/dist/images/branding/favicon

filming in canada

Discussion in 'Cinestar Misc' started by Laurence Hamilton-Baillie, Dec 6, 2013.

  1. Graydon Tranquilla

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    15
    Murray, I was quite surprised to see there is now a need for the MR pilot to also become licensed to use a VHF Air band transceiver. As a licensed HAM operator, I already am able to listen in on all air band frequencies but am not licensed to transmit on these frequencies. I also read somewhere that the SFOC currently in use was last updated in 2008. It remains a one size fit all system....probably developed in alignment with ING Engineering which is now ING Engineering is Renamed ING Robotic Aviation.
     
  2. Patrick Thompson

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    5
    P Thompson-2013.jpg @OP Lawrence, not sure if you received my 2nd on correspondence re Arctic filming, but I wanted to wish you luck with the effort. I know you've committed to getting an SFOC, and I applaud your efforts, as I'm sure the rest of the Canadian Operators do.

    Today, after spending 12 hours in -24c and 35km/hr winds, I don't envy your assignment…..;).

    Things that made life easier today:

    Hot pockets. In every pocket.
    9V battery powered socks as pre-heaters on the lipos, which were kept at 80f prior to flight.
    Batts wrapped in neoprene beer bottle sleeves, as insulation during flight- this is an awesome solution as compared to styro boxes.
    Marmot mountaineer guide gloves, with the first two fingers & thumbs cut off. Perfect; and good transmitter grip.
    Two spare thermoses of coffee beside the ground station, to keep the client from leaving set to warm up.
    A designated assistant hired, to keep the dozen sets of batteries charged, hot & ready, including TX, VTX & VRX batteries.

    Fortunately, the product we shot was an industrial solar power trailer for the military, so there was plenty of field power available.

    Best of luck on your shoot.
     
  3. Gary Haynes

    Gary Haynes Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,211
    Likes Received:
    460
    Graydon taking a guess but if you are operating in the Canadian airspace you might need to communicate with the air traffic control system. Therefore you would need a radio. I forget when the US dropped the requirement that an aircraft pilot needed a restricted FCC radio operators license to operate in the US. I think it is still a requirement for international flights but ben awhile since I looked at the FAR's. But this would be the logic. Likely if you are a private pilot in Canada you would go through the same process. Would be interesting to see if a U.S. pilot went through the SFOC process whether Canada would recognize a U.S. FCC Aircraft Radio License.
     
  4. Murray Hunt

    Murray Hunt New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Graydon:
    I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just thought I would share what I discovered from my personal experience.
    I assumed the licence requirement has always been there, When I first started my quest a couple years ago ,that was in the "Staff Instruction" document.
    Yes...the current SFOC process does go back a few years, ( probably before UAV's were invented)
    Unmanned Systems Canada is currently working with TC on proposing changes to the current system. Hopefully they are making progress.

    Patrick:
    We do have to become innovative to operate in the cold.
    I put each pair of lipos in a small lipo charging bag ( from thunderpower) and use two pair of hand warmers per bag, I transport these bags in a large insulated bag lined with a 12 volt heating pad, or a bunch of cold/hot packs zapped in the microwave.
    What works for my hands is merino wool glove liners and good wool fingerless gloves ( I might be old fashioned, but you can't beat wool)
    All was for not today...copter would not start in -29c, and gimbal servos froze up....worked fine in pre flight check in the shop, and again when I got home...I guess I have a wussy copter.....
     
  5. Patrick Thompson

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    5
    @Gary; A radio operators certificate (ROC-A) will suffice for TCA approvals; they're not focused on the HAM licensing for transmitters. The primary concern that the SFOC addresses is the ability to operate within shared airspace, which includes communicating with aircraft, in an emergency- I assume this is similar to the new FAA proposals, yes?

    @Murray; time to switch to a brushless gimbal! I've never had a servo "freeze up"; I'd be curious to know why that happened.

    Stay warm.

    PT
     
  6. Gary Haynes

    Gary Haynes Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,211
    Likes Received:
    460
    Patrick the FAA hasn't come out with any rules yet so not sure what the radio requirements/communicationas requirements will be. There is no longer a requirement for a US radio license for the operator or the aircraft, at least for domestic only flights. And the regs don't actually stipulate a 'radio' for communication. They say in certain circumstances, airport areas, etc that you must communicate with the appropriate ATC facility. But that can be done via phone. Example, as a hot air balloon pilot many other HAB folks do not have aircraft radios. If they start to drift into an airport traffic area they simply call the tower. We live in the great unknown....
     
  7. Graydon Tranquilla

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    15
    Seems to me that Canadian airspace is defined as 300 feet and higher with a few exceptions:
    1) landing approach and takeoff near airports and heliports
    2) flying at any altitude during public emergencies where manned aircraft need land, takeoff or fly everywhere including below 300 feet.
    3) flying an MR for commercial purposes even below 300 feet

    So it is my understanding that, whereas the RC hobby flyer does not require the 2-way "air-band" vhf transceiver, the UAV pilot flying anywhere outdoors will require this.
     
  8. Laurence Hamilton-Baillie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    6
    thanks for all your responses! Since first writing this i have been out flying in mongolia for the past month or so. As a result getting permission from T.C. in time went from being unrealistic to simply impossible. The company I work for are now looking into sending our octocopter kit out there to be flown by a local pilot. I am not too happy about this for two reasons. The machine octo was built by me and has lots of little nuances that would make life difficult for a different operator. Secondly, flying an unfamiliar machine in -30C makes the possibility of a crash seem more likely no matter how experienced the op is. I have invested ~300 hours of time developing it so would not like to see it crash!.. Rant over..! Anyway In the UK, when you do the test you are only qualified to fly the machine you did the test on meaning you are not allowed to fly other people's machines for exactly the reasons stated above. My question is, is this also the case in Canada? or is the permission a blanket permission for any craft you wish to fly?
    cheers all!
     
  9. Murray Hunt

    Murray Hunt New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Laurence
    Sorry to hear about your experience with TC....
    I completely understand not wanting someone to fly your equipment...I doubt that anyone would agree to that!
    SFOC's are specific to the equipment and the personnel. For example, I have two SFOC's, one for my multirotor and one for my fixed wing. Both are specific to the equipment system and the personnel. The third person required ( the spotter) can be anyone you designate.

    If you sent me an email address, I can forward you an example
    Cheers
     
  10. Laurence Hamilton-Baillie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    6
    that would be great. my e-mail address is laurence.hamiltonb@iconfilms.co.uk
    someone has already agreed to fly the copter. they initially had concerns but obviously found it too hard to turn down a trip to the Arctic. If you could e-mail me a copy asap that would be fantastic as i would love to show it to my manager.
     
  11. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Murray: Could I also see the SFOC? I'd love to see an example. We're just south of the Canadian border....and I've been asked a couple of times about shooting in Canada. ajohnsonlaird@me.com

    Thanks
    Andy.
     
  12. Graydon Tranquilla

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    15
    IMHO - (others please correct me if there is any errors here......

    from what I understand to date from info gathered from multiple sources..... Transport Canada developed the SFOC back in 2008 with the higher end UAV businesses in mind such that it does not accommodate the small players including AV work for the Canadian film/movie industry at all well. It is the nature of Canadian regulatory agencies to let the USA take the lead, then follow it with Canadian regulations later making a few minor mods and a translation in to French for the Francophones (mostly Quebec)..... so add 1 to 2 years to the process before the new UAV regs come in to affect.

    The closer the Canadian regs align with FAA the better as is the case with FCC with respect to radio freq/spectrum /licensing arrangements. The appropriate flyer insurance is also a mandatory requirement to meet the SFOC requirements and you application will need to be at least 45 pages long. If you are lucky you might get an exemption from the special radio license requirements so long as TC is confident that you will remain away from all airports, incoming and outgoing flight paths. Additional info in next post.....
     
  13. Laurence Hamilton-Baillie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    6
    Hi all, interesting conversation. Interesting to hear people's thoughts on VHF communication with the ATCs. Here in England we just give the tower a ring if we are flying near an ATZ. I now have another shoot coming up in late September so have sent off a SFOC application which hopefully will go through in time. (we are flying in some seriously remote locations away from anywhere let alone airports so hopefully they shouldn't have too many issues with the application.
    we have a small army of people in the office who are very used to dealing with the immigration / carnet side of things
    BTW does anyone know the current state of affairs in the US regarding the law? from what I can gather, the FAA was shot down in the Raphael Pirker case and haven't yet managed to successfully appeal??? If i fly in remote Alaska as well as Canada is the worst i'm gunna get a cease and desist letter?
    Cheers All,
    Laurence
     
  14. Graydon Tranquilla

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    15

    Don't get too discouraged......
    The purpose of Canadian law/regulations is to protect the public ..... not to stomp all over individual MR pilots where there absolutely no risk to the public. But keep it as low as possible and far away from airports. Plan your flight then fly your plan.
    The time required to obtain an SFOC will depend on which region of Canada you apply to. In the case of the prairie region, plans on 3 to 5 months delay. Other areas are less busy and can respond much faster. But to obtain an SFOC, you much have insurance which will cost you around $750 per years. Not sure if they offer a lower price for shorter time frame.
    IMHO - Where time and money are limited such that choices must be made, I am much more in favor to investing that time and money into high level QA/QC of the MR equipment so as to achieve a reliable and safe flight versus dealing with soul crushing regulations and paperwork.

    The FAA have proven again and again that they are more interested in keeping their jobs comfortable, minimizing their workload, while justifying their existence and asserting their authority versus serving the best interest of the government and the public. They have bullied FPV pilots of fixed wing and MRs in Texas that have been contributed greatly to SARS related work. It is my hope that a new generation of businessmen, lawyers, and leaders will rise up against them and put them in their proper place.
     
  15. Andy Johnson-Laird

    Andy Johnson-Laird Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    10,383
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    The FAA was not "shot down," Laurence.

    Judge Gerachty (an administrative law judge at the National Transportation and Safety Board, NTSB) ruled that in one specific case, Huerta (the head of the FAA) v. Pirkler (aka Trappy), the FAA could not fine him. The FAA appealed (as they are entitled to) to have the case heard before the entire NTSB board.

    The FAA's Reply Brief is here: http://dronelawjournal.com/faa-files-appeal-brief-in-pirker-case/
    Pirkler's Reply Brief is here: http://www.suasnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Pirker-AppealReply.pdf

    I was told, after researching it with several law professors, that the effect of the appeal is that Judge Gerachty's order was stayed. So we have what the lawyers call the status quo ante -- the situation is what it was before the Judge's ruling.

    So, while there are those who read the situation as "great, the FAA got shot down" that does not appear to be the case. There are also those that say, "great, now commercial operations are legal as the Judge ruled that the Federal Aviation Regulations do not apply to model aircraft, and the Advisory Circular AC 91-57 the does cover model aircraft does NOT cover not commercial operations, so nothing covers commercial operation of model aircraft."

    While the Judge's ruling certainly says that, it is (based on what I've been told by administrative law professors) limited to the specific case, Huerta v. Pirkler, and not a general statement of law.

    Given that what I've been told be administrative law professors is correct, then we are currently just as we were before Judge Gerachty's opinion. Even if Judge Gerachty's opinion is affirmed by the full Board of the NTSB, it still only applies to Huerta v. Pirkler and not as a general statement of public law.

    Even if the law profs are wrong and Judge Gerachty's opinion is construed as a general statement of law, I was told that the FAA has available to it the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") under the terms of which it can declare this to be a urgent matter of public safety and could issue immediate regulations without going through the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and public hearing process.

    And, of course, there is the possibility that the full NTSB board will reverse Judge Geraghty's opinion. In that case, we are definitely back to the status quo ante.

    Hope this helps your understand. I'm not sure it does much to clarify the situation -- but at least it might help you understand the confusion! :)
    Andy.
     
  16. Noel Zinger

    Noel Zinger New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hello Graydon,


    We've been flying commercially with SFOC since 2006. The SFOC application as I've experienced it isn't a one size fits all, it's not a fill in the blanks form. T.C. reviews all submissions on a one to one basis. Our SFOC has evolved over the years and has taken a lot of work to get to the SFOC T.C. issuing us today. T.C. started with issuing an SFOC for a specific date and time, if we missed the date because of weather we had to re-submit which made the commercial use of UAVs impractical. We now have an SFOC that allows us to fly any time any where as long as we fly within the "conditions" of our SFOC and those conditions are not hobbling to our process at all. There is a lot of common sense in the conditions, rules and permissions in the SFOC. One example that would limit the types of jobs we can take on would be flying within 200' (100' with our prop guards) of the general public or individuals that haven't sighed a waiver, public stadiums etc. If you're flying in a stadium and your UAV goes nuts you would have a very high probability of hitting someone so we simply steer clear of those jobs.
    Regarding the HAM operator license, If we're flying within 5 NM of an airport (aerodrome) we file a NoTAM using our cell phone and give the TIC, Tower/Terminal our contact number for the flight. We tell them What we're flying, where, how high, when and any other information about our flight that the operator at the FIS requests. If they have no objections to our request they file our NoTAM. There is a lot more to this process depending on what Airport or aerodrome your flying around but thats a typical example.

    Hope this information is helpful,
    Noel
     
    Graydon Tranquilla likes this.
  17. Noel Zinger

    Noel Zinger New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    4
    In Canada, our SFOC is issued to "SkyReel Aerial Imaging Inc. - Noel Zinger". I had to list the UAVs I want to operate. I listed Mikrokopter X4,X6 and X8 the Aeryon Scout and Ranger the Draganfly X4P The DJIS800 including others. I must maintain a distance of 200' from the public and 100' if I use my prop guards.

    To your question about who is allowed to operate a UAV under the Certificate (SFOC). In SkyReel's SFOC condition 4. states that:

    The certificate holder (SkyReel Aerial Imaging Inc. - Noel Zinger) shall maintain an adequate management organization that is capable of exercising supervision and operational control over persons participating in the THE UAV's operation.

    So yes, I can choose the operator. Our SFOC is issued to SkyReel and Noel Zinger for the propose of "training" and "aerial cinematography". If we have a situation where the scope of the flight would be beyond my skill level, I can hire an individual that has the skill level required.

    Noel
     
    Graydon Tranquilla likes this.
  18. Graydon Tranquilla

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    15
    Noel Zinger likes this.
  19. Mark Gronvall

    Mark Gronvall New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Grayton, I'm new on this forum but have been doing RC Helicam work since 2002 in Canada and have paid many thousands of dollars for liability insurance. Never had a claim. I am very curious about your source for liability insurance as my policy is up for renewal shortly. Can you share which company in Canada is able to provide a policy for "around $750 per year"? Do you have a contact person and phone number?
    Thanks,
    Mark
     
  20. Graydon Tranquilla

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    15
    Try Kiln Group....... The $750 is based on my memory of a comment made by a colleague with respect to his SFOC. My current activities seem to be predominantly. MR system development, repairs, ground and flight testing for others...... a very good sideline business to help support my MR "hobby" activities....... (also configuration of Brushless gimbal systems)......commercial Aerial Video endeavour forthcoming.
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page