RCMP + SUAV's
 

As the police are obviously paid, is the flying they are doing not commercial? Are commercial tickets not required to fly anything commercially? CAR 401.30 and 421.30 do not describe any limitation of type, but simply state that flying for a gain is commercial.

Or did they just hire a bunch of commercial pilots and I missed the bandwagon again?

:=

The key words and concept here is "commercial gain".


The RCMP do not, as a fundamental part of their operation, sell their services in any accepted commercial form. Therefore they are not operating for commercial gain, i.e. profit.


They are therefore not bound by this restriction.

If, as a part of your job to earn a paycheck you fly, that is Commercial. Paid to fly = Commercial. It doesn't matter if as an organisation they sell their services or not.... Someone (several someones in this case) are getting paid to fly.

>If, as a part of your job to earn a paycheck you fly, that is Commercial

As I understand it, if you have a PPL you can legally fly your employer's aircraft as long as you are not employed as a pilot. Whether or not that is a good idea is another question.

Yes, this is just my point.

The police are paid employees. As a part of their job duties they are now flying UAV and SUAV aircraft (and in Canada are looking for even larger platforms). That means they are flying for money. Ergo: These are commercial flights.

If the officers come in with their airplanes on their day off and volunteer their time and equipment to capture images, then that activity describes recreational flying and no license is required for this type of aircraft. But that is not what is happening. They are in uniform, on duty, and being compensated to fly task-specific missions.

It is commercial flight. They should either train-up and get the licenses to operate as such, or begin hiring properly accredited commercial pilots to operate the aircraft for them.

Sigh........ Snappled, If you really feel the need to tilt against windmills, please let us know when you are intending to open your case.


I know one or two legal eagles in Ontario and one or two [in passing] of the Federales out of Ottawa. I'm certain they would just love to hear your arguments.


There is a saying over here - "come out of the rain". - You are proposing complaining to the Government about how a Government agency applies Government defined regulations. This approach is not going to get very far.

Are you going to include the Armed Forces crews in with your complaint?? :hmm:

You don't actually need a CPL (or even a PPL) to fly a UAV. More info here:

Flying an unmanned aircraft - Transport Canada

The premise of your complaint is fundamentally flawed. There are countless examples of pilots who are paid to fly privately registered aircraft that are owned by their employer. As that is their sole function for their employer, they must have a CPL to be paid to fly those aircraft. That in no way means that the aircraft they are flying are operating commercial flights. Otherwise, dozens of Canadian corporations would be breaking the same rules that you are accusing the RCMP of breaking. Here's a hint. They aren't and neither is the RCMP.

Armed forces??? Muddle the question ....
License required to fly a SUAV....no, of course not.

Paid to fly? Paid to fly anything? Requires CPL.

And I realise I am 'tilting against the windmills' here. The UAV/UAS/SUAV (whatever) guidelines tell 'pilots' that SUAV's are not to be above 400', no night flights, etc .... but that is not how they are being used by the police.

As the police officers flying these are not pilots, how could they be expected to know anything about flight regs? Likewise realtors or land surveyors or others using these airplanes for commercial purposes.

The elements of aviation that define commercial flight are well established and should not be redefined because of this new(ish) technology.

- did not say anything about military use.
- did not say anything needing a license to fly.

Talking about a single aspect of the activity; commercial gain.

If your contention is that they are commercial flights, who is the customer that's being billed for their services?

Just to put the brakes solidly on the armed forces issues.

From the CARs:
102.01 These Regulations do not apply in respect of
(a) military aircraft of Her Majesty in right of Canada when they are being manoeuvred under the authority of the Minister of National Defence;

And as for licenses, military pilots and flight crew often don't hold civilian licenses nor are they required to in fulfilling their duties. They operate exempt from the CARs but under authority of the Minister of National Defence. Of note, the military orders very closely mimic the CARs in many aspects (like the requirement to file an IFR flight plan for example) but differ in others (such as minimum take-off IFR weather limits).

Snappled.
I am not sure what your motivation is here, but you are very confused about the regulations.

For a pilot to be paid, as a pilot, they require a commercial license or higher.

For a company to offer their services for gain, they require an AOC..

Many pilots are working as paid pilots for individuals, private companies, or groups. They get paid.
The companies are not commercail enterprises, so they do not need an AOC
(700 level)

I hope this clears it up for you.. .