section is for advanced RPA pilots operating in advanced environments, when the RPA is within 3 NM from the centre of an airport or water airport and within 1 NM from the centre of a heliport, regardless of whether the RPA is in controlled or uncontrolled airspace. Advanced RPA pilots in this situation are required by CAR 901.73 to conduct their RPAS operations in accordance with the established procedure. Please refer to the NRC Drone Site Selection Tool, the NAV Drone Viewer, the CFS, the CWAS, or VNCs for more information and the location of an airport, heliport, or water airport at or in the vicinity of an RPAS operation. If a procedure is established for an airport, heliport, or water aerodrome, it is published in the PRO section of the current CFS for airports or heliports, or in the current CWAS for water airports. Procedures may also be provided in an ANSP RPA flight authorization notice for controlled airspace. Below is the TC generic established procedure that should be followed if there is none published or provided and when the RPA pilot is operating in an advanced environment at or in the vicinity of an airport, heliport, or water airport.
  • (a) Always give way to traditional aircraft and keep the RPA within VLOS (CARs 901.11, 901.17, and 901.18). See subsection 3.2.1.1 of this chapter for information about visual line-of-site (VLOS) and section 3.2.5 about right of way.
  • (b) Ensure that you have a pilot certificate—RPA (VLOS)— advanced operations.
  • (c) Adhere to the CARs and respect the limits of the privileges granted by the TC advanced RPA pilot certificate with regards to Part IX.
  • (d) Prior to an advanced RPAS operation and as part of the site survey required by CAR 901.27, consult the CFS, CWAS, VFR charts, Drone Site Selection Tool or NAV Drone Viewer to research the airport, heliport or water airport where operations are to be conducted so that you understand the relevant information.
  • (e) When operating an RPA at or in the vicinity of an aerodrome, water aerodrome, airport, or heliport, the RPA pilot should contact the aerodrome operator to inform them of the RPAS operation, regardless of whether the RPA is operated in controlled or uncontrolled airspace. Please note that aerodrome, water aerodrome, airport, and heliport operators don’t have access to NAV Drone RPA flight authorization information.
  • (f) The RPA pilot should maintain a listening watch of the applicable aerodrome traffic frequency found in the CFS or on VNCs. Any person operating a VHF radio must hold an ROC-A. TC AIM COM 1.0, NAV CANADA’s VFR Phraseology Guide, and ISED’s study guide RIC-21 for the ROC-A provide additional information on radiotelephony procedures.
  • Please note that aerodrome, water aerodrome, airport, and heliport operators don’t have access to NAV Drone RPA flight authorization information. If you choose to operate your RPA in one of these areas and see traditional aircraft operating, it is recommended to land the RPA and reassess the situation. If you notice regular aircraft activities at a location, it is recommended to contact the airport operator to better understand the local traffic circuit procedures and to coordinate your RPA operations.
  • Although aerodrome operators can prohibit someone from using their premises, they cannot forbid the use of the airspace surrounding an aerodrome, airport, or heliport. Airspace access is regulated through the CARs, and any aircraft and pilot meeting the requirements therein could use the airspace.
  • NOTE:
  • Under section 5.1 of the Aeronautics Act, only the Minister or delegate can restrict access to airspace: https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-2/page-7.html

This section repeats a lot of what is said in section 3.2.35 – but it adds the details of the procedures that are to be followed.  It is interesting to note that, under procedure item (d) the RPA pilot is advised to conduct the site survey required by CAR 901.27 using either of the tools freely available from Nav Canada or the NRC.  Procedure item (e) advises that the RPA pilot should contact the airport operator to inform them of the operation.

Just above the NOTE at the end of this quoted section there is an important statement concerning the prohibition of the use of airspace.  Exactly that same wording is found in section 3.2.35.  It is made quite clear that aerodrome operators do not have the authority to forbid use of airspace – but it is recommended that the RPA flier coordinate activities with them.  It further points out (to paraphrase) that “any aircraft and pilot meeting the requirements of CARS could use the airspace.”  The subsequent note then expands further upon the matter of restriction of airspace.  Let us examine that.

Who Can Restrict the Use of Airspace?

Probably the most important piece of information in the above section, for MAAC members, is the note at the end.  This note advises that only the Minister or delegate can restrict access to airspace.  That is important information for MAAC members operating RPAS under Part IX of CARs.  The Minister or delegate defines what is controlled airspace and by default all other airspace is uncontrolled.  Uncontrolled airspace means that neither the Minister, nor their delegate, has placed any restriction on access to that airspace and this note makes it clear that no-one else has authority to restrict access to it.  Even within controlled airspace it is made clear that only the Minister or delegate can restrict access – even airport authorities do not have that right.  For RPAS the restrictions are clear – an advanced pilot certificate and an SFOC.  No other restrictions are valid unless imposed by the Minister.

The link given in the AIM document, and reproduced above, might take the user to the wrong part of the Act.  The following link will take you to the correct place.
https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-2/page-4.html#docCont

Let us examine the section of the Aeronautics Act that is referred to by Transport Canada, but first let us look at a preceding section of the Act, that also deals with similar subject matter.  The section deals with many matters that are of interest to the full-scale operations so, in the interest of clarity here, the text of the subsections that are not relevant to RPAS operation is omitted – the subsection identification letters are included and can be read in the full version that is available for download.

General Regulatory Powers

Regulations respecting aeronautics

4.9 The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting aeronautics and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations respecting

  • (a) ;
  • (b) ;
  • (c) ;
  • (d) ;
  • (e) ;
  • (f) ;
  • (g) ;
  • (h) the conditions under which aircraft may be used or operated or under which any act may be performed in or from aircraft;
  • (i) ;
  • (j) ;
  • (k) the classification and use of airspace and the control and use of aerial routes;
  • (k.1) the prohibition of the development or expansion of aerodromes or any change to the operation of aerodromes;
  • (k.2) the consultations that must be carried out by the proponent of an aerodrome before its development or by the operator of an aerodrome before its expansion or any change to its operation;
  • (l) the prohibition of the use of airspace or aerodromes;
  • (m) ;
  • (n) the enforcement of such laws as may be deemed necessary for the safe and proper operation of aircraft;
  • (o) ;
  • (p) ;
  • (q) ;
  • (r) ;
  • (s) ;
  • (t) ;
  • (u) ;
  • (v) ; and
  • (w) .

The subsections that are of particular interest in this context are (k) and (l) which spell out clearly the responsibility of the Minister to establish the “classification and use” of airspace as well as the “prohibition of the use” of airspace.  The ‘Governor in Council’ means the government and the Minister can be delegated the task by the government.

Subsection (n) of this section is also of particular interest.  Unlike the Not-For-Profit Corporations Act, which the Ministry of Innovation, Science & Technology deems to be “self-governing”, in this Act the Minister is specifically given the authority to enforce the Act.

Section 5.1 of the Act, referred to in Transport Canada’s AIM, reads as follows:

  • Restrictions and prohibitions for safety or security purposes
  • 5.1 The Minister or any person authorized by the Minister may by notice prohibit or restrict the operation of aircraft on or over any area or within any airspace, either absolutely or subject to any exceptions or conditions that the Minister or person may specify, if, in the opinion of the Minister or person, the prohibition or restriction is necessary for aviation safety or security or the protection of the public.

That restriction, as clearly delineated in this section, may only be exercised when necessitated by certain circumstances.  It is also clear that Transport Canada has interpreted this to mean that ONLY the Minister, or a person authorized by the Minister, may restrict anyone’s use of airspace, subject to those restrictions.

The Board of Directors of MAAC has ignored this law and taken upon itself the authority to restrict its members in the use of otherwise freely available airspace.  Under current MAAC rules, even though a member who has obtained the required basic pilot certificate from Transport Canada may legally fly an RPAS anywhere in uncontrolled airspace, MAAC restricts its members to only fly in airspace which it has authorized.  MAAC very clearly does not have that authority and is contravening the Aeronautics Act by attempting to do so.  Beyond that, MAAC has taken upon itself the authority to restrict the operation of model aircraft that Transport Canada has specifically, and in writing, declared are not subject to CARs, and thus not legally restricted at all, and have restricted their operation only to airspace which MAAC has approved.  MAAC does not have that authority and is contravening the Aeronautics Act by attempting to do so.

Besides the clear contravention of Canada’s laws, by attempting to extend its authority in this way MAAC’s Board, and each of the Board’s members individually, are in dereliction of their fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the members.  It is clearly against the interests of the members, or some subgroup of them, to restrict their flying activity in ways that are not required by the law.  The Board’s primary duty is to make every effort to expand the opportunities for its members to indulge in their recreational activity – not to diminish them.

Prior to the current restrictions that MAAC has attempted to place on its member’s operations the MAAC rules restricted operations to those sites sanctioned by MAAC and any other area as long as the flier had the permission of the owner of that land.  This did not restrict the use of airspace but did remind the member of the trespass laws – that the right to use airspace did not automatically incur any right to access property in order to do so.  That rule was perfectly reasonable and respected the law.  MAAC’s current rule should immediately be declared invalid and the previous rule should be re-enacted.