Fined in Canada for flying a drone near a forest fire

[ChuckBridges]

I just read a report on a idiot fined for flying a drone close to a forest fire this summer.

JASPER, ALTA. – A man who flew a drone near a wildfire in Jasper National Park has received a $10,000 fine.

Judge Jeffrey Champion doled out the penalty to Rajwinder Singh under the Canada National Parks Act in provincial court Thursday and gave him until June 8, 2023, to pay the fine.

The details of the fine were confirmed by a provincial court spokesperson.

Flying a drone in a national park is illegal and carries a maximum fine of $25,000.

It’s also illegal to fly an aircraft, including a drone, within 9.3 kilometres of a forest fire without permission under Canadian Aviation Regulations.

Wardens in Jasper National Park seized four drones and charged four people under the National Parks Act for flying too close to the Chetamon wildfire in September.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 9, 2022.

 

[Pier2162]

As too often happens in Italy, drone owners do not inform themselves (and are not informed) about flight bans, and especially when buying the drone they are not informed of the legal obligations for their use.
There is no law that obliges sellers to provide guidelines for proper use.

 

[Chris Koch]

As too often happens in Italy, drone owners do not inform themselves (and are not informed) about flight bans, and especially when buying the drone they are not informed of the legal obligations for their use.
There is no law that obliges sellers to provide guidelines for proper use.

This is where the problem is, the seller should be held responsible to inform the buyer what the law is, or issue him with some sort of documents explaining this etc. my penny's worth

 

[Pier2162]

In fact, most buyers are not even aware that to use the drone you need a license, registration, insurance, etc.

 

[Russell Smith]

This is where the problem is, the seller should be held responsible to inform the buyer what the law is, or issue him with some sort of documents explaining this etc. my penny's worth

wrong answer... it's up to the buyer to do the research... come on, people need to start taking responsibility... a simple phone call and he would have found out he couldn't fly where he did...

 

[FR MD PHB]

As too often happens in Italy, drone owners do not inform themselves (and are not informed) about flight bans, and especially when buying the drone they are not informed of the legal obligations for their use.
There is no law that obliges sellers to provide guidelines for proper use.

Unfortunately the same thing in France. But it must be recognized that the European Union does not make things easier with new legislation that is (as always) complicated and very long to put in place.
Here the site Géoportail clearly indicates the prohibited areas (you just have to add the right tab on the map )

 

[Pier2162]

The basic problem is that small drones have affordable prices for everyone, you don't need to be an adult for buying and use, and except for those who frequent forums like this, no one is aware of the regulations.

And then because there is always, in the ignorance of people, the alleged rule of "if it can be sold, it can also be used".

We are on a forum where the cheapest drone costs a few hundred dollars (or euros), but we all (or almost) have began with models costing a few tens of dollars or euros, certainly Chinese, with few pretensions, maybe purchased in some shopping mall, or toy store ... And we definitely flew where it was forbidden until someone pointed it out to us....maybe with the luck of not having taken a fine or worse made damage to things or people.
For those who start it is still so.
Who is without sin, cast the first stone...

 

[FR MD PHB]

The basic problem is that small drones have affordable prices for everyone, you don't need to be an adult for buying and use, and except for those who frequent forums like this, no one is aware of the regulations.

And then because there is always, in the ignorance of people, the alleged rule of "if it can be sold, it can also be used".

We are on a forum where the cheapest drone costs a few hundred dollars (or euros), but we are all (or almost) passed before for models costing a few tens of dollars or euros, certainly Chinese, with few pretensions, maybe purchased in some shopping mall, or toy store ... And we definitely flew where it was forbidden until someone pointed it out to us....maybe with the luck of not having taken a fine or worse made damage to things or people.
For those who start it is still so.
Who is without sin, cast the first stone...

Personally, I passed the necessary qualifications when I bought my first drone (PARROT ANAFI) so I never sinned.
But is it really possible?
The complexity of a European legislation which, for example, varies according to the weight of the UAS drowns out the real measures which must be applied such as, for example, the absolute prohibition for any amateur to fly over the public space in agglomeration.
With this complexity, you can never be sure that you are completely within the rules.
It should be noted that this legislation is being implemented extremely slowly because the discussions between the legislator and the manufacturers for the classification of devices are difficult.

 

[Chris Koch]

wrong answer... it's up to the buyer to do the research... come on, people need to start taking responsibility... a simple phone call and he would have found out he couldn't fly where he did...Justlike the guy in Canada flying near bush fires (Makes sense)

Just like the guy in Canada flying near a bush fire, that is responsibility!!!!!

 

[Ty Pilot]

I do not believe that placing responsibility of educating potential drone buyers, on sellers is the answer, it is not their job, nor would they be compensated for doing so. What if they had to train every customer, in the specifics of use and regulations of everything they sold? They would be out of business, or never start one in the first place.

However I have long felt that the responsibility should and must, fall to the various regulatory bodies such as the FAA here in the states. Ironically they (FAA in US) already have in place the regulations for commercial and recreational flight.

If they (regulatory bodies) took the next step and required showing proof of passage of either the TRUST or 107 prior to purchase, (similar to a drivers license to purchase alcohol) - then we'd have a method whereby the responsibility is on the buyer and eventual pilot - as it should be.

 

[Pier2162]

Agree. They (EASA) should do the same in EU.