2019 Canadian Drone Regulations: How high can you fly?

[@PinetreeLine]

Great stuff Don. Helping the drone community here in Canada

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Doug!

[@cecewang6936]

Thanks Don. You've made it so much clearer now. Another informative and useful video.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, CeCe!

[@sstrawbrryblonde]

They should really include your diagram in the document - I read this a bunch of times and didnt understand it until seeing that. Thanks!

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Angie! Yes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

[@yvanc3842]

Yes Don you are correct I mixed the meter with footage. However, now I understand very clearly how It's working. Thank you again. I really enjoy your help and explanations.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Yvan. Glad to have been of assistance.

[@darringallant]

Thanks for getting the official word on this Don, much appreciated. Your wording of the reg makes much more logical sense.

[@DonJoyce]

Thank, Darrin. I have a few more questions into Transport Canada. Their second level support person wasn't sure about those ones...scary!!

[@the1andonly]

The explanation is good and as I understood it originally. But ever since memorizing this rule another question has popped up on my mind. What if I'm launching the drone from a mountain? Or even from the edge of a big hole? Here in Edmonton even the river valley could mean a significant difference in AGL. I'm assuming that hole don't matter, but a mountain probably does.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks! Well, both the mountain and the hole DO count! This video answers that exact question: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4vHpmOiebuHic0

[@0330495]

The picture was perfectly clear to understand without it I was lost. Thank you.

[@DonJoyce]

Notwithstanding subjection (2) of 921.25 a, which part of subsection (1) did you not find clear?! LOL Glad the picture helped!

[@RICKHALBUR]

Thanks Don that make since. In the US it is 400 AGL and if come up to a building that is 300 you then can fly up to 700 feet AGL. 400 feet above the building same with a mountain

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Rick. Yes, the Canadian rule is just written poorly, and the distances/heights are less than the FAA rules.

[@AndyFyon]

Very clear now. Txs for this important clarification.

[@DonJoyce]

Glad it helped, Andy! Thanks for watching.

[@ssylca]

Thank you Don, now it makes sense. Greetings from Kingston.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Ssylca!

[@Leverguns50]

That was very good I like how you drew it out, but I wonder what it is in the US

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks "Lever"! The US regulations are the same in concept, but have difference measurements. Sorry, I don't know what they are.

[@GTARC_au]

Cheers mate. Different rules in Australia.

[@DonJoyce]

I'm not surprised. What is the max altitude in Australia? (and wow, the rules must be very confusing being upside down....LOL)

[@josephwalford]

Great! Thanks for sharing. Appreciate your videos! from a fellow Canadian. (hamilton ont )

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you for your support, Joseph!

[@DonJoyce]

I encourage you to join my Facebook group --- Canadian Drone Pilot Exam & RPAS Regulation Discussion: facebook.com/groups/592682344571622/ and post the question. That is exactly the place to get the answer from a variety of experienced drone pilots. It's a friendly group and your contributions would be very welcome.

[@focusonwhymedia]

Great! Thanks for sharing. Appreciate your videos! from a fellow Canadian. (Alberta)

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, "Focus on Why Media"! Glad you enjoyed!

[@bobsondugnutt8795]

Hi Don, first thank you for all your information and guidance you provide everyone. However, this has got me confused because the tower example isn't really making sense for me. If AGL for a drone is calibrated and zeroed at the launch site, say 400m ASL at a valley river bottom, then how am I supposed to navigate above/beyond a hill or ridge that is higher than 520m ASL/120m AGL? I thought the intent of the maximum AGL limit was to prevent conflicts with planes operating at around 500ft AGL? So shouldn't AGL be based on the ground elevation of where the drone/plane is flying above at that moment, not at the original launch site elevation? Otherwise, couldn't I just shuttle my drone to the top of the ridge or peak, launch at 1200m ASL/0m AGL and still be flying in and around a valley corridor (legally) under 1320m ASL but be in serious potential conflict with other air traffic?

[@DonJoyce]

This can definitely be confusing, Bobson, so you're not alone! The key is that the 400ft AGL ceiling is always measured from the ground level directly below the drone. It has nothing to do with the launch location/elevation. As you have noted, your drone's instruments are all relative to the launch site, so yes, you need to take the ground profile into account. The tower/structure rule is an exception to the general rule and allows drones to fly over structures. The exception does not apply to a mountain or cliff...only manmade structures.

[@dcrproductions9797]

Thanks very much for this video and the study guide video. But I am confused a bit. It says "any building or structure", but you said small structures like a barn don't matter.

[@DonJoyce]

All buildings count...but the limit is the GREATER of 400' or 100' over the structure...and small structures are never going to count against that 400' number. Hope that helps.

[@dcrproductions9797]

@@DonJoyce yup that helps, thanks

[@AverageDaveVideos]

What if you take off beside a 400' cliff? My understanding is it's not just buildings, but "obstructions" - so in this instance it would be 400' for the cliff plus 100'.

[@DonJoyce]

Hi Dave! A cliff is part of the ground. Below the cliff, you can fly 400 ft AGL. Above the cliff, same thing (so, 800 ft above the lower part effectively). It is reasonable to assume that you can transition between those two ceilings in a zone 200 feet horizontally from the cliff face. In practice, there will likely be other factors or obstructions in play, but that's the just of it.

[@AverageDaveVideos]

@@DonJoyce Excellent reply, thank you!

[@salamshara69]

Thanks Don, At least i can understand right now what's goin on !

[@coffeeshopcreative9895]

Great discussion- and super clear with your info and facts! Cheers!

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks! Working on much much more!

[@GoTrails]

Nice. Thanks for posting ...

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks for watching, GoTrails!

[@mayberrywj]

Fantastic Don....thank you.

[@DonJoyce]

And thank you for watching and commenting, William!

[@ricardoabh3242]

Question❓ You define a tall building as something that seems very tall near the 100m But the 901.25 rules mentions building or structure, I interpret this as any men made things that is a civil construction. A house haven if not that tall would push the ceiling of flight to about 140m. The question is where in the rules is a building or structure defined❓

[@DonJoyce]

"Building or structure" is not defined in Part IX of the CARS, but it may be buried in the CARS somewhere. That said, the intention, as you correctly interpreted, is any man-made construction. Intriguingly, in the AIM document (section 3.2.13), they replace 'building or structure' with the word 'obstruction'...which is probably intended to mean the same thing, but why did they replace 'real' words with an aviation term?

[@ricardoabh3242]

@@DonJoyce layers! lol, they do like copy past and then google translate to probably French then back. And voila! Same rule but more confusing lol

[@vehementsnow]

great content. love your channel so far.

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you Jaehyuk!

[@Aerosnapper]

Thank you - this had been my interpretation - based on comments made by several American flyers visiting antenna sites and the like..

[@DonJoyce]

While the FAA rules do not apply in Canada, I believe Transport Canada intended the rule to be analogous. As noted in the video, I did confirm my interpretation was correct with Transport Canada, and the recent AIM document update confirms this...although still not as clearly as my wording IMHO.

[@MadDogTor_]

Hmm, so if you want to fly up to 100 meters above that tall building, you have to get closer than 200'(61m) to it as the controller?

[@DonJoyce]

That's exactly right. Think of it as hugging the areas manned aircraft aren't going to hang out!

[@KardosoMedia]

Thanks for clearing that up Don!

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Kardoso! Glad to have heard it from the horse's mouth.

[@franknigro1080]

Thanks! Finally got it. Was always struggling with this.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks! yes, it is very poorly written. But now clear!

[@davestredulinsky]

Thanks Don. I should have watched this before making the comment on your last update re your study guide. That makes a lot more sense. The wording in this part of the regulation is still confusing. I think it should be rewritten.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Dave. As I work through these regulations one by one, I'm finding more and more confusing language. I'm doing a series of translation videos, and have many questions into Transport Canada. (For example, if you read 901.62 (c), you discover that even the pilot can't be within 5m of the drone under Basic Operations! Say goodbye to hand launch, hand catch, or flying from any boat less than a yacht!)

[@davestredulinsky]

Thanks Don for taking the time to do this. It will make it easier for the rest of the community.

[@gimpman1357]

So I can fly a maximum of 583 m high if I am within 60 m of the CN Tower? But of course only if Billy Bishop Airport was more than 5.6 km away. D’Oh!

[@DonJoyce]

Yes, your math and interpretation is correct...too bad about the island airport though. :-)

[@MrSoolim]

I don't think so. I interpreted that the 400 ft is the maximum. The 100 ft above the structure does not apply if it would exceed the 400 ft limit. I think the intent of the regulation is that one cannot fly more than 100 ft above a tall structure, and the maximum height is 400 ft. In other words, if the structure is 250 ft high, then the maximum height allowed will be 250 + 100 = 350 ft. The limit of 200 ft radius from the tall structure is due to the angle of view when you are standing on the ground level.

[@m0khm0kh]

Thanks for demystifying it 👍 I have a question, while walking on a trail up a hill.. Then I was wondering what is the current AGL altitude on the hill.. By checking "Google Earth", I got the ASL altitude of the hill.. So I compared it with street level to get the exact altitude that I reached.. Is there any app that can give me the AGL altitude of a current location ?

[@DonJoyce]

My Drone Pilot Canada app will give you the height above sea level of any point on the map you tap.

[@m0khm0kh]

@@DonJoyce thanks a lot. I will give it a try 👍

[@gilleschercuitte4255]

You've got to be kidding. How can anyone know this without this explanation.

[@DonJoyce]

Really. The time is ripe to supply TC feedback on this regulation (and others) in the context of the new regulations they have proposed.

[@okanaganpeterjames]

Where did you interpret that small buildings don't matter? What defines a really tall structure?

[@DonJoyce]

I talked to TC, as mentioned in the video. There's no need to define "really tall". Watch the video.

[@truenorthmuskoka9077]

Hi Don. Great explanation. That's exactly what my interpretation was. I think the reg would have been better if they said "in order to clear the structure". I had to read it a few times until I realized what they meant.

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you. The most inside out way of wording something I've ever seen.

[@BigfootMediaPro]

If I said "you can not drink coffee OR tea" that would mean both are disallowed. So the wording of the regulation should mean that breaking either barrier is not allowed. The rule is not saying you can choose to do one or the other. So I would say the intent of the regulation is out of sync with the wording. This regulation is in need of an edit.

[@DonJoyce]

Hence my original interpretation...that the limit was the lower of the two restrictions, not the greater. The 'greater of the two' interpretation has been confirmed by Transport Canada. This is probably the worst written of the regulations, but there are many more. I am about to launch a series of videos where I interpret each and every one of the new rules...watch for "Droner's Guide to the 2019 Canadian RPAS Regulations"!!

[@RyanEasby]

That is a little confusing at first glance. Very well explained. Thank you!

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Walker. I'm still working on an 8-module set of videos going through all the rest of the twisted regulations. Stay tuned!

[@selvincortez]

Hi Don, I have a quick question... In your diagram you are assuming the takeoff is at ground level. What if you have to inspect the cell tower located on a small mountaintop? In other words from which point does the 400ft begin? Above sea level? What if you're takeoff point is already 300ft above sea level? Thanks

[@DonJoyce]

Hi Selvin! The '400 ft' is always measured directly below the drone to ground level. It is never referencing sea level. In the case of a tower on a mountain...well, it would become a bit tricky to measure, but one could likely assume the ceiling would be based upon a cylinder centered upon the tower, and work from there. In practical terms, you are not likely going to encounter manned aircraft in that sort of environment.

[@selvincortez]

@@DonJoyce Thank you so much for help! Do you mind one more question? If GeoZoning determines the max altitude to be 150 metres (492 ft), NavCanada limits to 122 metres (400ft) in a downtown area, but the building is higher than both even with the 30m extension, does that require an SFOC?

[@DonJoyce]

@@selvincortez First of all, DJI's geo-zoning is completely unrelated to the Canadian regulations. So, setting that aside, you only need an SFOC if you plan on flying above the normally allowed ceiling, which is 122m AGL, or 30m above a tall structure. For example, you could fly 30m over a 200m building without requiring an SFOC.

[@selvincortez]

@@DonJoyce as always you're the best! Thank you so much for clearing that up and taking the time to answer on such sort time. Thank you for all the great material available on your channel.

[@mike_mcfarlane]

I'm guessing that the definition of a building or structure would be something over 300 feet tall? Otherwise the 100 foot extra would not get you over 400 feet AGL.

[@DonJoyce]

Not really. The point is that your flight ceiling is the greater of 400 ft AGL or 100 ft above a structure, as explained in the video.

[@mike_mcfarlane]

@@DonJoyce But like you said in the video, smaller structures like a barn would not matter. The only time you would need to consider this extra altitude is if there were a structure higher than 300 feet. Is there any limit to this "loophole"? What if the structure were 500 feet high? We could technically go 600 feet AGL? Just trying to figure out TC's reasoning here. My guess is that manned aircraft would definitely be flying several hundred feet above a permanent structure like this.

[@DonJoyce]

@@mike_mcfarlane Mike, I was responding to your definition of a structure. There is no limit to the height. The intent is to allow drone inspection of tall towers. With this clause, a drone could inspect a 1000 ft tower without breaking the rule.

[@shawndrebit1428]

Quick question. If NAVCanada approves me to fly at a maximum altitude of 100’ in controlled airspace does the 100’ above buildings and structures still apply?

[@DonJoyce]

Hi Shawn....that's a tricky question. NAV CANADA is going to expect you to have thought of that, I suspect. So on your Flight Authorization Request form, you should put your anticipated maximum altitude (say 200', using your example). You can explain in your application what you are doing if you think it would help clarify.

[@scsparcrow]

So by this interpretation - if flying from the ground I have a maximum altitude of 400 ft AGL. But if I go downtown I can fly up beside a 30 story building (within 200 ft) and go over at an additional 100 ft to get a video or picture from my drone of downtown... I know some forums have people saying they can fly 400 ft above the top of the skyscraper if that is their takeoff point... Thoughts?

[@DonJoyce]

Lol. I'm pretty sure the "G" in AGL stands for "ground", not "roof"! It doesn't matter whether you take off from the ground or the top of a building, the limits are the same.

[@scsparcrow]

@@DonJoyce Thanks Don, that would be my thought as well - but I think my statement that if you flew up beside that 30 story building and stayed 100 ft above that would be acceptable. Had a similar discussion regarding taking off from a mountain and pointed out that if you flew horizontally out over the valley you would be way above 400 ft AGL - and could easily see planes flying below you. Some thinking and common sense usually has the rules making sense.

[@DonJoyce]

@@scsparcrow yes, your statement about flying up to 100 ft over a tall building is fine, as described in the video. Of course, you may also need to clear the area of bystanders. And be sure you are not in controlled airspace. Thanks for the discussion...stay safe!

[@CuriousSoulCanada]

The rule makes sense if you think from a small aircraft pilot point of view. They have limitations about the minimum distance they can fly in the proximity of structures and built up areas. A GA aircraft cannot fly below 500ft unless for the purpose of taking off or landing. So the drones are limited to the 400ft to prevent them getting the dumb into the GA aircraft path using a bad rule as an excuse. Also the cellphone towers and tall structures, even some contraction cranes, are clearly marked on the aeronautical charts, so the pilots have limitations of how close they fly to these structures. I would not fly next to a cellphone tower; the drone could affect the microwave links signals (the round antennae that connect the towers together in a network), you could hit the structure and crash the drone and have to get inside the fence on the private property to recover it

[@DonJoyce]

Correct. Thank you, Curious Soul.

[@yvanc3842]

Ok, so the way I understand is if a tower or a Building is 410 feet height, I am allowed to fly 100 feet over the structure, the maximum height would be 440 feet for a distance of 200 feet before and 200 feet after I pass the structure. Again, thank you for your help.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Yvan! Your idea is correct, but your math is a bit off: You can go 100 feet (or 30m) above the building. So, with your example of a building 410 feet high, you could actually go up to 510 feet in the vicinity of the building.

[@RadianMeasure]

wow. That was also not how I understood that section. Thanks question: on the basic rpas exam, are measurement units in Metric/SI, or are they similar to whats presented in this video (imperial included)?

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Wulhem! Hope it helped. With regard to units, I recall seeing mostly imperial units...and was kind of shocked. But it seemed inconsistent.

[@ScottBell]

Good clarification, thanks!

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Scott! Yeah, the most poorly worded regulation ever.

[@CanadianDroneHub]

Very informative my friend thanks you

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Roger!

[@Carmelo_GonZ]

Excelente

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you!

[@karl-heinzlang4926]

Very nice video interesting upload 👍👍😎😎

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you, Karl-Heinz!

[@JMX246]

good explanation - thanks

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you, JMX!

[@laurerobichon8227]

Thank you !

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Laure!

[@juansandoval1124]

what the mining RADIO CHECK please

[@DonJoyce]

Hi Juan, I don't understand your question.

[@hannonadventures]

Awesome vid and great info

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you!!

[@FlyByWireC]

thank you

[@DonJoyce]

Glad it helped!

[@sethgotell]

Thanks without this pic I was totally lost about this

[@DonJoyce]

Yeah...classic case of a picture is worth a thousand words!

[@darrenbrear]

Excellent video 👍

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Darren!

[@nibbscbr]

Excellent info sir🤘🇨🇦

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you, Roger!!

[@JTsCrappieCave]

New supporter here from Pusa's live stream

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, JT

[@juansandoval1124]

i need more inf about aviation giner

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Juan, but I don't know what you mean.

[@BrantAerials]

I liked this. It didn't make sense that you would have to descend to pass over a building. :)

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Gary! Well, that's ONE non sensible regulation cleared up at least!

[@skaayxynn]

Thanks.... I like

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Mamah!

[@alecmcgrathofcanada9175]

Me: *flies 300 meters* TC: "Hey, you weren't supposed to do that." Me: "There was 270 meter tall building there a minute ago, I swear!"

[@DonJoyce]

Lol. Yes, I've seen that happen.

[@ORGANIZEDCoNfUsioN]

Don why can`t you write the rules. Now I get it, thank you.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, OC! Well, I'm working on a series of videos explaining each and every one of the rules...a rather huge task! But it's too cold to drone anyways!

[@TWOWHEELFIX]

Very good explanation in layman's terms. Like from me, Don. 👍🍻

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, Two Wheel!

[@bastek.]

OK video.🖒☺

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you!

[@sandrodronehobby717]

Opa amigão ja deixei meu joinha

[@DonJoyce]

LOL! Google's translator from Portuguese says "Hi, my friend, I left my little sister."....LOL

[@ricardoabh3242]

lol I feel you, also an an engineer…. Difficulty is that it’s written by lawyers

[@DonJoyce]

Wicked lawyers at that!

[@longinpeciak459]

You did not explain the situation when a pilot is within 61m of a burn for example. I think your interpretation is not clear because it is simply wrong, sorry. My interpretation is that you cannot fly above 122m, period, so in a case where you have in front of you a building 122m tall you cannot fly over it. You can fly around it but not over it. 30m above any building applies only when a pilot is within 61m horizontally. I think this is because a pilot has limited view and cannot clearly see what is going on above a building. In my opinion Transport Canada should revise this regulation so there is no room for interpretations.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks for the comment, Longin, but perhaps you missed the statement that Transport Canada has in fact confirmed the interpretation stated in the video. And even they agree that it is worded poorly.

[@Zbip57]

That's certainly a lot clearer. Why does Transport Canada insist on using such confusing wording? And WHY do they insist on using different numbers than the USA? The FAA says you can go 400 ft above tall structures within a 400 ft radius around the structure, whereas TC has to be different by allowing only 100 ft above within a 200 ft radius. I worked in Vehicle Safety at Transport Canada and at the time we were all about "harmonizing" our regulations with our American counterparts. I guess the harmonization policy doesn't apply to drone regulations.

[@DonJoyce]

Thanks, and I agree that if there is no good reason to be different, why be different?

[@DroneMiller]

Thanks for clearing that up makes sense now. love your channel . check out mine when you have time.

[@DonJoyce]

Thank you, Dean! And yes, I have returned to your channel!