Google
 

Aardvark Daily

The world's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 30th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.

Content copyright © 1995 - 2025 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at aardvark.co.uk



Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

They can not help themselves

31 March 2025

Regulators... sigh!

For a long time I've been praising Transport Canada for their commonsense, risk-based regulations covering the operation of what they call "microdrones".

Under Canadian regulations, any drone that has a mass of less than 250g is categorized as a "microdrone" and is really only subject to three rules:

  1. Don't endanger ptjer people
  2. Don't endanger other people's property
  3. Don't fly in no-fly zones

That's right... the Canadian regulator has resisted the temptation to make themselves look stupid by attempting to regulate a very low-risk type of craft as if it was a giant multi-Kg drone with huge flesh-cleaving propellers and enough mass to kill anyone it might fall on.

If only other regulators elsewhere in the world were this smart.

The proof of Canada's intelligence in this matter can be seen by the resulting total lack of deaths, serious injuries or property damage caused by these "microdrones", despite the lack of prescriptive rules governing their use.

These tiny microdrones are used by countless people each and every day with millions of flights logged since the non-rules came into effect and yet, everyone is safe.

In fact, the only significant drone "incidents" in Canada have been as a result of police incompetence -- having flown their own much larger drones into their own helicopter and a private light-aircraft. Once again however, despite the police drones being much larger and potentially more dangerous, there were no deaths or even injuries.

The bottom line is that drones (outside the theatre of war) are intrinisically the safest form of aviation we've ever developed.

Of course that doesn't stop retarded regulators in many countries trying to restrict and regulate them as if they were a potent vector of death and destruction. What does that tell us about the intelligence and competence of those regulators?

Sadly however, I have to report that even Canada has succmmbed to the temptation to over-regulate these craft.

Transport Canada has now announced that, despite their perfect record of safety, microdrones can no longer be flown at "advertised events" without first obtaining a "Special Flight Operations Certificate".

Apparently this has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the fact that a few event organisers didn't like the fact that people could legally fly these tiny drones around. I guess they figured that instead of buying tickets, those drone operators could stand outside the venue and watch through the camera of a drone -- thus depriving them of ticket sales.

This is pretty bad.

When a regulator whose responsibility is supposed to be one of ensuring safety decides to sell out and instead become part of a protection racket for the events industry then questions need to be asked.

Oh Transport Canada... you were doing so very well -- and then you came up with this crap.

Of course they're still far better off in Canada than we are here in New Zealand. Our drone regulations (CAR101) haven't been updated for a decade now and despite claims that they're "risk based" we still have the ludicrous situation where folding an A4 sheet into a paper aeroplane and throwing within 4Km of an airport is illegal. Indeed, this is an act that cold earn you or your children a very stiff fine.

CAA's response would doubtlessly be that they would never prosecute such a trivial infringement of the rules -- which means they're sending the message that "sometimes it's okay to break the rules" to all those playing along at home. Can they complain therefore, if someone breaks a somewhat more important rule?

Good rules do not rely on discretionary enforcement and the injustices that tend to flow from such stupidity.

To their credit however, CAA do state, in their "Briefing for the incoming Assiciate Minister of Transport 2025" document that:

"CAA, like many frontline regulators, is dealing with an out-of-date, and not fit for purpose, regulatory regime".

Who's going to fix that then and how long must we wait?

<humour>How many five-year-olds must be locked up for throwing paper darts in the carpark at Auckland airport before changes are made?</humour>

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

Here is a PERMANENT link to this column


Rank This Aardvark Page

 

Change Font

Sci-Tech headlines

 


Features:

The EZ Battery Reconditioning scam

Beware The Alternative Energy Scammers

The Great "Run Your Car On Water" Scam

 

Recent Columns

Skills lost forever
While watching a new hybrid EV glide silently past me on the weekend...

The apocalypse above our heads
A regular reader sent me the link to a fascinating article I'll share with you today...

My computer has $18 million worth of RAM in it
I recall that when I bought my first RAM chip they were expensive, very, very expensive...

Melatonin, nobody was expecting this
Do you have trouble sleeping?...

A new waste mountain?
Remember the days when most battery-powered things would send you broke?...

The UK gets worse
Guy Fawkes Day is now just a couple of sleeps away and I'm pretty sure UK politicians won't he sleeping comfortably right now...

The AI invasion has begun
AI is coming for YOU... well it's coming for your job...

Death, taxes and advertising?
Benjamin Franklin once said "nothing is certain except death and taxes"...

How did we cope? (an ode to 8-bits)
My first computer had an 8-bit processor...

Windows is dangerous and harmful, YouTube says so
YouTube has some pretty strict community guidelines...