Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 157, Number 25: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (RPAS – Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight and Other Operations)

June 24, 2023

Statutory authority
Aeronautics Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues

The RPAS industry (also known as the drone industry) is growing quickly in Canada and across the globe — it is projected to increase globally from $22.5 billion USD in 2020 to $42.8 billion USD in 2025 (The Drone Market Report, 2020). The technology and different use cases for drones continue to outpace existing GoC regulations; new regulations are required to support the industry and allow more complex operations on a routine basis. Currently, regulations are in place for small drones flown within VLOS; however, to operate BVLOS and to fly medium-sized drones, operators must first obtain an SFOC. This process, which is done on a case-by-case basis, can be time-consuming for applicants and departmental officials and can result in negative economic impacts, including administrative burden, for the drone industry.

In 2019, TC published the Transportation Sector Regulatory Roadmap in response to the first round of the Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS) targeted Regulatory Reviews. Through the Review, stakeholders stated that the lack of regulations for BVLOS operations was a barrier to economic growth in the drone industry. Additionally, a 2019 study by Avascent surveyed 15 different Canadian industries currently using drones, including agriculture, mining, academia, real estate, and law enforcement, and found that 80% of respondents reported that a lack of regulations for BVLOS was a barrier affecting the sector’s growth. Industry has also expressed interest in a more predictable regulatory environment for testing larger aircraft (greater than 25 kg) within VLOS to develop new technologies in a cost-effective way by allowing testing to take place in a timelier fashion.

To ensure safe drone operations as the sector and technology rapidly evolve and grow, the GoC must take a proactive and iterative approach to regulating, introducing a series of rules over time that incrementally allow more complex operations. This would also enable a competitive Canadian market and support innovation in Canada. Without regulatory predictability, there is a risk that the RPAS industry would move outside of Canada to remain economically viable.

The GoC promotes a balanced approach to financing government programs whereby those who benefit from program services pay a share of the costs for those services. Although fees were introduced in 2019 for TC’s VLOS drone services (e.g. registration), SFOCs are currently issued at no charge to the applicant meaning the cost of delivering this service is borne by the Canadian taxpayer not the beneficiary of the service. The proposed amendments include fees for RPAS services, including SFOCs, to better align with the user-pays principle.

Background

Drone technologies are changing the way people work in industries including agriculture, mining, search and rescue, infrastructure inspection, photography, and filmmaking. For example, a drone can be used to collect data more efficiently to inform precision agriculture or keep a person out of harm’s way when assessing a fire for hot spots before sending in firefighters. The use of a drone versus a traditional aircraft in some situations, such as to inspect a bridge, power line or pipeline, can be less costly, less time-consuming, and safer because the pilot can remain on the ground. Drones are also regularly used by first responders to find missing people, locate suspects, and transport first aid supplies in emergency situations. Flying drones has also become a new hobby for new and old aviation enthusiasts alike for taking photos and drone racing.

Canadian civil aviation is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport under the Aeronautics Act (the Act). Under the Act, the Minister is responsible for the development of regulations governing aeronautics and the supervision of all matters connected with aeronautics. In 2019, the GoC published the first set of rules in Canada for drones within VLOS that weigh up to and including 25 kg with the creation of Part IX of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). These rules established the baseline that future regulatory projects – including the current proposed amendments – will build from as Canada works towards incrementally integrating increasingly complex RPAS technologies into the transportation system. To support the implementation of Part IX, TC developed an online system – the Drone Management Portal – where Canadians can register their drone, take a pilot exam, receive their pilot certificates, as well as submit their payment for services. As of February 2023, there were nearly 74 000 small drones that had been registered with TC, compared to 37 000 registered traditional aircraft, and over 88 000 pilot certificates issued to drone pilots across Canada.

Prior to Part IX of the CARs, the only way to fly a drone commercially was to obtain an SFOC, which is reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis, and recreational activities were subject to an Interim Order, which laid out a temporary set of rules. The Part IX VLOS rules reduced the need for SFOC applications by establishing a threshold below which an SFOC was not required, thereby enabling growth in the industry. However, technological advancements have led to an increase in requests for SFOC approvals for more complex operations.

Drone use cases are constantly evolving and expanding. There is great potential to use regulations to support the safe and predictable integration of drones into the broader aviation system while encouraging innovation and development in the drone industry. BVLOS operations are the future of drones and the introduction of routine operations in lower-risk environments would promote innovation and the development of new drone technologies so that the industry could move towards more complex operations and integrate with the broader aviation system. Larger drones and BVLOS operations can cover more geographic area in a shorter period and can also collect more data in fewer deployments compared to VLOS operations.

The Ontario Society of Professional Engineers has reported that the use of drone services could benefit industries in Canada that currently contribute over $600 billion to Canada’s national gross domestic product. In the province of Ontario alone, the aerospace industry created over 22 000 jobs in 2019. The Government of Québec also dedicated funding to support the development of a commercial drone cluster in the province’s 2016–2026 aerospace strategy, recognizing the potential and capabilities of the drone industry.

Over the last three years, TC has worked with industry on BVLOS pilot projects, trials, and research and development related to topics, such as collision avoidance, understanding the impacts of weather on drone flights, and collision impact testing, while also issuing SFOCs for lower-risk BVLOS operations. TC used the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems’ (JARUS) internationally recognized Specific Operational Risk Assessment (SORA) to develop a safety framework for medium-sized drones and lower-risk BVLOS. The SORA is a risk assessment tool that considers things, such as altitude, type of airspace, and ability to detect and avoid other aircraft. To date, TC has approved over 190 SFOCs for lower-risk BVLOS operations. The knowledge gained through working with industry, pilot projects, and research and development, has provided TC with the insights needed to develop a safe, predictable, and effective regulatory framework for lower-risk BVLOS operations.

As it continues to grow, the drone industry will also contribute to economic recovery post-COVID-19 by creating new jobs and opportunities in different sectors, such as forestry, mining, and environmental protection, as well as supporting delivery to remote and Indigenous communities and strengthening the supply chain. It will also result in cost savings to companies as tasks, such as data collection, could be done more efficiently and reduce risks associated with dangerous tasks. While COVID-19 has significantly impacted the traditional aviation industry, the drone industry continued to grow over the early pandemic years. In 2021, NAV CANADA, Canada’s air navigation services provider, reported a 40% increase in authorizations for drones to access controlled airspace.

The implementation of a new regulatory framework for medium-sized drones and lower-risk BVLOS operations would support growth and investment in the Canadian economy. It would also allow TC to shift resources towards issuing SFOCs for more complex operations – e.g. in urban centres, at higher altitudes or larger aircraft – and integration with the broader aviation sector.

Fee modernization, the Service Fees Act and the Directive on Charging and Special Financial Authorities

The proposed regulatory amendments would introduce new services and fees that support the expanded RPAS framework. Fee modernization is a priority across the GoC, as evidenced by the introduction of the Service Fees Act (SFA) in Budget 2017. The SFA signals that the Government supports departments and agencies updating the fees they charge for products and services. It also represents the Government’s commitment to modernizing its services and delivering value to Canadians by establishing service standards, remitting a portion of fees paid to clients when service standards are not met, adjusting fees annually by the consumer price index, and making the results public through annual reporting.

The modernization of TC’s fee regimes is aligned with the goals of Transportation 2030: A Strategic Plan for the Future of Transportation in Canada, a modernization initiative championed by the Minister of Transport. TC’s service and fee regimes in several business areas are being updated in consultation with stakeholders to provide more predictable service to industry, ensure the sustainability of TC services, and ensure that those who benefit from services pay an appropriate share of the costs for services.

The existing fee regime for RPAS services and activities was created in 2019 to support the VLOS regulations. The proposed amendments would build on this to recover a greater share of the cost of administering drone registration, as well as look to recover fees for new services, such as examination, and certification functions that support both VLOS and BVLOS operations, as well as the delivery of other services that would be provided to support the expanded RPAS framework, such as issuing SFOCs.

The proposed changes adhere to the requirements of the Directive on Charging and Special Financial Authorities, which, among other things, outlines management practices and controls to ensure that charging practices for services are consistent across government and that amounts charged respect legislative limits. In accordance with the Directive, TC developed and published a fee proposal on the proposed new and updated RPAS fees and held public consultations in the spring of 2021.

Objective

The proposed amendments have three objectives:

Regulatory predictability, economic growth, and innovation

The proposed amendments aim to support economic growth and innovation, reflect technological advancements, and allow the Canadian drone industry to remain competitive in the global drone market while permitting the safe use and testing of drones in lower-risk environments. To do this, the proposed amendments would move away from the case-by-case treatment of certain drone operations by replacing SFOC requirements for medium drones within VLOS and lower-risk BVLOS operations with a new regulatory framework. This would provide a predictable and flexible regulatory environment for the drone industry, supporting long-term investment planning while reducing costly administrative burdens on business.

Safety risk mitigation

The proposed amendments also aim to mitigate risks to other airspace users and people on the ground while permitting the safe use and testing of RPAS in lower-risk environments and ensuring that pilots have a relevant knowledge base. The proposed amendments focus on safety rules for the pilot, the product, procedures, and the organization.

Fee modernization

The modernization of TC’s fee regime is a key component of the department’s transformation plan. TC’s service and fee regime is being updated in consultation with stakeholders to provide more predictable service to industry; ensure the sustainability of TC services; and ensure that those who benefit from services pay an appropriate share of the costs for services.

In line with TC’s Fee Modernization Initiative, the proposed amendments would introduce new fees and updated fees for services related to drone activities. These fees aim to recover a share of the costs of TC providing services to those who benefit from the activities, including the costs of administering drone registration, examination, and certification, as well as the delivery of other services that would be provided to support the program, such as issuing SFOCs.

Description

Scope

The proposed amendments would build upon Part IX of the CARs and introduce new requirements to reflect the increased risks of the two new categories of operation.

• Medium drones that weigh above 25 kg up to and including 150 kg flying within VLOS near and over people, in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace; and,
• Drones that weigh 250 g up to and including 150 kg flying BVLOS in unpopulated and sparsely populated areas, below 400 feet above ground level, and in uncontrolled airspace.

The new requirements can be grouped into “the 3 Ps”: the Pilot (pilot training and certification), the Product (aircraft and supporting systems) and the Procedures (operational rules). In addition, TC is proposing new requirements for individuals and organizations operating BVLOS, such as appointing an accountable executive, and requirements to establish training programs and risk management processes, which will be discussed in more detail below. These new requirements would allow for clearer organizational oversight with larger-scale operations, covering larger geographic areas, as well as an increase in the number and types of drones being operated.

Clarifying Canadian ownership requirements for commercial air services

The proposed amendments would clarify the ownership requirements to operate drones commercially in Canada, aligned with the existing rules for traditional aviation. To offer a commercial air service (any use of an aircraft for hire or reward) in Canada a person would need to be

• either a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident;
• a government in Canada or an agent or mandatary of such a government, or;
• a corporation or entity that is incorporated or formed under the laws of Canada or a province and is controlled in fact by Canadians, with at least 75% of the voting interests owned and controlled by Canadians.

In addition, if a drone is carrying cargo, the operator would continue to be subject to the definition of “Canadian” under the Canadian Transportation Act (CTA) and must apply for an economic license from the Canadian Transportation Agency. “Specialty air services” means aerial mapping, aerial surveying, aerial photography, forest fire management, fire fighting, aerial advertising, glider towing, parachute jumping, aerial construction, heli-logging, aerial sightseeing, flight training, aerial inspection, and surveillance and aerial spraying services. Non-Canadian operators from countries with whom Canada has a trade agreement in place may obtain authorization to perform specialty air services via an SFOC. Individuals from countries with whom Canada does not have a trade agreement, who are looking to operate commercially, could apply for an exemption to the ownership requirements by contacting Transport Canada Civil Aviation. Non-Canadian operators wishing to fly their drone for recreational purposes would not be subject to the above but would still require an SFOC to operate in Canada.

Incorporation by Reference

There are four standards developed by TC and two TC publications (TPs) that would be incorporated by reference, as amended from time to time, as part of this proposal. Incorporation by Reference (IBR) is a term used to describe a mechanism which allows a document or list that is not in the text of the regulations to be made a part of the regulations and provides more detail about how to comply with the regulations. The incorporation of these elements is consistent with the scope of authority of the enabling statute (the Aeronautics Act) and these documents and standards can be properly characterized as elaborating on the regulations. The documents to be incorporated by reference are the following:

1. Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft

This standard is already incorporated under Part IX of the CARs and has been updated to support new pilot certification and training provider requirements.

2. Standard 922 — RPAS Safety Assurance

This standard is already incorporated under Part IX of the CARs and has been updated to support the new technical requirements for the RPA.

3. Standard 923 — Vision-Based detection and avoidance (DAA)

This is a new standard that has been developed to support the DAA of other aircraft.

4. Standard 924 — RPAS Medical Requirements

This is a new standard that has been developed to support the fitness of pilots.

5. TP 15263 — Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, 250 g up to and including 150 kg, Basic and Advanced Operations

This is an existing TC publication, which is already incorporated under Part IX of the CARs, and a new version has been created to reflect the new knowledge requirements for Advanced Pilot Certificate holders.

6. TP 15530 — Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Operated Beyond Visual-Line-of-Sight (BVLOS)

This is a new TC publication that has been developed to support the new knowledge requirements for level 1 complex operations.

All the standards and TPs would be available on TC’s website. Once the Regulations come into force, TC would monitor industry developments, including any new information from standard-setting bodies and the safety performance of operations subject to the new standards, and assess whether any standards would need to be updated. Updates would be communicated and consulted on with stakeholders via TC’s Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) and posted on TC’s website.

The pilot

Expanding privileges for Advanced Pilot Certificates

The existing Part IX of the CARs has created a strong safety baseline with no fatalities or serious injuries since coming into force in 2019. Over the past three years, TC has monitored the way the industry has developed and, after re-examining the knowledge required to obtain an Advanced Pilot Certificate, TC has determined that the following operations may be added to the types of operations conducted by Advanced Pilot Certificate holders without the requirement to obtain a new pilot certificate:

• VLOS operations with a medium-sized drone (above 25 kg up to and including 150 kg);
• Extended VLOS operations (EVLOS), using a visual observer to scan the airspace; and
• Sheltered operations, which would allow the drone to be flown around an obstruction (e.g. a building) without the use of a visual observer.

The additional operating rules that are being proposed to mitigate risks with the new operations will be discussed in more detail below in the section titled “The procedures.”

Lower-risk BVLOS

The amendments would introduce a new pilot certification process for lower-risk BVLOS called Level 1 Complex Operations.

Prerequisite

Before becoming certified for Level 1 Complex Operations, a pilot would need to be a minimum of 18 years old and have successfully completed the online exam for Advanced operations under Part IX of the CARs to ensure a sufficient base of aviation knowledge and knowledge of the Part IX regulations.

Pilot certification process

1. The pilot certification process would start with a pilot attending mandatory RPAS training (“ground school”) delivered by a school that meets the RPAS Training Provider requirements, discussed in more detail below.
2. After successfully completing ground school, the pilot would need to pass a new online multiple-choice exam delivered through TC’s DMP. The online exam would cover topics applicable to lower-risk BVLOS operations, such as population density considerations (i.e. concentration of people in a geographic area), weather, how the drone operates, as well as in-depth flight planning, potential system failures, and technical knowledge related to system connection links and detecting and avoiding hazards and other airspace users.
3. Once the pilot has passed the online exam, they would need to visit a provincially or territorially licensed physician who would make an assessment as to whether they are medically fit to fly based on the new RPAS Medical Standard. The physician would assess a pilot’s awareness and ability to process information; mental health; and use of medications, drugs, and alcohol that could impair a pilot’s judgment. If the pilot is assessed as meeting the Standard, the physician would sign a declaration form developed by TC and the pilot would need to confirm to TC through the DMP that this step has been completed. The medical standard is being proposed for BVLOS operations to mitigate the additional risk associated with the complex decision-making required to fly BVLOS by making sure pilots are mentally fit to fly.
4. Next, the pilot would visit a Flight Reviewer to do an in-person flight test. At the beginning of the flight test, the Flight Reviewer would verify the pilot’s identity and that the pilot has a physician’s endorsement signature. The pilot would then need to pass a flight test which covers topics related to flying BVLOS such as flight planning, doing a site survey, contingency procedures, take-offs, and landings, as well as cover technical requirements related to the aircraft and supporting systems.

After these four steps are successfully completed, the pilot would be able to apply online for a Pilot Certificate for Level 1 Complex Operations in the DMP, which would be automatically issued upon receipt of payment of the associated fees.

Validity and renewal period

The RPAS Pilot Certificate for Level 1 Complex Operations would not expire, but every two years, pilots would need to do at least one training renewal activity recognized by TC, such as undertaking a new flight review, completing training activities offered by TC, or retaking one of the pilot exams in the DMP. These activities will be outlined in Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

To continue to meet the medical fitness requirements, a pilot would need to receive a physician’s endorsement every five years. Pilots would not be required to submit documentation for endorsements but would need to maintain proof that the endorsement was completed. This renewal period is in line with Category 4 Medical Certificates in traditional aviation.

If either of these renewal requirements are not met, the Pilot Certificate for Level 1 Complex Operations would be invalid and would remain invalid until the pilot has both completed a training renewal activity and renewed their physician endorsement.

RPAS training providers

To be able to deliver the new mandatory ground school, an RPAS training provider would need to appoint a chief ground instructor who has the Level 1 Complex Pilot Certificate with a Flight Reviewer rating who oversees the training program and would be accountable on behalf of the school to meet the new regulatory requirements. The training must be led by an instructor, be a minimum of 20 hours, and be in line with TP 15530 — Knowledge Requirements for Level 1 Complex Operations. An RPAS Training Provider would also need to provide candidates with proof that they have completed ground school. Once the Training Provider meets all the requirements mentioned above, the RPAS Training Provider would declare to TC that they comply with the rules and would be able to begin delivering ground school for Level 1 Complex Operations. The proposed draft of TP 15530 will be made available on the CARAC website for review and comment throughout the period in which the proposed Regulations are available for comment in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Flight Reviewers

A Flight Reviewer is a drone pilot who has successfully completed their pilot certification, and an exam to receive a Flight Reviewer rating. As with the current Part IX rules, to offer in-person flight reviews, a Flight Reviewer would need to work for a Training Provider that has declared to TC that they meet the new requirements above. The Flight Reviewer would need to pass the Level 1 Complex Operations exam for their pre-existing Flight Reviewer rating to be valid to begin delivering the new flight review.

The products

Registration

The proposed amendments would expand the registration requirements, including fees, for drones to include all drones that weigh 250 g and above. Current requirements only apply to drones more than 250 g, up to and including 25 kg. Registration would continue to be delivered online through the DMP. This would respond to stakeholder requests for a common way to identify ownership of drones of any size and provide TC with better data on the Canadian sector.

Remotely piloted aircraft systems and safety assurance process

The proposed amendments would expand the existing Part IX Declaration process for RPAS manufacturers with the introduction of a TC review process for certain higher-risk operations called a Pre-Validated Declaration process. Manufacturers determine which technical requirements their drone and supporting systems meet and whether they would want to declare to TC via the Declaration or Pre-Validated Declaration Process. A drone would not be able to fly in any of the operating environments under the new framework unless a Declaration or a Pre-Validated Declaration has been made by the manufacturer to operate in the respective operating environment.

1. The declaration process

Under Part IX of the CARs, a manufacturer can declare to TC that their drone meets the technical requirements in Standard 922 — RPAS Safety Assurance, which covers small drones operating in controlled airspace, near people, or over people. If a manufacturer has made a declaration for their drone, it can be flown in these operations. Currently, manufacturers make a formal declaration that their drone meets the technical requirements of Standard 922 by submitting an online form on TC’s website.

The proposed amendments would allow manufacturers interested in having their RPAS flown in the following operations to use the Declaration Process for:

• The use of a medium-sized drone in controlled airspace;
• The use of a medium-sized drone in uncontrolled airspace;
• The use of a medium-sized drone away from people; and
• BVLOS operations away from populated areas, below 400 feet, and in uncontrolled airspace.

2. The Pre-Validated Declaration Process (PVD)

The PVD process is a two-step process that builds on the existing Declaration Process above by adding a new first step where the manufacturers or service providers (an organization delivering a service, such as one that supports the connection between the drone and the controller or supports the detection of other aircraft) would need to submit a plan that shows how their aircraft or system design will meet the requirements of Standard 922. Once this plan is accepted by TC, TC would provide the manufacturer or service provider with an acceptance letter. The manufacturer or service provider would execute the accepted plan, and subsequently declare to TC that their system meets Standard 922.

An updated Standard 922 — RPAS Safety Assurance will be available on TC’s website for consultation at the time of prepublication of the proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

The proposed amendments would require pre-validated declarations to be made if a manufacturer wants their drone to be able to conduct the following operations:

• VLOS operations with medium-sized drones near and over people,
• Certain BVLOS operations in uncontrolled airspace, below 400 feet, and over sparsely populated areas.

Annual reporting for Pre-Validated Declarations

To maintain a PVD on a drone, manufacturers or service providers would need to report annually to TC with the estimated number of product flight hours, a description of any safety-related issues that came up over the year, and any design changes that may affect the compliance with the requirements in Standard 922. By providing TC with information on the safety and design changes of a product or service, annual reporting holds manufacturers and service providers accountable for ongoing system support and monitoring the safety of their system.

Service difficulty reporting

A service difficulty is any malfunction or defect that could affect the safety of the drone or could injure a person. Manufacturers or service providers with PVDs on their drone or system would need to establish and maintain a system for service difficulty reporting for pilots and RPAS Operator Certificate holders (see below for more details). Manufacturers would need to provide operators with a description of what systems or elements are critical for safety so they can report to the manufacturer or service provider as soon as feasible if a service difficulty has occurred. Manufacturers and service providers would need to investigate service difficulties and, if the conclusion is the system no longer meets the technical requirements of Standard 922, a mandatory action, which is an action to prevent an unsafe or potentially unsafe condition, would need to be developed to fix the issue. Manufacturers and service providers would need to notify operators of the mandatory action as soon as possible and whether the declaration on the product or supporting system is still valid.

The procedures

Operating rules for extended visual line-of-sight and sheltered operations

As mentioned above, the proposed amendments would expand the operations allowed under the existing Part IX of the CARs so that current (and future) Advanced Pilot Certificate holders can perform extended VLOS (EVLOS) operations and sheltered operations by following proposed operational rules, such as

• when performing EVLOS operations, the drone must remain within a certain distance from the pilot, while a second person scans the airspace and notifies the pilot of any other airspace users or hazards; and
• when performing sheltered operations, a pilot may fly their drone around an obstruction without keeping the drone in direct line-of-sight, if they keep the drone within a certain distance to the obstacle. This would enable tasks, such as a building inspection or taking photos of a home for real estate.

Operating rules for medium-sized drones within VLOS

Existing Part IX requirements would continue to apply for medium-sized drones within VLOS, such as

• operations in uncontrolled airspace would continue to remain below 400 feet; and
• operations in controlled airspace would continue to require authorization from air traffic control.

In addition, new requirements are being proposed to mitigate the additional safety risks associated with larger drones, such as

• increasing the minimum distance from people not involved in the operation. This would reduce the risk of a larger drone causing injury to a person; and
• additional flight planning considerations, such as weather and ensuring the drone does not fly during low visibility, affecting the pilot’s ability to maintain line of sight.

Operating rules for lower-risk BVLOS

To mitigate potential risks associated with lower-risk BVLOS operations, pilots would need to remain in uncontrolled airspace and operations would need to be kept over unpopulated or sparsely populated areas. This means that pilots would only be allowed to fly over areas with fewer than 25 people per square kilometre. A pilot would need to determine the population density in their planned area of operation in advance by

• consulting population maps provided by Statistics Canada (maps are updated every four years);
• validating the maps from Statistics Canada by performing a site survey; and
• identifying any local events, gatherings, and other places where people may congregate, such as concerts, festivals, and sports tournaments.

Other proposed requirements would include that the flights remain below 400 feet above ground level, in uncontrolled airspace, and away from aerodromes that are listed in the Canadian Flight Supplement.

RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC)

As drone operations become more complex, it is important that businesses and organizations have effective safety policies and procedures specific to their organization and the operations that they carry out. This would help mitigate risks associated with larger companies with more employees (e.g. need for standard operating procedures), larger fleets with more maintenance requirements, but also for operations with longer flight times over larger geographic areas beyond visual line-of-sight. Effective risk management improves the safety of an organization and improves an organization’s ability to continuously identify hazards and control risks in real time rather than after the fact, preventing incidents and accidents from occurring.

TC is proposing a new requirement for a RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC) that is modelled on existing requirements for traditional aviation (i.e. a Private Operator Certificate under section 604 of Part VI of the CARs and an Air Operator Certificate under Part VII of the CARs) but scaled and adjusted to meet the realities of RPAS operations of any size. Under Part VII of the CARs, the Air Operator Certificate provides risk mitigations for commercial air services whereas the Private Operator Certificate is for someone who operates their aircraft for personal or business purposes on a smaller scale. Existing operator certificates do not apply to RPAS; however, the new ROC would be required for any pilot or organization that intends to fly BVLOS. The individual pilot or the business/organization would need to declare to TC that they meet requirements in the CARs via the DMP. There would be no requirement for renewal if the CARs requirements continue to be met. To obtain a ROC, pilots, businesses, and organizations would be required to have policies and procedures in place that reflect the size and complexity of the operations they would carry out and include items, such as

• appointing an accountable executive;
• identifying a person who is responsible for maintenance;
• implementing a training program;
• implementing standard operating procedures during flight; and
• implementing a process to manage safety risks.

The accountable executive and person responsible for maintenance could be the same person in cases where there is only one pilot under a ROC or in smaller organizations.

Proposed fees for services

TC is proposing to introduce fees for the services to support the proposed amendments for medium VLOS and lower-risk BVLOS operations, such as new pilot certificates and acceptance letters for pre-validated declarations.

TC performed a comprehensive costing exercise in line with the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Guidelines on Costing. A full cost estimate was completed, which included all relevant costs that occur to deliver an activity or provide a service, including direct and indirect costs. The costing exercise for these proposed amendments factored in things, such as salary costs, benefit plans, training and travel, office accommodations, internal support services, and information technology system development and maintenance costs. The full cost of providing an activity is the maximum TC could charge.

TC considered the public versus private benefit of its drone services and an analysis indicated that commercial and recreational drone users and drone manufacturers primarily benefit from TC’s drone activities, within a range of 80 to 100%, depending upon the activity considered. It also indicated that the public benefits from TC drone activities that support innovation and economic development, maintain safety, and enable drone-based public services (e.g. non-commercial first responder services, which are 100% public benefit). The percentage range of public versus private benefit helps to inform how much of TC’s costs could be recovered by way of fees for these activities.

TC also considered international benchmarking of similar drone fees when setting prices. As discussed further below in the Regulatory Cooperation and Alignment section, TC’s proposed drone fees are comparable to those in other jurisdictions. TC also took stakeholder impact considerations into account, such as other fees that a client would need to pay to participate in the drone space, and how each fee would impact disparate stakeholder groups. The higher proposed fees, such as to issue a high complexity SFOC, are generally payable by commercial enterprises and reflect the higher level of effort required by TC to perform the service. Lower fees, such as for drone registration, are payable by a wide range of clients, including recreational operators.

Overall, the fees proposed aim to balance a number of goals, including

• enabling innovation and economic opportunity in the drone sector;
• encouraging compliance with regulations in this new and growing industry; and
• maintaining safety in the transportation sector.

Charging fees to the users of TC’s drone activities and services would reduce the financial burden on Canadian taxpayers.

Please see the table below for current and proposed fees. Individuals and business would be charged these fees to access the service and be able to pay for these services online, using a credit card.

Proposed Services and Fees

Service	Existing/ New Service	Current Fee	Proposed Fee	Estimated Annual # of Transactions	Cost Recovery Rate
Drone Registration	Existing	$5	$10	26,436	98%
Level 1 Complex Operations Exam	New	N/A	$50	232	38%
Pilot Certificate – Level 1 Complex Operations	New	N/A	$125	84	44%
Pre-Validated Declarations	New	N/A	$1,200	15	43%
RPAS Operator Certificate	New	N/A	$250	43	15%
Special Flight Operations Certificate – Low complexity table b1 note *	Existing	N/A	$150	445	36%
Special Flight Operations Certificate – High complexity table b1 note *	Existing	N/A	$2,000	97	32%
Amendment to an Existing Special Flight Operations Certificate table b1 note *	Existing	N/A	$60	51	11%
Table b1 note(s) Table b1 note * These fees would not apply to Emergency Response Service providers, public safety agencies, or other government organizations (e.g. police departments, municipalities) for SFOCs issued for the purpose of seeking authorization to perform non-commercial first responder or emergency services or imminent threat detection operations. These services generate purely public benefits — there is no profit or other ’private’ benefit to the SFOC applicant. Return to table b1 note * referrer

In accordance with the SFA, once the fees come into force, TC would report annually on the costs of providing the activities and services and the revenues generated. For fees which meet certain criteria under the SFA, TC would report on service standard performance results and remit funds to clients if service standards are not met, as per TC’s publicly available Remission Policy. Furthermore, TC would adjust the fees annually for inflation, and as previously stated, this annual fee adjustment would become applicable to existing VLOS fees as well.

Some of the proposed fees are considered low-materiality under the Low-materiality Fees Regulations (i.e. those with a price below $150 upon coming into force). Under the SFA, low-materiality fees are not subject to remissions, performance standards or automatic annual adjustment. However, TC plans to adhere to internal service standards for all its drone fees, and adjust all drone fees for inflation, irrespective of a low-materiality designation.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Early consultation and pilot projects

In 2017, TC began conducting pilot projects with industry to better understand the technology and the associated safety risks, while allowing operators to gain field experience. The focus of these first pilot projects was working with first responders to conduct extended VLOS operations in rural areas. These pilot projects involved operations, such as search and rescue trials and the delivery of first aid supplies. TC learned that the technology still had room to grow but operations in rural areas created a safe environment for testing. In 2018, TC launched a call for pilot projects for BVLOS operations that were carried out from 2018–19 with companies, such as Canada Post, Canadian UAVs, and Drone Delivery Canada to perform operations in remote areas, long-range pipeline survey, and delivery of critical supplies.

Shortly after the first drone rules in Canada came into force in 2019 for VLOS, TC held Drone Talks, a two-day working session with approximately 125 stakeholders to discuss the future of BVLOS operations. This included representatives from different segments of the industry (e.g. operators, manufacturers, training providers), as well as representatives from academia, law enforcement agencies, other federal departments, and provincial and municipal officials. Stakeholders indicated the need for a flexible framework to accommodate the rapidly changing technology sooner rather than later. The feedback from Drone Talks, the maturing industry and the results of research and development and pilot projects informed TC’s development of a framework for the issuance of SFOCs for BVLOS, which was shared with stakeholders at the 2019 Unmanned Systems Canada Conference held in Ottawa, Ontario. This framework used the internationally recognized Specific Operational Risk Assessment to provide a baseline for risk mitigations and the type of operations that TC would be allowing, which in turn provided more predictability for stakeholders, as well as reduced the time to process SFOC applications.

Notice of proposed amendment consultations

TC took a staged approach to consultation on the proposed amendments, which allowed the department to provide stakeholders with more digestible pieces to comment on, as well as factor in new considerations from feedback and industry advancements.

In spring 2020, TC published a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) with a 60-day consultation period outlining a proposed framework for medium drones within VLOS and lower-risk BVLOS operations. TC received 230 written submissions during the comment period from a wide range of stakeholders, including manufacturers, commercial operators, public safety organizations and members of the broader aviation community. Consultations were subsequently held (virtually) to provide clarifications, answer other questions, and receive feedback from stakeholders. There were some questions and concerns about how TC factored in the safety risks to other airspace users and people on the ground, in response to which TC provided additional detail as to how it identified and assessed the proposed environments for new drone operations. Overall, the drone industry was in support of the regulations, indicating that the proposed approach would strike a good balance between mitigating safety risks and allowing greater room for industry growth. The drone industry also expressed interest in the proposed amendments being published as soon as possible.

To further support the NPA, TC published a fee proposal in spring 2021 with a 30-day consultation period. This fee proposal provided a framework and breakdown of the new services that would be provided to support the proposed amendments, the cost to deliver those services, and the cost to stakeholders to access those services. TC received 50 written submissions during the comment period. The feedback was mixed: some supported the introduction of fees, and others were concerned about the impact of extra costs on the industry. TC took the feedback into consideration, but after reviewing the submissions and further analysis, determined that the proposed fees strike an effective balance between private and public benefit and would not have a disproportionate impact on the sector. The proposed fees are also consistent with fees charged for similar services in other countries. Furthermore, some respondents suggested the proposed fees for commercial operators were too low and should be increased to reflect the significant economic benefits that TC’s services provide to commercial clients.

In fall 2021, TC published a consultation paper to provide additional detail on the proposed RPAS medical requirements first identified in the 2020 NPA. Some feedback was received on the consultation paper about how physicians would support the implementation and whether there would be training available. Feedback received from the Aerial Evolution Association of Canada, which represents a large majority of drone stakeholders who may be impacted by this proposal, indicated that overall members had no concerns with the proposal as drafted. TC held additional consultations with national organizations that represent physicians, such as the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada (FMRAC) and the proposal was positively received. FMRAC members appreciated the importance of introducing medical requirements to mitigate additional risks with more complex drone operations.

Additional consultations and supporting documentation

Throughout the consultation process, TC shared supporting guidance and proposed Standards that would be incorporated within the proposed Regulations. For example, Advisory Circular (AC) 903-001 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Operational Risk Assessment was published in draft form in July 2019 for several months to allow stakeholders to comment and help improve the product. AC 903-001 is a guidance document for SFOC applicants looking to carry out BVLOS operations, as well as a series of concepts and procedures that have been embedded within this proposal, such as anti-collision light requirements, extended VLOS operations and procedures for detecting and avoiding other airspace users.

Furthermore, early drafts of TP 15530 — Knowledge Requirements for Level 1 Complex Operations were included in consultations with training providers, and Standard 922 — RPAS Safety Assurance (which contains the technical requirements for the aircraft and supporting systems) was sent to other civil aviation authorities in the United States and the European Union to gain insight and feedback before finalizing this regulatory proposal. Feedback was received about the technical requirements that drones must meet, as well as the subjects that should be covered in the new knowledge exams, such as safety targets for detecting other aircraft and what aviation knowledge pilots require to fly BVLOS. The feedback was carefully reviewed, considered, and incorporated in developing the proposed amendments, standards, and guidance documents.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the regulatory proposal gives rise to modern treaty implications. This assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect and after examination, no implications or impacts on modern treaties have been identified.

Instrument choice

One of the driving forces to create and implement the existing Part IX of the CARs was an increased number of safety incidents associated with the growth in popularity of small drones, coupled with the exponential growth of a new industry and demand for a regulatory framework to mitigate safety risks, as well as provide predictability and support innovation. Following the coming into force of Part IX and the development of supporting program elements including education, outreach, surveillance and enforcement tools, the primary role for regulation in this sector shifted to facilitating innovation and economic growth.

Currently, TC makes use of existing regulatory authorities to issue SFOCs on a case-by-case basis for lower-risk BVLOS operations, approving over 190 to date. Although the SFOC is a regulatory requirement, each SFOC is approved on a first-come, first-served basis, operation by operation. SFOCs allow TC to work directly with stakeholders to test and refine various risk mitigations, gaining experience and knowledge that help inform the development of future regulations, while allowing industry to gain operating experience without compromising safety. The SFOC process is an essential way for TC to facilitate early-stage innovation and develop an understanding of associated safety risks; however, as the sector and technology matures, the continued use of SFOCs becomes a costly administrative burden. The Canadian drone industry continues to call for BVLOS regulations to facilitate deployment at scale, enable the growth of Canadian businesses, and to maintain Canada’s position as a favourable regulatory environment for investment. After fours years of issuing SFOCs for lower-risk BVLOS and VLOS with medium-sized drones, TC has the necessary evidence, data, and risk mitigations in place to support increased flexibility in the drone sector by introducing a specific regulatory framework to allow routine operations to take place.

In the absence of regulations to provide for increased flexibility, the SFOC requirement would remain unchanged and the only way to increase routine operations would be to hire more departmental resources to process SFOCs, which would result in an increased cost to taxpayers. Furthermore, non-regulatory options would not provide predictability and certainty about the future for a developing industry. The industry needs security to invest and develop towards future more complex operations, which in turn would allow TC to shift its focus to more complex operations and keep pace with the advancements of technology. Regulations are needed to provide increased flexibility to support expanded drone operations and innovation while at the same time ensuring that drone operations continue to be conducted in a safe, consistent, and predictable manner.

In addition, regulatory amendments are needed to introduce fees for existing drone services delivered by TC, such as the issuance of SFOCs, as well as new services that would be delivered as a part of this proposal. Under the Aeronautics Act, TC has the enabling authority to charge fees for services and to do so they must be written in the regulations. The GoC promotes a balanced approach to financing government programs whereby those who receive and/or benefit from program services should pay a reasonable share of the costs for those services. While TC currently charges fees for certain services related to drones, such as registrations and exams, the costs of processing SFOCs are borne by Canadian taxpayers. Fees need to be introduced to ensure that costs for providing such services are rebalanced more equitably between Canadian taxpayers and the stakeholders (e.g. drone operators) that benefit from the services. Therefore, to amend existing fees and introduce new ones, regulatory amendments would need to be made.

Regulatory analysis

The proposed regulatory amendments would remove barriers to the growth of the RPAS sector, such as regulatory unpredictability and the administrative burden of case-by-case approvals, while maintaining the safety of the aviation system and Canadians. The proposed amendments would also address stakeholders’ concerns identified in the 2018 TBS Regulatory Review and meet TC’s commitments in the 2019 Transportation Sector Regulatory Roadmap to provide more clarity and flexibility for RPAS.

The proposed amendments would also help to recover costs incurred by TC related to the services provided to domestic and foreign pilots. There is currently no fee for SFOCs, the primary mechanism to enable lower-risk BVLOS operations and medium VLOS operations under current regulations, and so the costs of delivering this service — which largely benefits commercial organizations —are being covered by taxpayers. The proposed amendments would rebalance a portion of the costs to RPAS operators who benefit from the services by introducing fees for the services provided.

Over the ten-year time frame, the proposed amendments would impose a total cost of $26.02 million incurred by the domestic RPAS industry, the GoC, and recreational RPAS operators. Of the total costs, $14.43 million would be incurred by the RPAS industry, $9.03 million by the GoC, and $2.56 million by recreational RPAS operators.

The benefits associated with the proposed amendments would be $40.23 million for industry, recreational operators and the GoC over the ten-year time frame. Of the total benefits, $24.14 million would be realized by industry relating to profits from additional flights, time cost savings, and additional manufacturer profits, $4.05 million would be realized by the GoC due to time savings and fees collected from the RPAS industry, and $12.04 million would be realized by recreational operators from increased activity.

As a result, the total net benefit would be $14.21 million discounted to 2024 at a 7% rate over the 10-year analytical period (2024–2033).

Analytical framework

Benefits and costs associated with the proposed amendments are assessed by comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to continue happening in the future if the GoC does not implement the proposed amendments. The regulatory scenario depicts on the projected outcomes of the proposed amendments.

Following the TBS Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis, the scope of this analysis is at the societal level, analyzing costs and benefits attributed to Canadians. This analysis estimated the impact of the proposed amendments over a 10-year period from 2024 to 2033, with the year 2024 being when the proposed amendments are expected to be registered. Unless otherwise stated, all values are expressed in present value in 2022 Canadian dollars and discounted to the base year of 2024 at a 7% discount rate. A detailed cost-benefit analysis (CBA) report is available upon request. Because pilots would not be able to exercise their new flight privileges until 2025 (discussed further in the “Implementation” section), costs and benefits relating to new flights and certificates are expected to begin in 2025.

Fees to foreign operators are not considered as a cost and would be considered a benefit as they represent a movement of funds into Canada. Foreign profits are excluded from the benefits.

The proposed amendments may result in some indirect sectoral impacts in the form of business transferring from other traditional transportation markets to the RPAS sector. As stated in the TBS Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals, only direct impacts are accounted for in the analysis; therefore, these secondary effects have been excluded from the analysis. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to influence the prices of other markets, and there are no distortions introduced to the secondary markets.

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Regulation and the TBS Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis, TC conducted extensive consultations since 2020 concerning the details of the regulatory approach under consideration specific to registration and certification, pilot requirements, product requirements, and procedural requirements, as well as the medical requirements related to RPAS pilots and the proposed service fees — with details on the associated activities and the proposed cost-sharing ratio. TC’s consultations provided detailed information on all anticipated aspects of the proposed regulatory amendments that had been considered at the time of consultation. The supporting CBA relies on the information received from consultations to identify who would be subjected to benefit impacts or cost impacts. Many examples are used in the CBA, including, but not limited to the following:

• Information obtained through consultations was considered when developing the costs related to regulated parties applying for certificates and maintaining them;
• Information obtained through consultations was considered when developing the costs related to a proposed declaration process for manufacturers, which helps pilots to make more informed decisions when purchasing drones for conducting the new types of operations;
• Information about the proposed service fees was used to calculate costs to stakeholders and the GoC; and
• Information about the medical requirements was used to consider cost impacts, including the confirmation that no additional training for physicians would be needed given that no stakeholder feedback indicating otherwise was received by TC.

Where additional assumptions have been applied to the CBA, they are informed by public information from industry, data from the United States, and subject-matter experts. Some examples include the following:

• Growth rates for RPAS registrations (and therefore anticipated certificate growth rates) were forecasted using data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aerospace report 2022-2042 forecast;
• Statistics on operation revenues were pulled from company websites offering drone services; and
• Subject-matter experts provided estimates on the number of SFOC flights per certificate.

Stakeholders are encouraged to provide their comments on any assumptions provided in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement and CBA report.^{footnote 1}

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

Under the baseline scenario, the number of domestic RPAS pilots would continue to grow. Some pilots would need to continue to apply for SFOCs if their operations fall outside the scope of the current regulations. The growing demand for increasingly complex RPAS operations would result in increasingly longer delays for pilots seeking SFOC approval, and the absence of fees for SFOC issuance would continue to create an imbalance between those who benefit from the service (i.e. TC’s drone user clients) and the general taxpayers who must subsidize TC’s activities. This imbalance would exist for other TC drone activities should they be performed without an associated fee. Drone manufacturers would be able to apply for declarations for drones weighing up to 25 kg.

Under the regulatory scenario, the updated pilot certification regime would mean that more advanced flights could be completed without the need to obtain an SFOC, including VLOS expansion and lower-risk BVLOS operations. In this scenario, the RPAS industry would see greater growth than in the baseline. The lower number of SFOC applications would free up TC resources to provide SFOC approvals for more complex operations in a timelier manner than in the baseline. The financial burden of delivering TC drone services would be better balanced between those who benefit and the general taxpayer. The increased number of flights able to be conducted under Advanced and Level 1 Complex Certificates would enable more innovative flights to be conducted under SFOCs. RPAS manufacturers would be able to apply for declarations for medium-sized (25 kg–150 kg) RPAS, and PVDs for their drone models, which would be expected to increase their sales volume. Commercial and recreational pilots would be able to safely conduct a greater variety of flights.

Impacted stakeholders

The proposed amendments would have an array of implications for various stakeholders in Canada, such as RPAS manufacturers, commercial RPAS operators, recreational RPAS operators, the GoC, and RPAS Ground Schools. In total, it is anticipated that approximately 145 402^{footnote 2} manufacturers, individuals and operators would be affected by the proposed amendments. This number represents the total of first-time registrations as forecast in the analysis. It is assumed that the stakeholder groups discussed below are subsets of this group.

The RPAS industry is rapidly evolving. Registrations and uses for RPAS have been increasing historically and are expected to continue to throughout the ten-year time frame. Annual registrations in the regulatory scenario are expected to increase from 12 321 in 2024 to 15 293 in 2025 (when pilots are allowed to conduct new flights under their certificates) and continue at an upward trend to 31 347 in 2033 including re-registrations for existing operators after an RPAS reaches the end of its life. There is anticipated to be a total of 7 212 new drone registrations in the regulatory scenario relative to the baseline.

RPAS manufacturers who choose to obtain a PVD for any of their RPAS models would be affected by the proposed amendments. PVDs would not be mandatory for manufacturers to obtain if a manufacturer did not wish for their drone to conduct certain types of advanced operations. RPAS models that have a PVD would be able to conduct certain categories of operation introduced in the proposed amendments (near and over people, as well as certain BVLOS operations in uncontrolled airspace, below 400 feet, and over sparsely populated areas). This would impart an added benefit to manufacturers as it could broaden the demand for their product. Based on consultations with TC engineers and based on the number of Safety Assurance Declarations currently received for small RPAS, it is expected that 105 PVDs would be issued over the time frame, with 20 of them going to domestic manufacturers. It is assumed that each domestic PVD would go to one manufacturer. It is estimated that 80% — 90% of RPAS manufacturers who would provide PVDs to Canadians are foreign. This estimate is calculated from the historical number of manufacturers who have made declarations to TC (30 out of 200 manufacturers currently declared to TC are domestic). There is a lack of data on the size of the manufacturers, and the number of drones each manufacturer would sell. Additionally, manufacturers may not choose to opt for PVDs in the time frame. These factors would also affect the number of PVDs issued, which is why a TC expert estimate was used. The proposed amendments would also allow for medium drones to apply for a standard declaration. It is anticipated that 20 manufacturers would release a total of 50 new medium-sized models over the time frame. Domestic RPAS manufacturers would see a benefit in relation to additional drone sales due to increased demand for all types of drones in the regulatory scenario.

Commercial RPAS operators, including flight reviewers, would be affected by the proposed amendments. Depending on the degree of their piloting needs, pilots would be subject to certification requirements, including the Advanced and Level 1 Complex Certificate. They would also be subject to a medical requirement if they were to opt for the Level 1 Complex Certificate. Flight reviewers would be required to be affiliated with a Training Provider who has declared to TC that they are offering services for the Level 1 Complex Certificate. These requirements would be administered through the DMP. Pilots impacted by these certification requirements would be largely independent contractors, who would provide various RPAS-related services to Canadians.

Eliminating the requirement to obtain a SFOC for most lower-risk BVLOS and medium VLOS operations governed by the Advanced or Level 1 Complex Certificate would free up TC capacity to focus on SFOC applications for higher-risk operations. This would decrease the number of SFOCs which require processing, which would result in time cost savings for commercial operators, as some operations are currently being cancelled due to delays in processing times. In the regulatory scenario, it is expected that there would be 12 209 requests for SFOCs over the 10-year time frame, and that 2 806 of these requests would come from domestic sources. There would be 13 506 fewer total requests in the regulatory scenario than the baseline scenario from domestic sources.

In the regulatory scenario, there would be 5 930 SFOC approvals (reduction of 891 from baseline), 1 312 of these being from domestic sources (reduction of 3 015 from baseline). Note that the reduction in approvals for domestic operators is higher than the total reduction in approvals. This is due to a decreasing proportion of requests from domestic operators relative to foreign operators over the analytical time frame. The higher proportion of requests from foreign operators in the regulatory scenario would mean a higher proportion of the approvals granted would be to foreign operators.

The RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC) program would be introduced for operators who conduct lower-risk BVLOS operations. The ROC would introduce reporting requirements that are expected to primarily apply to larger entities comprised of multiple pilots but would also affect individual pilots. It is expected that 428^{footnote 3} businesses would be affected by the ROC requirements, including 355 small businesses.^{footnote 4} Costs related to certificates, specifically the Advanced Certificate and the Level 1 Complex Certificate, are expected to fall on individual operators rather than on the businesses they work for. It is anticipated that 1 175 domestic commercial pilots would take exams for the level one complex certificate, resulting in 428 successful new level one complex pilots. Similarly, it is anticipated that there would be 2 092 new advanced exams taken by domestic commercial pilots in relation to the baseline scenario, resulting in 495 new domestic commercial advanced pilots. It is assumed that 57% of advanced exams would be taken for recency purposes, and therefore would not result in new advanced operators. There would be 51 430 domestic commercial drone registrations in the baseline scenario, and an additional 1 442 domestic commercial registrations with the introduction of the proposed amendments.

Recreational RPAS operators would be affected similarly to commercial operators regarding DMP services. That is, recreational operators would be subject to costs relating to the Advanced Certificate, Level 1 Complex Certificate, and DMP account and drone registration services. Eighty percent and 20% of Advanced and Level 1 Complex operators, respectively, are anticipated to be recreational. It is anticipated that 294 recreational pilots would take exams for the level one complex certificate, resulting in 107 successful new level one complex pilots. Similarly, it is anticipated that there would be 8 366 new advanced exams taken by domestic recreational pilots in relation to the baseline scenario, resulting in 1 982 new domestic recreational advanced pilots. It is assumed that 57% of advanced exams would be taken for recency purposes, and therefore would not result in new advanced operators. There would be 205 719 recreational drone registrations in the baseline scenario, and an additional 5 770 with the introduction of the proposed amendments.

RPAS Ground Schools would be impacted by the proposed amendments because of their ability to offer a new curriculum for the Level 1 Complex Certificate. The fee revenue for the ground schools is expected to cover their operating and curriculum development costs; however, they would see an increase in administrative burden. There are 180 RPAS ground schools in Canada, 18 of which are anticipated to adopt the new curriculum.

The GoC would administer services in support of the proposed amendments by maintaining and developing the expanded DMP, as well as conducting education and stakeholder outreach.

Regulatory Additional Domestic Stakeholder Counts

Impacted stakeholder	Stakeholder Item	2024	Average 2025-2032	2033	Total
RPAS Manufacturers	PVDs and Updates	11	2	2	29
	Declarations and Updates	25	24	31	245
Commercial RPAS Operators	New Operators (Advanced)	0 table b2 note 5	58	34	495
	New Operators (Level 1 Complex)	0	51	21	428
Recreational RPAS Operators	New Operators (Advanced)	0	231	137	1 982
	New Operators (Level 1 Complex)	0	13	5	107
GoC	Full Time Equivalent Employees	14	8.23	7.42	N/A
RPAS Ground Schools	Schools offering new curriculum for the first time	18	0	0	18
Table b2 note(s) Table b2 note 5 Note that this value, and others in this column are 0 due to the operators not being permitted to conduct new types of flights until 2025 (see implementation section for further details). Return to table b2 note 5 referrer

Data and methodology

Limitations and key assumptions

Due to the new and constantly evolving nature of the RPAS sector, multiple data and analytical limitations were faced in this analysis. Historical data on RPAS registrations was limited to the available data from the DMP stemming back to 2019. Due to this, forecasting ability into the future was limited. To substitute this, registration data from the United States was used based on the FAA Aerospace report 2022–2042.^{footnote 5} Due to these limitations, along with the constant evolution of the RPAS technology that may occur throughout the time frame, the forecasts presented may not reflect accurately what the RPAS market may look like in the future.

Due to limited publicly available data, several key assumptions are made in the analysis as follows:

• Baseline RPAS registrations and advanced exams taken would increase by the FAA forecasted growth rates, up to and including 2026. Following this, registrations would increase at a constant average growth rate derived from the FAA rates and historical Canadian rates;
• There would be an increase in the number of drone registrations in 2025 of 20% over the baseline scenario to account for a demand increase in registrations, a similar jump to what was seen in 2019 following the Part IX regulations. This would be followed by a smaller residual demand increase in the following years;
• Domestic SFOC requests would decrease by 88% in 2025 in the regulatory scenario then continue at the same growth rate as in the baseline. This is to account for decreased demand for SFOCs (more information is provided below);
• Demand for services would remain at a consistent ratio with the number of drones registered as in 2019. This is assumed due to lack of data on new services;
• Profitability of the RPAS sector would be equal to 47.3% based on the profitability of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 48121. This is used as a proxy due to lack of data on RPAS operator profitability.
• All RPAS anticipated to fly BVLOS in the regulatory scenario are expected to have anti-collision lights already installed by the manufacturer of their drone. This assumption is made because most Level 1 Complex BVLOS pilots would be transitioning from SFOCs where this is already a requirement, and because the installation of anti-collision lights is typically part of the normal drone manufacturing process for this class.

More detailed assumptions, as well as their sources (i.e. consultations, subject matter experts, research, etc.) are presented in the CBA report, which can be requested if additional information is required.

RPAS registration forecast

RPAS registration is forecast based on the assumptions listed above. It is expected that this amendment, along with a decrease in restrictions to enter the market, would increase demand for RPAS in the years following 2025.

To calculate the number of operators affected by the proposed amendments, drone replacements are not considered when applying the demand ratios. For calculating the total number of RPAS registrations, for which fees would apply, an average lifespan of a drone (eight years),^{footnote 6} as found through an environmental scan of drone and battery life expectancy, is used. It is assumed that pilots would not retire within this time frame because they have invested a large amount of time and resources into their career relative to other RPAS operators. Therefore, it is assumed that operators would register another drone after eight years. This cycle starts at the beginning of the forecasting dataset in 2019. This would mean a jump in registrations in 2027, reflecting the registration of a drone to replace one initially registered in 2019 that had reached the end of its life. Note that while the proposed amendments are expected to be registered in 2024, pilots would not be able to conduct flights under the new certificates until 2025; therefore, it is assumed that the demand increases associated with the regulations would occur in 2025. Including replacements, drone registrations are expected to increase to 15 293 in 2025, return to 13 459 in 2026, and increase to 31 347 by 2033.

When calculating the number of commercial operators, it is unknown how many operators would be located under a large company. Based on this, and the mostly small business/independent contractor makeup of the RPAS industry, it is assumed that each operator would work for one business.

Profit per flight

Profit per flight in this analysis represents the profits generated for RPAS operators from conducting different types of operations. This analysis forecasts the expected number of flights conducted for each of the different types of certificates in both the baseline and the regulatory scenarios. These profits per flight estimates are used to calculate the benefits that RPAS operators would incur.

For each type of certificate, the revenue per flight is calculated and multiplied by the average positive profit margin (47.3%).^{footnote 7} This profit margin corresponds to non-scheduled air transportation sector NAICS Code 48121. Alternative results are presented in the sensitivity analysis to show what would happen if this profit margin for RPAS Operators fell in the higher or lower bounds of the sourced profit margins.

SFOC flights

Under the baseline scenario, the revenue per SFOC flight was calculated using an average of service fees in Canada based on information posted on drone company websites.^{footnote 8} As SFOCs would require a greater amount of planning and effort to complete than other types of flights, it is assumed that these flights would be more expensive. For this reason, an average of the costliest services charged by companies was used as a proxy for baseline revenue per SFOC flight at $459.03. This would result in profits of $217.12 per flight.

Under the regulatory scenario, it is expected that the average revenue from an SFOC flight would increase in comparison to the baseline scenario. This is because more complex operations would be carried out due to certain operations no longer requiring SFOCs. To quantify this increase, the increase in costs per flight that operators would face, related to the SFOC fee increase, is added to the baseline value for SFOCs. Including this added value, the regulatory scenario SFOC operation is expected to generate $547.44. This would result in a profit of $258.92 per flight. Results are presented in the Sensitivity Analysis section to capture what would happen if the price were increased further.

The number of flights per year is given as an average of the range of expert provided estimates of 8 and 25. From this, 16.16 flights is used as the average number of SFOC flights per year.

Advanced Pilot Certificate flights

Revenue per flight for Advanced Certificates was calculated in a similar way to the revenue per flight for SFOCs. It is assumed that basic flights would be at the low end of what companies would charge, and therefore advanced operation pricing would fall between basic and SFOC pricing. For this reason, the average of average prices charged by the company in the same scan is used. This means that an advanced flight would bring in $305.95 in revenue, resulting in profits of $144.71 per operation. As found in the FAA Aerospace report, the average number of advanced flights pilot per year is 14.46, and this is used in the baseline and regulatory scenarios.^{footnote 9}

Level 1 Complex Certificate flights

The revenue per BVLOS operation follows a similar methodology and reasoning to the SFOC operations. Because BVLOS flights are currently conducted under SFOCs in the baseline scenario, it is anticipated that their revenue would be like that of a baseline scenario SFOC at $459.03 ($217.12 in profit per flight). The average number of flights is also expected to be similar to the number of SFOC flights per year at 16.16.

Costs

The total cost associated with the proposed amendments is estimated to be $26.02 million over the 10-year time frame. Of this, $14.43 million would be incurred by industry, $9.03 million by the GoC, and $2.56 million by recreational RPAS operators.^{footnote 10}

Industry

Commercial operator and manufacturer costs are expected to total $14.43 million. These costs include fee costs and labour time to access services enabled by the proposed amendments for domestic operators and manufacturers. This is broken down into further categories for different certificates below. The costs presented in this section are all in terms of the regulatory scenario over the baseline scenario. This means that the costs shown for the Advanced Certificates and SFOCs are equal to the difference in costs between the baseline and regulatory scenarios. That is, the costs for the total Advanced Certificates and SFOCs in the baseline scenario are subtracted from the total costs incurred in the regulatory scenario. See regulatory additional domestic stakeholder counts in the “Impacted stakeholders” section for a reference to the number of stakeholders for each category.

1. RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC)

A ROC would be required for companies who want to conduct lower-risk BVLOS operations under the proposed amendments — including individual RPAS operators. It is anticipated that the majority of those who pay to obtain a ROC would be organizations that employ multiple RPAS operators. However, individual pilots recruited under a company’s ROC could still opt to have their own. It is assumed that 80% of predicted Level 1 Complex operators would obtain a ROC.

Costs to businesses associated with ROCs are expected to total $3.43 million. These costs stem from both upfront and ongoing time costs, as well as fees. Upfront costs for ROCs would be associated with tasks such as appointing employees for tasks, organizational structuring, and training. Ongoing tasks for ROC holders would include tasks such as developing procedures for data collection and analysis, creating and maintaining an operation manual, and establishing a quality assurance program for maintenance. One time ROC costs are expected to total $0.38 million over the time frame, ongoing costs are expected to total $2.96 million, and fees are expected to total $0.09 million. ROC employee wages range from $32/hour to $78/hour including overhead. Per operator, upfront tasks would take between 2 and 160 hours (depending on the task), while ongoing tasks would take between 1 hour and 75 hours. Total upfront ROC time requirements are anticipated to be 490 hours, while the ongoing annual workload is anticipated to take 1 079 hours. However, it is anticipated that most of these tasks are being done in the baseline scenario under BVLOS SFOCs. Total incremental upfront time requirements are therefore expected to be 45.25 hours, while total incremental annual time requirements are expected to be 28.5 hours. This would equate to approximately 91% of upfront costs, and approximately 97% of ongoing costs, being incurred in the baseline scenario (and therefore being excluded from analysis). The incremental costs would apply to 428 individuals/businesses affected by the ROC requirements. Assumptions relating to ROC time costs were based on TC subject matter experts’ views.

2. Pilot certification regime (DMP certificates)

DMP certificate costs include costs related to the Advanced Certificate and Level 1 Complex Certificate. Costs associated with DMP account registration and RPAS registration are also considered. Costs for these certificates would be expected to total $2.65 million over the time frame, with a large number of the costs occurring in 2025 when the largest influx of new registrants and pilots occurs. Time costs for commercial operators are calculated using a wage rate of $54.23 (which includes 25% overhead). This wage comes from an average of various sources on RPAS pilot salaries/wages.^{footnote 11} Costs are further broken down into the different types of certificates below.

A) Advanced Pilot Certificate

Commercial RPAS operators would be required to hold an Advanced Pilot Certificate to conduct some of the categories of operations in the proposed amendments, including sheltered and EVLOS operations. Costs associated with this requirement would be comprised of time costs for taking the advanced exam and associated flight review.

The Advanced exam would be expected to take nine hours to complete including preparation, and the flight review would be expected to take an additional 0.75 hours. For commercial operators this would equate to time costs of $532 including overhead.

Advanced operators would be required to pay fees associated with the obtaining the certificate, listed below:

• Fees would include $10 for taking the test.
• $25 for issuance of the certificate, which would be paid to the GoC.
• $258 for taking a flight review.

To maintain their Advanced Pilot Certificate, pilots would be required to show recency every two years. This could be in the form of taking one of the DMP exams again, conducting a flight review, attending a conference, or taking the TC recency exam. The list above does not encompass all the activities that a pilot may perform to show recency but provides a few examples. For this analysis, it is assumed that the pilots would either retake the advanced exam (at a cost of $10), or take a (free) TC recency exam to meet the recency requirement. A retake of the advanced exam is also anticipated to take one hour to complete, and it is assumed that 57% of operators would take the advanced exam for recency purposes, based on historical data. The TC recency exam is expected to be simpler than the DMP exams and should also take one hour to complete. Over the time horizon, costs for taking these exams would be expected to total $0.05 million for advanced operators. Pilots would simply be required to take this exam, as well as log their passing in their own records. For the recency exam, this would result in a time cost of $54.23 per recency, per operator including overhead, and $64.23 per operator for the advanced exam.

Costs for commercial operators associated with obtaining an Advanced Pilot Certificate would equate to $0.73 million over the 10-year analytical time frame at a 7% discount rate. Note that costs are not increasing for the Advanced Certificate over the baseline scenario; however, it is assumed that there would be an increased demand for the Advanced Certificate. The operators representing the increased demand would incur all the Advanced Certificate costs.

B) Level 1 Complex Certificate

Commercial RPAS operators would need to hold a Level 1 Complex Certificate to conduct lower-risk BVLOS operations. The total costs for commercial operators regarding the Level 1 Complex Certificate are expected to equal $1.71 million. The costs for the Level 1 Complex Certificate are further broken down below.

The costs for operators relating to ground school consist of the fee paid by the pilot to enroll in a ground school course and the labour time-cost associated with attending the course. Over the 10-year analytical time frame, the time cost associated with ground school would be $0.55 million. It is assumed that the flight school would take 16 hours including prep and studying. Pilots would also face a fee of $660. In total this would cost each operator $1,532 including overhead. It is assumed that the $660 in fees would cover any associated incremental costs to ground schools associated with the proposed amendments.

The cost associated with the written portion of the Level 1 Complex exam involves the pilot’s labour time (nine hours including studying), and a fee to take the test ($50 per attempt); this would be equal to $0.55 million over the time frame. For the practical portion, the associated costs involve labour time (0.75 hours) and fees paid to the Flight Reviewer ($258 per attempt). Therefore, the costs regarding the flight review for industry would be $0.11 million. Over the 10-year analytical time frame at a 7% discount rate, the total cost associated with the practical and written portions of this requirement would be $0.65 million. In total, this would cost each operator $913, including overhead.

For a pilot to obtain a Level 1 Complex Certificate, they would need to meet certain medical requirements. This would require the pilot to undergo a medical checkup to receive their certificate, and then again, every five years. In terms of costs, this would consist of a fee ($184 per checkup) and time cost (1 hour). This would equate to a cost per operator per checkup of $237. Over the 10-year analytical time frame at a 7% discount rate, the cost would be $0.41 million.

To receive their Level 1 Complex Certificate, pilots would need to pay a fee of $125. Over the ten-year time frame, this is expected to cost pilots $0.05 million.

To maintain their Level 1 Complex Certificate, pilots would be required to show recency every two years. This would work in the same way as the Advanced Certificate recency. Due to the higher cost of the Level 1 Complex Exam, it is assumed that all operators would take the free recency exam to maintain recency. In total, this would cost operators $0.05 million over the time frame.

C) DMP account creation and drone registration

Pilots would be required to create an account in the DMP to access the DMP services and register their RPAS within the DMP. In total, account and RPAS registration is expected to cost $0.21 million in time and fees.

3. Increased operational expenses

Industry would see an increase in operational expenses for several flight types associated with the proposed amendments. The requirement for a visual observer would increase costs for EVLOS flights, and the population mapping requirement would increase costs for flights under the Level 1 Complex certificate. Total costs related to increased operational expenses are expected to total $0.38 million.

It is estimated that 25% of incremental advanced operations would include EVLOS. Most of the operations involving EVLOS are anticipated to occur in the baseline scenario under the Advanced Certificate while using visual observers. In this case, this would result in a cost savings for these operators due to the visual observer being more productive relative to the baseline scenario. The observer would be more productive because the RPAS would be permitted within a wider distance of the observer relative to the baseline scenario. It is anticipated that 75% of EVLOS operations would occur in this manner. The remaining 25% would be new operations generated by additional demand. For these operations, there would be an expected increase in operating costs of $136 per operation relating to a visual observer working for 2.5 hours. This would result in total costs of $0.06 million. Related benefits are discussed in the Qualitative Benefits section.

Additional time costs associated with population mapping for Level 1 Complex Certificate flights would be incurred. It is assumed that it would take 10 minutes for operators to search on the Statistics Canada website for population data, and identify any local events, or gatherings which may be occurring before conducting an operation. This would mean an increase in operating cost of $9.09 per operation and would result in total costs of $0.33 million.

All BVLOS flights under the Level 1 Complex Certificate would be required to perform a site survey and all RPAS operations are required to have a site survey performed in the baseline and regulatory scenarios. Therefore, there would be no costs introduced from this requirement.

4. Pre-validated declarations

Manufacturers would be impacted if they choose to outfit their drones with a PVD. Costs associated with PVDs relate to the time taken for obtaining and maintaining the declaration, as well as fees. The issuance fee for a PVD would be $1,200 each. It is assumed each PVD would require 260 pages, that each page would take 10 minutes to draft, and that the wages of the individual drafting the pages would be $54.53/hour including overhead, in line with commercial operators. In addition to the initial PVD, upkeep would require manufacturers to notify TC annually and would be expected to take 15 minutes per PVD per year. Manufacturers would be expected to maintain their PVD status for five years, after which point 60% of the models would see an update requiring a new PVD. It would be anticipated to take 8.85 hours to update the PVD, and manufacturers would need to pay a fee again. Ongoing service difficulty reporting is anticipated to be fully occurring in the baseline scenario; therefore, no incremental costs would be anticipated. Over the ten-year time frame, PVD-related costs for domestic manufacturers are expected to total $0.08 million. Estimates for PVD time costs were based on TC subject matter expert opinion.

5. Declarations for medium-sized drones

Manufacturers would see increased costs related to declarations for medium drones if they choose to declare their models to TC. There is no fee associated with a declaration, but there would be time costs for manufacturers associated with drafting pages, and administrative costs associated with sending the declaration to TC. It is anticipated that there would be 50 medium-sized drone models sold by 20 domestic manufacturers over the timeline, with 25 of these models being sold in 2024. Upfront compliance requirements would be expected to take 44.25 hours; these would be associated with developing consumer documentation and familiarization with requirements. Sixty percent of the drones released would have annual updates, requiring an additional 8.85 hours of updating time annually. It is anticipated that 95% of these models released would meet all of the above-listed requirements in the baseline scenario. There would be an information requirement to declare to TC for each new model, and each annual ongoing update, anticipated to take 15 minutes at a wage rate of $54.53/hour. In total, there would be incremental costs associated with declarations for medium drones of $0.01 million. Estimates on new drone models and baseline compliance were developed based on TC subject matter expert opinion.

6. Flight reviewer costs

Flight reviewers would be required to declare to TC that they would be offering flight reviews for the Level 1 Complex Certificate. This would affect an anticipated 206 flight reviewers. It would take each flight reviewer an estimated three minutes to send an email to TC. This would result in total costs of $527 over the ten-year time frame.

GoC

Costs to the GoC are expected to total $9.03 million. These costs are associated with the continued expansion and maintenance of the DMP, as well as stakeholder engagement, enforcement, the processing of declarations and PVDs. Costs associated with the tasks listed above are expected to equal $9.03 million and are comprised solely of labour costs. These additional costs are generated from additional employees that would be hired to assist with the enforcement and implementation of the proposed amendments. Costs associated with program development would total $1.60 million from 2024 to 2033. Total FTE counts would range from 14 in 2024 to 7.42 from 2028 to 2033. It should be noted that GoC costs listed here do not include costs incurred before the implementation of the proposed Regulations in 2024, which are out of the scope of this analysis. Costs that would occur prior to the implementation date include TC expansion of the DMP to accommodate the new certificates and cost recovery. The GoC would invest both labour and technological resources into the DMP prior to the publication date of the proposed amendments. As these costs would be incurred prior to the publication date of the proposed amendments, they would be considered sunk and, therefore, not within the scope of this analysis.

Recreational operators

Similar to the rules governing small RPAS operating within VLOS introduced in 2019, the proposed amendments do not establish separate rules for commercial and recreational operators. However, given the volume of recreational operators in Canada, this analysis will outline the impacts of the proposed amendments that are specific to recreational operators to give the public an expanded sense of the impacts.

Recreational operators would see costs related to the DMP certificates in the same way as commercial operators. Over the ten-year time frame, these costs are expected to total $2.56 million. This is broken down further below.

To conduct certain categories of operations under the proposed amendments, recreational operators would be required to obtain either the Advanced Certificate or Level 1 Complex Certificate. These certificates would provide recreational pilots with the same privileges as commercial pilots. Fees and labour costs associated with the Advanced Certificate, and Level 1 Complex Certificates would be $1.47 million, and $0.29 million respectively.

Recreational operators would be subject to time costs associated with account creation and drone registration. Costs would also be incurred related to the fee increase for registering drones from $5 in the baseline scenario to $10 in the regulatory scenario. Total costs related to account creation and drone registration would be expected to total $0.81 million.

RPAS ground schools

Costs to RPAS ground schools associated with new curriculum development are anticipated to be covered by the fees paid by RPAS operators. However, there would be some associated administrative burden with declaring to TC that they are offering the new curriculum. This would take three minutes at an hourly rate of $54.23 including overhead. It is estimated that 18 out of 180 schools would declare to TC that they are offering the new curriculum resulting in a total cost of $45.86 ($2.55 per company). All declarations are expected to occur in 2025.

Benefits

The benefits of the proposed amendments are expected to total $40.23 million over the analytical time frame. This can be broken down to benefits to the GoC, which would total $4.05 million, benefits to industry which would total $24.14 million, and benefits to recreational operators which would total $12.04 million.

Industry (commercial RPAS operators)

Benefits to commercial operators are expected to total $23.10 million over the analytical time frame. This is broken down into the profit gained from new flights in the regulatory scenario, and time cost savings for obtaining an SFOC. These benefits are examined in greater detail below.

Increased profit

In the regulatory scenario, more flights are expected to be performed due to the introduction of the Level 1 Complex Certificate and the expansion of the Advanced Certificate. In total, the expected benefit from the increased number of flights would be equal to $12.56 million. This can be broken into BVLOS flights conducted under the Level 1 Complex Certificate, which are expected to introduce profits for RPAS operators of $7.76 million, and additional flights from the Advanced Pilot Certificate, which are expected to introduce profits for RPAS operators of $4.80 million. Note that this number represents only the profits generated for additional operators due to increased demand; it does not represent the profits from all Advanced operations as most would still be conducted in the baseline scenario. This also does not capture the increased operating costs presented in the Costs section of the analysis.

SFOC labour cost savings

In the baseline scenario, TC’s ability to process SFOCs is at capacity. In the regulatory scenario, there would be a greater capacity for TC to process SFOCs due to baseline SFOC tasks being moved into the Advanced and Level 1 Complex Certificates. The decrease in required SFOCs is expected to save industry $10.54 million in time costs over the analytical time frame. These benefits would stem from industry no longer needing to apply for as many SFOCs, and therefore not spending time on unneeded applications. This is calculated using the industry wage of $54.23 (including overhead) multiplied by the time cost associated with an SFOC application (20.5 hours). The total time costs in the regulatory scenario are then subtracted from the total costs in the baseline scenario to calculate time saved. It is anticipated that industry would take 0.28 million hours less on SFOC applications in the regulatory scenario than in the baseline scenario.

Industry (RPAS manufacturers)

Domestic RPAS manufacturers would be affected by the proposed amendments due to the increase in demand for registering RPAS. Using the share of foreign and domestic manufacturers (based on historical declaration to TC), it is estimated that domestic manufacturers would sell an additional 1 370 drones over the 10-year time frame relative to the baseline scenario.^{footnote 12} Assuming a profit rate of 47.3%, and an average sale price of $2,214 this would generate a benefit of $1.04 million for domestic manufacturers.^{footnote 13}

Government of Canada

GoC benefits can be broken down to reduced costs to administer SFOCs in the early years of the program and fees collected from users for RPAS services.

Fee revenue

Governmental fees collected from the DMP include fees for activities, such as issuing certificates and taking a certification exam. Fees collected for SFOCs include fees for obtaining a low-complexity SFOC, a high-complexity SFOC and the fee to amend an SFOC. The collection of domestic fees in the regulatory scenario would represent a rebalancing of costs from Canadian taxpayers to the Canadian RPAS industry, and the collection of foreign fees would represent a net benefit to the GoC. Incremental fees collected from both international and domestic users would be expected to total $3.57 million over the time frame.

Fees for the Level 1 Complex exam, Level 1 Complex Certificate, PVD, and ROC are all related to new services. Total incremental fee revenue for these new services would be expected to total $0.43 M over the time frame. The remaining services are existing, with some of them seeing fee increases as noted in the Regulatory Development section. Fee revenue related to these existing services would be equal to $3.14 million over the time frame.

SFOC time cost savings

In comparison with the baseline scenario, there are expected to be fewer SFOC requests in the early years of the program due to more operations being allowed under the Advanced Pilot Certificate and Level 1 Complex Certificate. This would result in cost savings for the GoC up to and including 2033 due to the decrease in demand for SFOCs. These cost savings would total $0.48 million from 2025 to 2033.

Recreational operators

Recreational operators are expected to incur benefits associated with the proposed amendments. Benefits for commercial pilots were calculated by the extra profits that they would receive with their additional certificates. Recreational pilots are also expected to complete additional flights because of the proposed amendments. By using their new privileges under the Advanced Certificate, or by obtaining the Level 1 Complex Certificate, recreational pilots would be permitted to safely carry out flights that had previously been prohibited or required a SFOC. This would allow recreational pilots to change the way that certain activities, such as drone racing and aerial photography, would be conducted and may lead to further innovation through the allowance of greater creative freedom. Certain events such as First Person View (FPV) drone racing have been heavily restricted by existing regulations. FPV “turns flying drones into a sport. Drone pilots wear a head-mounted display in the way of special goggles (or even mobile phones adapted as goggles) that connect directly to a camera on board the drone they are flying. This camera transmits a livestream feed from the drone to the goggles’ headset.”^{footnote 14} The proposed amendments would allow recreational operators greater opportunity to participate in this sport, as well as other recreational activities, while still maintaining safety. An average value of a recreational day from existing literature was used as a proxy to calculate benefit to recreational operators.^{footnote 15} This value was calculated based on a willingness to pay methodology, which captures the travel costs, and was used to infer the benefits associated with various recreational activities. The existing literature was used as a proxy because of the youth of the RPAS industry in Canada, and lack of data from revealed preference studies on the willingness to pay specific to recreational drone activities. It is likely that the provided proxy value is a low estimate of the recreational benefits which operators would receive related to their new privileges. This is because, due to the proposed amendments, some existing recreational drone operators are expected to replace existing drones, or new drone operators would enter the recreational market and purchase new drones (i.e. increasing the value over the travel cost proxy). In 2022 Canadian dollars, this value was equal to $84.97. The average number of flights per year was assumed to be the same as commercial operators for the associated flight certificates. This resulted in a total of $11.28 million in benefit for recreational advanced flights, and a total of $0.76 million in benefits for recreational Level 1 Complex flights. The total increase in recreational benefit would be equal to $12.04 million.

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of years: 10 years from 2024 to 2033
• Base year for costing: 2022
• Present value base year: 2024
• Discount rate: 7%

Monetized costs

Impacted stakeholder	Description of cost	2024	Average 2025–2032	2033	Total (present value)	Annualized value
GoC	Administration	$2.06 M	$0.81 M	$0.51 M	$9.03 M	$1.29 M
Industry (Commercial Operators)	Certifications (Time and Fee Costs)	$0.21 M	$0.74 M	$0.44 M	$6.55 M	$0.93 M
Industry (Commercial Operators)	Increased Operating Costs	$0.00 M	$0.04 M	$0.04 M	$0.38 M	$0.05 M
Industry (Commercial Operators)	SFOC Profit Loss	$0.00 M	$0.85 M	$0.58 M	$7.40 M	$1.05 M
Industry (Manufacturers)	Pre-Validated Declaration (Added Cost)	$0.04 M	$0.00 M	$0.00 M	$0.08 M	$0.01 M
Industry (Manufacturers)	Declaration (Added Cost)	$0.00 M	$0.00 M	$0.00 M	$0.01 M	$0.00 M
Recreational Operators	Certifications (Time and Fee Costs)	$0.05 M	$0.29 M	$0.16 M	$2.56 M	$0.36 M
RPAS Ground Schools	Declaration to TC	$0.00 M	$0.00 M	$0.00 M	$0.00 M	$0.00 M
All stakeholders	Total costs	$2.36 M	$2.74 M	$1.73 M	$26.02 M	$3.70 M

Please note that costs in some rows are listed as $0.00 M because the cost was so low. For example, ground school declarations were $45 over the time frame. Because everything is reported in millions in this table, this was rounded down.

Monetized benefits

Impacted stakeholder	Description of benefit	2024	Average 2025–2032	2033	Total (present value)	Annualized value
GoC	Fee Revenue (Existing Services)	$0.37 M	$0.31 M	$0.27 M	$3.14 M	$0.45 M
GoC	Fee Revenue (New Services)	$0.07 M	$0.04 M	$0.01 M	$0.43 M	$0.06 M
GoC	SFOC Labour Cost Saving	$0.00 M	$0.06 M	$0.00 M	$0.48 M	$0.07 M
Industry (Commercial Operators)	Increased Profits	$0.00 M	$1.40 M	$1.38 M	$12.56 M	$1.79 M
Industry (Commercial Operators)	SFOC Labour Cost Saving	$0.00 M	$1.17 M	$1.20 M	$10.54 M	$1.50 M
Industry (Manufacturers)	Increased Profits	$0.00 M	$0.09 M	$0.30 M	$1.04 M	$0.15 M
Recreational Operators	Increased Utility	$0.00 M	$1.33 M	$1.40 M	$12.04 M	$1.71 M
All stakeholders	Total benefits	$0.44 M	$4.40 M	$4.57 M	$40.23 M	$5.73 M

Summary of monetized costs and benefits

Impacts	2024	Average 2025–2032	2033	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Total costs	$2.36 M	$2.74 M	$1.73 M	$26.02 M	$3.70 M
Total benefits	$0.44 M	$4.40 M	$4.57 M	$40.23 M	$5.73 M
NET IMPACT	-$1.92 M	$1.66 M	$2.84 M	$14.21 M	$2.02 M

Qualitative benefits

Commercial operators

Commercial operators may realize additional cost savings related to their ability to conduct certain types of BVLOS operations and use larger drones. Larger drones and BVLOS operations can cover more geographic area in a shorter period and can also collect more data in fewer deployments compared to VLOS operations. This is due to the operator not needing to keep the drone within their line of sight. Scenarios where the use of BVLOS over VLOS would result in cost savings for operators are likely specific to certain operators; therefore, due to lack of data on the specific flights of these operators, this benefit was unable to be quantified. Additionally, if the benefits of transitioning from VLOS to BVLOS would offset the costs for specific flights in the baseline scenario, it is assumed that operators would have applied for a SFOC to realize these benefits. The ability for commercial operators to conduct BVLOS flights under certificates, as well as the additional processing availability for more complex SFOC applications, is expected to lead to an increase in innovation among commercial operators. Greater freedom to conduct BVLOS operations may lead to new ways to use RPAS under existing certificates. Overall, greater flexibility is expected to lead to an increase in services provided to Canadians and drive the RPAS market forward in new ways.

The proposed amendments would introduce requirements related to visual observers for EVLOS flights. It is anticipated that these flights would replace flights that have been occurring in the baseline scenario with existing visual observers. The proposed amendments would allow greater freedom for the visual observer(s), and fewer visual observers to be present for these operations. Overall, this would result in cost savings for those exercising these new privileges in the regulatory scenario. Additionally, it is anticipated that EVLOS would improve operator productivity.

Manufacturers

RPAS manufacturers may decide to obtain a PVD for their drones. This may result in some benefit to the manufacturer in the form of increased profits. Consumers may be more inclined to purchase an RPAS, which has a PVD, over one that does not because it would be pre-approved for certain types of operations without needing modifications. Although the number of PVDs was estimated in the analysis, it is unknown how these PVDs would influence Canadian RPAS manufacturer sales. Overall benefits from increased profits are presented in the Benefits section; however, PVDs may provide manufacturers with new opportunities to differentiate and broaden demand for their products. Similar benefits would be realized by manufacturers who opt for declarations for their medium-sized drones.

Bystanders and traditional aviation

Bystanders and traditional aviation would benefit from continued safety risk mitigation. This would come from highly skilled pilots improving their abilities and having a better understanding and ability to conduct more advanced flights, such as BVLOS. The proposed amendments would ensure the continued safe operation from commercial and recreational operators as they conduct more advanced flights.

Distributional analysis

Fee distribution

The introduction of the proposed amendments would increase existing fees and introduce new fees for both domestic and foreign RPAS operators. This CBA considers the regulatory impacts on Canadians and Canadian society. The fees on domestic RPAS operators would be seen as a cost recovery. Fees on foreign operators would be seen as a net benefit to Canadian society, as they would represent a transfer of money into Canada. In the main body of the analysis, the fees on both domestic and foreign RPAS operators are included in the Benefits section, while the fees on foreign operators are excluded from the Costs section. The Table below shows the additional fees that would be collected by the GoC in the regulatory scenario relative to the baseline scenario.

Domestic and foreign fee distribution

Fees	Base year (2024)	Average (2025–2032)	Final year (2033)	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Domestic	$0.27 M	$0.18 M	$0.14 M	$1.82 M	$0.26 M
Foreign	$0.17 M	$0.18 M	$0.15 M	$1.75 M	$0.25 M
Total	$0.44 M	$0.36 M	$0.29 M	$3.57 M	$0.51 M

Costs and benefits by certificate type

The following tables break down the costs and benefits by the Advanced and Level 1 Complex Certificates. Note that the costs do not add up to the total certificate costs presented in the CBA Statement, as that also includes ROC and SFOC. Also note that the benefit total does not add up to the total in the CBA statement because the CBA statement includes increased SFOC profits.

Costs by Advanced and Level 1 Complex Certificates

Stakeholder	Certificate Type	Base year (2024)	Average (2025–2032)	Final year (2033)	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Recreational Operators	Advanced Certificate	$0.00 M	$0.17 M	$0.08 M	$1.47 M	$0.21 M
Recreational Operators	Level 1 Complex Certificate	$0.00 M	$0.03 M	$0.01 M	$0.29 M	$0.04 M
Commercial Operators	Advanced Certificate	$0.00 M	$0.09 M	$0.04 M	$0.73 M	$0.10 M
Commercial Operators	Level 1 Complex Certificate	$0.00 M	$0.21 M	$0.06 M	$1.71 M	$0.24 M
Total		$0.00 M	$0.50 M	$0.19 M	$4.20 M	$0.60 M

Operator benefits by certificate type

Stakeholder	Certificate Type	Base year (2024)	Average (2025–2032)	Final year (2033)	Total (present value)	Annualized value
Recreational Operators	Advanced Certificate	$0.00 M	$1.24 M	$1.32 M	$11.28 M	$1.61 M
Recreational Operators	Level 1 Complex Certificate	$0.00 M	$0.08 M	$0.08 M	$0.76 M	$0.11 M
Commercial Operators	Advanced Certificate	$0.00 M	$0.53 M	$0.56 M	$4.80 M	$0.68 M
Commercial Operators	Level 1 Complex Certificate	$0.00 M	$0.87 M	$0.82 M	$7.76 M	$1.10 M
Total		$0.00 M	$2.73 M	$2.78 M	$24.60 M	$3.50 M

Sensitivity analysis

Single variable sensitivity analysis

Due to the relative infancy of the RPAS industry, there is some uncertainty behind the estimates and assumptions used in this analysis. A sensitivity analysis was therefore conducted on some of the most impactful variables.

Growth scenarios

For this analysis, three scenarios are derived from three different growth rates developed by the FAA. The central scenario represents the price structure used in the main body of the analysis with a lower and upper scenario hypothesized in the sensitivity analysis. The effects of changing this parameter are shown in the table below.

The FAA drone registration forecast presented three separate growth scenarios (low, central, and high). This forecast was built on the trend observed in registrations; expert opinions collected in Transportation Research Board annual workshops; review of available industry forecast; market/industry research; and a time-series model on registration trends fitted on monthly data.^{footnote 16} The confidence bands provided by the FAA have to do with changes in technologies, such as batteries, and diminishing prices. The average growth rates from 2019 to 2026 provided by the FAA are 11%, 13%, and 14% for the low, medium and high growth scenarios respectively. Note that these are the averages of the non-constant growth rates provided in the FAA report. The exact growth rates calculated from the FAA drone registration forecast were used to forecast registrations up to and including 2026. For the years following 2026, an average growth rate calculated from historical DMP data, and the FAA forecast was used. This average growth rate is presented in parentheses in the first row of the following table.

Growth sensitivity

Growth Scenarios	Low Scenario (-1.4%)	Central Scenario (2.6%) (Central Analysis)	High Scenario (4.8%)
Net Present Value (Benefit)	$12.13 M	$14.21 M	$15.33 M

Profitability of RPAS sector

To calculate the benefits that commercial RPAS operators would receive, the profitability rate from NAICS 48121 (Non-Scheduled Air Transportation) was applied to forecast operator and manufacturer revenue.^{footnote 17} A range of profitability for Non-Scheduled Air Transportation was presented in this source. In the central analysis, the average of the profitable quartiles of companies was used. The non-profitable companies were excluded because it is assumed that operators using the Advanced and Level 1 Complex Certificates would have already been successful with basic flights before expanding their business. The table below shows how the net benefit would be affected if the profitability of the sector fell to the lower or higher profitability rates as presented in the Government of Canada Financial Performance Canadian Industry Statistics.

RPAS sector profitability

Profitability Rate	7%	34.9%	47.3% (Average) (Central Analysis)	100%
Net Benefit	$8.93 M	$12.58 M	$14.21 M	$21.11 M

SFOC additional profit

This sensitivity analysis explores how the profit per operation would increase if the profit generated per SFOC operation increased in the regulatory scenario. In the central analysis, the revenue per flight is increased by the additional costs that operators would incur due to the fee increases for SFOCs, profit being calculated based on the industry profitability rate. This sensitivity analysis shows what would occur if the profit were increased past this point by percentage intervals. Intervals presented a range from 0% (central analysis) to 50%. The profit per operation, as well as the net present value for each scenario is shown below.

SFOC profit sensitivity

Additional Profit	0% (Central Analysis)	10%	20%	30%	40%	50%
Profit per SFOC Operation (Baseline / Regulatory)	$217.12 / $258.92	$217.12 / $284.81	$217.12 / $310.70	$217.12 / $336.59	$217.12 / $362.49	$217.12 / $388.38
Net Present Value	$14.21 M	$14.46 M	$14.71 M	$14.95 M	$15.20 M	$15.45 M

Discount rate

The central analysis used a 7% discount rate as recommended by the TBS. For the sensitivity analysis, the table below presents the results should a 0% discount rate have been used, as well as 3% discount rate. These three discount rates were selected as in line with TBS’s Cost Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals.

Discount rate sensitivity

Discount Rates	0%	3%	7% (Central Analysis)
Net Present Value	$23.03 M	$18.66 M	$14.21 M

Monte Carlo analysis

The sensitivity analysis above considers what happens to the net value in the central and extreme values. However, some of the variables may not be constant values, and may have probability distributions associated with them. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed with some variables being assumed to have probabilistic distributions where there was a large amount of uncertainty. These variables include the number of SFOC and Level 1 Complex Certificate Holder flights per year (bell-shaped distribution with a mean of 16.16, and a standard deviation of 6.73), the initial reduction rate for SFOCs (triangular distribution ranging from 0.8 to 0.95), and the SFOC Efficiency improvement (triangular distribution ranging from 0% to 15% annual improvement). Level 1 Complex Certificate Holder flights per year represents the average number of productive flights that Level 1 Complex Operators would conduct per year. The initial reduction rate for SFOCs represents the percent decrease in domestic SFOC applications received in 2025 as operators are able to exercise their new privileges. SFOC Efficiency improvement represents the increase in efficiency for TC SFOC processors over five years. A simulation was run 10 000 times, and the mean values were reported as the central analysis throughout the text.

A Monte Carlo simulation was performed to measure how often the net benefits would be less than the central value (expected net benefits), and how often the net benefits would be less than 0. In other words, what percentage of the time the net present value of benefits is less than the central value, or 0, given the distributions applied to the variables above. The results from the simulations indicate that, holding the non-distributional sensitivity parameters constant, 55.64% of the time, the net present value is less than the central value, and that 0% of the time the net present value is less than 0.

Scenario sensitivity analysis

Scenario sensitivity analyses were conducted where the lowest, most probable, and highest benefits were considered. For this exercise, benefits were evaluated at their extreme values, such that the net benefits could be analyzed at their upper and lower bounds. The variables that were considered for these analyses were the same used for the single-variable sensitivity analysis (excluding discount rate), as well as in the Monte Carlo analysis, and are combined simultaneously, arriving at three different scenarios. For the lowest, and highest scenarios, the respective minimum, and maximum values are taken from the Monte Carlo Simulations.

The table below presents the sensitivity of net benefits. This includes the SFOC reduction rate, the three different growth scenarios provided by the FAA, the number of productive flights per Level 1 Complex Certificate issued, the profit margin for RPAS operators, the SFOC efficiency improvement, and the additional profit under regulatory SFOC flights.

Results	Lowest	Most Probable	Highest
Net Present Value	$6.54 M	$14.21 M	$39.05 M

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens found that the proposed amendments would impact small businesses.

In total, it is anticipated that 145 402 manufacturers, individuals, and operators would be affected by the proposed amendments. Non-contractor individuals are not considered as small businesses. In total, there would be an estimated 24 137^{footnote 18} small businesses affected by the proposed amendments.

The Canadian drone industry can be characterized as “fragmented and primarily comprised of small operators with stable but stagnant revenues,” with the median total yearly revenue of drone organizations being below $500,000, according to the 2019 Avascent RPAS Environmental Scan. The same report found that, as of 2019, over 50% of organizations in the drone industry were founded less than five years ago.

Some of the measures that businesses may need to take to comply with the proposed amendments include developing flight operations procedures and training crew on flight operations procedures. These costs relate to the ROC. Measures such as following a maintenance schedule are already standard provisions in lower-risk BVLOS SFOCs. It is expected that 428 companies would need to comply with the ROC requirements. The average annual cost per company for obtaining and maintaining a ROC is expected to be $803. The Aerial Evolution Association of Canada’s 2021/22 RPAS Industry survey estimates that 83% of the affected businesses would be considered small businesses. This means that 355 small businesses would be affected by ROC requirements which would result in a total cost to small businesses of $2.85 million.

Small businesses would be required to comply with requirements for creating DMP accounts and registering RPAS within the DMP. Total administrative costs related to time taken to register accounts and RPAS in the DMP from new entrants is expected to be $11,041. There would also be a fee increase from $5 to $10 dollars, which would affect all forecast RPAS registrations, not just new entrants. In total, this would result in costs of $0.16 million to small business RPAS operators.

A fee increase would apply for SFOCs, which are provided at no charge to the applicant in the baseline scenario. The new fees are $2,000 for a high complexity SFOC, $150 for a low complexity SFOC, and $60 to amend an SFOC. In total, this would result in costs for small businesses of $1.03 million over the ten-year time frame.

Small businesses would see an increase in costs associated with increased operating costs, as described in the “Costs” section. Increased operating costs associated with population mapping would be 0.27 million, and increased costs associated with visual observers for EVLOS would total $0.05 million.

Although the upfront costs for operators would increase, the proposed amendments would allow pilots to conduct more operations that would not have been permitted in the baseline scenario without applying for an SFOC. Additionally, while pilots may have been able to conduct certain advanced operations with an SFOC in the baseline scenario, the number of SFOCs able to be processed is at capacity. Therefore, if an operator wanted to conduct an operation under a SFOC in the baseline scenario, they may face a long wait time and may not be able to complete their flight in the time they had planned. In the regulatory scenario, pilots would face higher upfront costs upon market entry as they would need to obtain the necessary certifications. However, recurring labour costs would be significantly reduced due to the elimination of SFOC submissions for many operations. Therefore, the proposed amendments would benefit small businesses because they would facilitate more advanced use of RPAS. The proposed amendments were designed to impose the minimum possible costs for small businesses while safely facilitating advanced operations.

RPAS manufacturers would be affected by the proposed amendments, as they may opt to apply for a PVD. This would guarantee that their RPAS would be equipped to conduct more advanced flights, such as BVLOS. There is uncertainty around how many small manufacturers as a subset of all manufacturers would apply for PVDs. Assuming that each manufacturer was to apply for one PVD, there would be 17 small businesses that would apply for a PVD, and maintain updates for the PVD over 5 years. This would equate to total costs of $0.06 million for small business manufacturers including the fees that they would have to pay. PVD applications would not be mandatory, but manufacturers would benefit from the predictability that a PVD may afford (e.g. increased demand for and investment in the manufacturer’s products).

Similar to the impact of PVDs, RPAS manufacturers producing medium RPAS would be impacted if they choose to apply for a declaration. There would be anticipated to be 16 small businesses producing medium drones with declarations. The use of declarations would result in incremental costs to manufacturers of $0.01 million. Note that, as with PVDs, declarations would not be mandatory for manufacturers, but manufacturers would benefit from increased sales and predictability if they choose to do them.

Flight Schools and Flight Reviewers would see increased administrative costs related to declaring to TC that they are able to provide their associated services related to the Level 1 Complex Certificate. Two hundred and seven flight reviewers and 18 ground schools would be affected. It is estimated that flight reviewers would face total costs of $528, and ground schools would face total costs of $46 over the ten-year time frame. Each of these stakeholders is assumed to be a small business.

Small businesses would incur benefits due to the introduction of the proposed amendments. The new certificate types (Level 1 Complex and modified Advanced Certificates) would allow small businesses to conduct flights which were not permitted (other than under SFOCs) in the baseline scenario. This would result in $10.42 million additional profits for small businesses. The introduction of the new certificate types would create time cost savings for small businesses related to SFOC applications which would no longer need to be submitted, resulting in $8.75 million in time cost savings for small businesses. Manufacturers would see benefits from increased profits, resulting in total profits for small businesses of $0.81 million. In total, these changes would provide benefits to small businesses of $19.98 million.

Because of limitations on data, it is unknown exactly how many of the operations listed below would occur per business. The total number of businesses impacted below represents the total number of expected commercial activities.^{footnote 19} It is likely that this is an overestimation of the number of businesses, as each small business would likely be subject to multiple occurrences of one or more of the activities listed below. However, there is no data to support this assumption.

Small business lens summary

• Impacted Small Businesses: 24 137
• Number of years: 10 years from 2024 to 2033
• Base year for costing: 2024
• Present value base year: 2022
• Discount rate: 7%

Compliance Impacts (millions)

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
RPAS Registration Fees	-$0.02 M	-$0.16 M
ROC Compliance Requirements	-$0.41 M	-$2.85 M
Pre-Validated Declaration Compliance	-$0.01 M	-$0.06 M
Declaration Compliance	$0.00 M	-$0.01 M
SFOC Fee Increase	-$0.15 M	-$1.03 M
Increased Operating Costs	-$0.05 M	-$0.32 M
Increased Certificate Profits	$1.48 M	$10.42 M
Increased Manufacturer Profit	$0.11 M	$0.81 M
Net Compliance Impact	$0.97 M	$6.80 M

Administrative Impacts

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
DMP Account and RPAS Registration Time Costs	-$1,572	-$11,041
ROC Administrative Requirements	-$54	-$381
Pre-Validated Declaration Administrative	-$127	-$893
Declaration Administrative	-$289	-$2,030
Ground School and Flight Reviewer Declarations	-$82	-$574
SFOC Time Cost Savings	$1,245,527	$8,748,061
Net Administrative Impact	$1,243,403	$8,733,143

Net Impacts (millions)

Totals	Annualized value	Present value
Total Compliance Impacts	$0.97 M	$6.80 M
Total Administrative Impacts	$1.24 M	$8.73 M
Net Impact (all impacted small businesses)	$2.21 M	$15.54 M
Net Impact Per Business	$91.64	$643.65

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule would apply as the proposed amendments would result in incremental changes in administrative burden on business. All listed values below are presented in 2012 dollars, discounted to 2012 at a 7% rate.

It is expected that there would be a decrease in administrative burden due to the introduction of the proposed amendments related to the decrease in SFOC applications. In the baseline scenario, an average SFOC application would take 20.5 hours to fill out. This would need to be sent to TC and approved to complete certain operations. The introduction of the proposed amendments would allow businesses to complete some operations under an Advanced Certificate or Level 1 Complex Certificate. This would eliminate administrative time costs for industry, due to the decreased need to send in SFOC applications. In total, this decrease in SFOC applications would result in administrative burden cost savings for operators of $3.77 million (see SFOC labour cost savings in the Benefits section for more information).

The new administrative tasks associated with the proposed amendments would be the creation of accounts in the DMP, the registration of RPAS in the DMP, declaring to TC that ROC companies meet the requirements in the CARs, and updating the DMP with completed medical requirements for Level 1 Complex operators all of which are one-time activities. Account registrations would take 10 minutes to complete, RPAS registrations would take 30 seconds, and the medical declaration would take 15 seconds (which would involve checking a box in the DMP), all at a wage rate of $43.89 including overhead. ROC tasks include three tasks taking 30 seconds each.^{footnote 20} Wages would range from $25.91 to $63.07 including overhead for the tasks.

RPAS manufacturers would also need to report to TC on a regular basis as part of the process to obtain a PVD. It is anticipated that this would take 15 minutes annually, costed at a wage rate of $43.89 including overhead. Manufacturer declarations would also require reporting to TC for the initial declaration and any subsequent model updates; time costs for this are anticipated to be the same as the annual reporting for PVDs. The total anticipated increase in administrative burden associated with these new administrative activities would be $1,348 over the ten-year time frame.

Costs to RPAS ground schools associated with the new curriculum development are anticipated to be covered by the fees paid by RPAS operators. However, there would be some associated administrative burden with declaring to TC that they are offering the new curriculum. This would take three minutes at an hourly rate of $43.89, including overhead. It is estimated that 18 out of 180 schools would declare to TC that they are offering the new curriculum resulting in a total cost of $16.39. All declarations are expected to occur in 2025. Flight reviewers would also be required to declare to TC that they are offering services related to the Level 1 Complex Certificate. This is anticipated to impact 207 flight reviewers, who would be required to email TC. It is anticipated that this would take three minutes per operator at a wage rate of $43.89,and would result in total administrative costs of $189 over the ten-year time frame. All activities are anticipated to occur in 2025.

The net impact of the change in administrative burden on business over the 10-year time frame is expected to be a reduction of $3.76 million in 2012 dollars, discounted to 2012 at a 7% rate.

Present value base year: 2012

Annualized Reduction in Administrative Cost	$535,501
Annualized Reduction in Administrative Cost Per Business	$240.06

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

TC maintains several strong bilateral and multilateral relationships with countries around the world to align and harmonize with international partners wherever possible, to support research and development, contribute to standards development, and to share information and best practices. TC also actively engages and participates with the International Civil Aviation Organization in areas, such as the RPAS Panel, Drone Enable (a symposium that engages stakeholders across disciplines) and innovation discussions. Currently, TC is only proposing to regulate domestic operations; however, TC continues to work closely with international counterparts, notably the U.S., to minimize differences between domestic regimes in preparation for allowing cross-border and international operations in the future.

Twice a year, TC meets bilaterally with the United States Federal Aviation Authority to discuss drone policy, regulatory and program development, and more frequently as part of a working group tasked with developing a framework for future cross-border operations and mutual recognition. Canada also meets bi-weekly with aviation authorities in the U.S., Brazil, and the European Union as part of a quadrilateral group focusing on aligning, harmonizing, and sharing best practices related to the system safety requirements of the drone. TC has a close working relationship with Australia and a Memorandum of Understanding is under development to further strengthen the partnership.

Canada’s current approach to larger drones and lower-risk BVLOS operations is like other countries, such as Brazil, the U.S., and the European Union, who currently permit BVLOS operations on a case-by-case basis with restrictions, such as maximum altitudes, system requirements for the manufacturer and additional pilot certifications via similar means to an SFOC.

Canada is one of the first countries to propose regulations for routine BVLOS operations; however, the proposal is aligned with the direction of other international partners, such as the European Union, on topics including weight thresholds, new pilot certification, and emphasis on organizational requirements with the proposed RPAS Operator Certificate. In March 2022, the FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Committee, published a report that provides information, advice, and recommendations for proposed BVLOS operations in the U.S. The report aligns well with TC’s proposed approach in areas, such as extended VLOS and sheltered operations, carving out lower-risk operating environments and incremental approaches to system safety and pilot certification.

As part of standards development, TC is also a member of the JARUS, which is a group of regulatory experts in aviation from around the world. TC also participates in other working groups with the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics and American Society for Testing and Materials. These working groups informed the Standard 922 performance targets related to maintaining connectivity between the drone and its control station, and the effects of weather conditions on various drone designs.

Lastly, TC also conducted international comparisons to verify that the drone fees put forth in the fee proposal were generally within the range of those of other countries. Since Canada is one of the first countries amongst its international partners to propose regulations and fees that enable routine lower-risk BVLOS operations, there are few countries that offer direct comparisons for BVLOS drone fees. To address this, TC looked at fees for drone activities more broadly, in jurisdictions pursuing similar regulatory approaches and safety education initiatives to Canada, namely the U.S., United Kingdom, European Union, and Australia to help evaluate foreign fee comparability. Overall, TC’s current and proposed drone fees, where comparable, are like those of other countries, particularly when considering that TC’s drone certificates and registrations do not expire. For example, in the U.S., drone fees range from a low of C$7 for a drone registration (valid for three years) to a high of C$211 for a “remote pilot certificate” (valid for two years). TC’s equivalent proposed fees are $10 for a drone registration and between $25 and $125 for a pilot certificate. The United Kingdom’s Permissions for Commercial Operation have fees of C$332-C$431 while TC’s equivalent, the proposed ROC, would cost $250.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, and the TC Policy Statement on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2013), the strategic environmental assessment process was followed for this proposal and a Sustainable Transportation Assessment was completed. The assessment considered potential effects to the environmental goals and targets of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. The assessment revealed that the proposed amendments do not have any anticipated environmental effects.

While TC does not have sufficient data to quantify the potential impacts, there could be some incremental environmental benefits from reducing reliance on traditional aircraft for certain activities, and from the increased use of drones in emergencies, such as forest fires.

Gender-based analysis plus

The proposed amendments are not expected to have differential impacts on the basis of identity factors, such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, etc. However, it should be noted that aviation is historically a male-dominated industry and the drone industry is similar. The 2019 Avascent RPAS Environmental Scan revealed that Canadians who identify as female represent only 2.6% of the Canadian drone industry. The drone industry is also largely made up of higher-income brackets. TC will be seeking opportunities to work with industry and other government departments to improve the understanding of the benefits of the drone sector on the quality of life in all group sets through data collection activities in employment and participation in the sector.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The proposed amendments would have a staggered coming into force period whereby some provisions would come into force upon publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, such as the ability to register drones, submit declarations and take new pilot exams, while others would come into force on April 1, 2025, such as carrying out operations with medium-sized drones and beyond visual line-of-sight in lower-risk environments. This would give stakeholders the opportunity to become certified and familiarize themselves with the new requirements in advance of the 2025 flying season.

Expanding digital services

TC would expand the existing DMP to deliver the new services outlined in the proposed amendments. More specifically:

• Expanding registration to allow all drones above 250 g to be registered;
• Delivering the new multiple-choice exam for the RPAS Pilot Certificate for Level 1 Complex Operations;
• Allowing the declaration of medical eligibility;
• Issuing the new RPAS Pilot Certificate for Level 1 Complex Operations;
• Submitting applications for pre-validation declaration process for manufacturers; and,
• Allowing the declaration and issuance of the RPAS Operator Certificate.

The upgrades to the DMP will be developed in advance of final publication of the proposed rules so that these services would be available upon publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. However, as mentioned above, pilots would not be able to fly under the new rules until April 1, 2025. This would allow time for certification, while also considering an increase in traffic volume in the DMP and any potential delays that may occur. Should there be system delays, TC has proposed service standards that are discussed in more detail below.

The DMP meets the Transport Canada Digital Services Delivery and Government of Canada standards for information protection, security, and management. TC will be carrying out a new assessment for the expansion to support the proposed amendments and new services that will be delivered. The DMP currently uses a secure sign-in using GCKey and TC will be exploring additional security measures, such as two-factor authentication, as part of the new DMP functionalities. TC will also be conducting a new Privacy Impact Assessment for the system upgrades to support the proposed amendments to ensure the effective management of personal data.

Education and outreach

TC would develop a safety awareness strategy and consultation plan before publication in Canada Gazette, Part II, to engage stakeholders during the coming into force period to maintain and improve the safety of Canadian airspace by supporting a well-informed RPAS industry while encouraging innovation and interest in aviation. TC would also develop guidance material, such as advisory circulars, updates to the Aeronautical Information Manual and TC Drone webpage, which would be available on TC’s website, to support the implementation of the proposed amendments to help the industry know how to comply with the new rules.

Compliance and enforcement

The safe operation of drones in Canada remains a shared responsibility between TC and drone pilots. Under the Act, the Minister of Transport has the authority to issue administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) to anyone who violates designated provisions of the Act and the CARs. Most of the provisions in Part IX of the CARs are enforced through the assessment of AMPs imposed in accordance with sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Act, which carry a maximum fine of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations and include the potential suspension or cancellation of a person’s Canadian Aviation Document. The proposed amendments would continue to be enforced through the assessment of AMPs.

More serious contraventions could be pursued as indictable offences or be punishable on summary conviction, where permitted. In some cases, for less serious offences, TC Enforcement Inspectors may offer oral counselling before issuing an AMP and subscribe to a graduated system whereby lower levels are established for first-time and second-time offenders, if applicable. In other cases, for more severe issues, the higher-level AMP may be issued.

Surveillance

As part of an effective oversight program, TC conducts surveillance activities to monitor compliance with safety requirements (e.g. planned and reactive inspections). Following the coming into force of the proposed amendments, a surveillance strategy would be developed and integrated into department-wide surveillance activities and the National Oversight Plan for Civil Aviation. The surveillance strategy for drones would primarily focus on higher-risk areas, such as ensuring that manufacturers are compliant with the pre-validated declaration requirements, and that ROC holders are compliant with the regulatory requirements. TC would also perform ad hoc surveillance if any incidents occurred.

Service standards

Most of the new services would be offered online through TC’s DMP, such as drone registration and exam delivery for the new RPAS Pilot Certificate for Level 1 Complex Operations. Other services, such as the delivery of ground school, flight reviews and visiting a physician would be delivered by third parties. TC’s online services would be available on demand and delivered in real time through the DMP — a secure system — 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Sometimes, the online system may encounter difficulties and intervention may be required. In these cases, there would be a 10-day service standard. Other new services that would also be offered through the DMP, such as pre-validated declarations and the issuance of SFOCs, would require reviews from subject matter experts in aviation and engineering and would have different service standards, as outlined in the table below. The design of the DMP requires completion of each step in order to move forward. For example, once a pilot successfully completes the online exam, they would be able to proceed to their flight review and once that is successfully completed, the pilot would be eligible to apply for the pilot certificate, which would be issued automatically. If an exam or flight review is not passed, the pilot would be able to re-do that step after 24 hours have passed.

TC’s proposed activities and new service standards

Category	Proposed Activity	Proposed Service Standard
Drone Registration	Issue a Certificate of Drone Registration	Automated. If issues occur and intervention is required, 10 business days after receipt of a complete application.
Exams	Conduct an exam for Level 1 Complex Operations	Automated. If issues occur and intervention is required, 10 business days after receipt of a complete application.
Certificates	Issue a pilot certificate for Level 1 Complex Operations	Automated. If issues occur and intervention is required, 10 business days after receipt of a complete application.
Manufacturer Declarations	Acceptance Letter – Pre-Validated Declaration	60 business days after receipt of a complete application.
Operator and Operations Certificates	Issue an RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC)	Automated. If issues occur and intervention is required, 10 business days after receipt of a complete application.
Operator and Operations Certificates	Issue a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) – Low Complexity	30 business days after receipt of a complete application.
Operator and Operations Certificates	Issue a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) – High Complexity	60 business days after receipt of a complete application.
Operator and Operations Certificates	Re-issue a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) with a minor amendment	30 business days after receipt of a complete application.

These service standards apply to activity requests whereby the client has successfully met the application criteria. The service standards would be reconsidered two years after the proposed amendments come into force. Most services would be automated, with minimal tracking required. Other services, such as SFOCs and PVDs, would be tracked manually in conjunction with other departmental tracking systems.

The SFA requires the Minister of Transport to remit a portion of fees that have been collected if the applicable service standard is not met. Remission would take place according to TC’s Remission Policy.

Contact

RPAS Task Force, AARV
Civil Aviation
Safety and Security
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613‑993‑7284 or 1‑800‑305‑2059
Email: TC.RPASRegulations-ReglementsSATP.TC@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (RPAS – Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight and Other Operations) under paragraph 4.4(2)(b)^{footnote a}, section 4.9^{footnote b}, subsection 5.9(1)^{footnote c} and paragraphs 6.71(3)(a)^{footnote d} and 7.6(1)(a)^{footnote e} and (b)^{footnote f} of the Aeronautics Act ^{footnote g}.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 90 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to the RPAS Task Force (AARV), Civil Aviation, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (email: TC.RPASInfo-InfoRPAS.TC@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, June 15, 2023

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (RPAS – Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight and Other Operations)

Amendments

1 (1) The definition small remotely piloted aircraft in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations ^{footnote 21} is repealed.

(2) Subsection 101.01(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

command and control link

means the data link between a remotely piloted aircraft and a control station that is used in the management of a flight; (liaison de commande et de contrôle)

control station

means the facilities and equipment that are remote from a remotely piloted aircraft and from which the aircraft is controlled and monitored; (poste de contrôle)

2 Section 103.12 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (h), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (i) and by adding the following after paragraph (i):

• (j) in respect of an RPAS operator, the accountable executive appointed by the RPAS operator under section 106.02.

3 Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Section 900.06”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Section 900.07	3,000	15,000
Subsection 900.08(1)	1,000	5,000
Section 900.09	5,000	25,000
Section 900.13	5,000	25,000
Section 900.14	3,000	15,000
Subsection 900.18(1)	1,000	5,000
Section 900.19	1,000	5,000
Section 900.20	1,000	5,000

4 The heading before the reference “Section 901.02” in Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

SUBPART 1 — SMALL REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT AND MEDIUM REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT

5 The references “Section 901.02” to “Section 901.09” in column I of Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

6 The reference “Subsection 901.12(1)” in column I of Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

7 The reference “Section 901.13” in column I of Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is replaced by “Subsection 901.13(1)”.

8 The references “Subsection 901.14(1)” and “Subsection 901.14(2)” in column I of Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are replaced by the following:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Section 901.14	3,000	15,000

9 The reference “Section 901.30” in column I of Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are replaced by the following:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Subsection 901.30(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.30(2)	1,000	5,000

10 The reference “Section 901.34” in column I of Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are replaced by the following:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Subsection 901.34(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.34(2)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.34(3)	1,000	5,000

11 Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Section 901.38”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Section 901.38.1	1,000	5,000

12 The portion of the reference “Subsection 901.41(1)” in Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations, in column II, is replaced by the following:

Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
Individual	Corporation
3,000	15,000

13 The portion of the reference “Subsection 901.47(3)” in Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations, in column II, is replaced by the following:

Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
Individual	Corporation
3,000	15,000

14 Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 901.47(3)”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Subsection 901.47(4)	3,000	15,000

15 Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 901.49(2)”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Section 901.50	1,000	5,000
Section 901.51	3,000	15,000

16 Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Section 901.58”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Section 901.59	1,000	5,000

17 Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Section 901.67”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Section 901.68	1,000	5,000

18 The reference “Subsection 901.69(1)” in column I of Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is replaced by “Section 901.69”.

19 Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 901.71(1)”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Subsection 901.71(3)	1,000	5,000

20 The references “Subsection 901.76(1)” to “Section 901.87” in column I of Subpart 1 of Part IX of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are replaced by the following:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Subsection 901.74(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.74(2)	1,000	5,000
Section 901.75	1,000	5,000
Section 901.88	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.89(1)	1,000	5,000
Section 901.91	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.92(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.92(2)	1,000	5,000
Section 901.93	1,000	5,000
Section 901.94	1,000	5,000
Section 901.95	1,000	5,000
Section 901.96	1,000	5,000
Section 901.97	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.98(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.98(2)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.175(1)	3,000	15,000
Subsection 901.175(2)	3,000	15,000
Section 901.177	1,000	5,000
Section 901.178	1,000	5,000
Paragraph 901.180(a)	1,000	5,000
Paragraph 901.180(b)	1,000	5,000
Paragraph 901.180(c)	1,000	5,000
Section 901.181	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.182(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.182(2)	1,000	5,000
Section 901.183	1,000	5,000
Section 901.184	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.194(3)	3,000	15,000
Subsection 901.194(7)	1,000	5,000
Section 901.195	3,000	15,000
Section 901.197	3,000	15,000
Section 901.198	3,000	15,000
Section 901.199	1,000	5,000
Section 901.200	3,000	15,000
Subsection 901.201(1)	3,000	15,000
Subsection 901.201(2)	3,000	15,000
Subsection 901.217(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.217(2)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.217(3)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.217(4)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.218(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.219(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.219(3)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.219(4)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.219(5)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.220(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.220(2)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.221(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.221(2)	1,000	5,000
Section 901.222	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.223(1)	1,000	5,000
Subsection 901.223(2)	1,000	5,000

21 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 104.06:

Annual Adjustment

104.06.1 The charges set out in the following provisions are to be adjusted in each fiscal year on April 1 by the percentage change over 12 months in the April All-items Consumer Price Index for Canada, as published by Statistics Canada under the Statistics Act, for the previous fiscal year:

• (a) paragraph 3(d) of Schedule II to this Subpart;
• (b) items 26 to 31 of Schedule IV to this Subpart;
• (c) item 16 of Schedule VI to this Subpart; and
• (d) item 19 of Schedule VII to this Subpart.

22 Section 104.06.1 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by replacing paragraph (d) with the following:

• (d) paragraphs 1(e) to (g) of Schedule VII to this Subpart; and
• (e) item 19 of Schedule VII to this Subpart.

23 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 104.06.1:

Exception — Certain Emergency Response Operations

104.06.2 Despite section 104.02, the charge imposed in respect of the documents referred to in paragraphs 1(e) to (g) of column I of Schedule VII to this Subpart is not payable by a government organization in respect of an emergency response operation.

24 Schedule II of Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by replacing the references after the heading "Schedule II" with the following:

(Sections 104.01 and 104.02 and paragraph 104.06.1(a))

25 Paragraph 3(d) of Schedule II to Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Item	Column I Document or Preparatory Action in Respect of Which a Charge Is Imposed	Column II Charge ($)
3	(d) a remotely piloted aircraft registration	10

26 Schedule IV of Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by replacing the references after the heading "Schedule IV" with the following:

(Sections 104.01 and 104.02 and paragraphs 104.06(a) and 104.06.1(b))

27 Schedule IV to Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 29:

Item	Column I Document or Preparatory Action in Respect of Which a Charge Is Imposed	Column II Charge ($)
30	Conduct of the taking or retaking of an examination for a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations, or for recency requirements	50
31	Issuance of a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations	125

28 Schedule VI of Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by replacing the references after the heading "Schedule VI" with the following:

(Sections 104.01 and 104.02 and paragraph 104.06.1(c))

29 Schedule VI to Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 15:

Item	Column I Document or Preparatory Action in Respect of Which a Charge Is Imposed	Column II Charge ($)
16	Issuance of an acceptance letter (CAR 901.196)	1,200

30 (1) Schedule VII of Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by replacing the references after the heading "Schedule VII" with the following:

(Sections 104.01 and 104.02 and paragraph 104.06.1(d))

(2) Schedule VII of Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by replacing the references after the heading "Schedule VII" with the following:

(Sections 104.01 and 104.02, paragraphs 104.06.1(d) and (e) and section 104.06.2)

31 Item 1 of Schedule VII to Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after paragraph (d):

Item	Column I Document or Preparatory Action in Respect of Which a Charge Is Imposed	Column II Charge ($)
1	(e) low-complexity RPAS operations (CAR 903.02(1))	150
	(f) high-complexity RPAS operations (CAR 903.02(2))	2,000
	(g) an amendment to a special flight operations certificate — RPAS	60

32 Schedule VII to Subpart 4 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 18:

Item	Column I Document or Preparatory Action in Respect of Which a Charge Is Imposed	Column II Charge ($)
RPAS Operators
19	Issuance of an RPAS operator certificate	250

33 Section 106.01 of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (e), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (f) and by adding the following after paragraph (f):

• (g) an RPAS operator certificate issued under section 901.214.

34 Paragraph 106.03(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) a person responsible for maintenance appointed under paragraph 573.03(1)(a) or a person responsible for RPAS maintenance appointed under subsection 901.220(1);

35 Section 400.01.1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

400.01.1 This Part does not apply in respect of the issuance of a Canadian aviation document in respect of the operation of remotely piloted aircraft systems.

36 The portion of subsection 501.01(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

501.01 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the owner of a Canadian aircraft — other than an ultra-light aeroplane or a remotely piloted aircraft that is an element of a remotely piloted aircraft system in respect of which a design approval document has not been issued or applied for under Subpart 21 of this Part — shall submit to the Minister an Annual Airworthiness Information Report in respect of the aircraft, in the form and manner specified in Chapter 501 of the Airworthiness Manual, either as

37 The portion of section 507.01 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

507.01 This Subpart applies in respect of aircraft — other than ultra-light aeroplanes, hang gliders and remotely piloted aircraft that are an element of a remotely piloted aircraft system in respect of which a design approval document has not been issued or applied for under Subpart 21 of this Part — that are

38 The portion of section 509.01 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

509.01 This Subpart applies in respect of the following aircraft if they meet the export requirements specified in Chapter 509 of the Airworthiness Manual, except for aircraft that are operated under a special certificate of airworthiness in the owner-maintenance or amateur-built classification, ultra-light aeroplanes, hang gliders and remotely piloted aircraft that are an element of a remotely piloted aircraft system in respect of which a design approval document has not been issued or applied for under Subpart 21 of this Part:

39 The portion of section 571.01 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

571.01 This Subpart applies in respect of maintenance and elementary work performed on the following aircraft, except for ultra-light aeroplanes, hang gliders and remotely piloted aircraft that are an element of a remotely piloted aircraft system in respect of which a design approval document has not been issued or applied for under Subpart 21 of this Part:

40 The heading before section 601.04 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Flight in Class F Special Use Restricted Airspace or Class F Special Use Advisory Airspace

41 Section 700.01.1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

700.01.1 This Part does not apply in respect of the operation of remotely piloted aircraft systems.

42 (1) The definitions autonomous, command and control link, control station, detect and avoid functions, first-person view device, flight termination system and visual line-of-sight or VLOS in section 900.01 of the Regulations are repealed.

(2) The definitions mandatory action, payload and visual observer in section 900.01 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

mandatory action

means the inspection, repair or modification of a remotely piloted aircraft system that is necessary to prevent an unsafe or potentially unsafe condition. (mesure obligatoire)

payload

means a system, an object or a collection of objects, including a slung load, that is on board or is otherwise connected to a remotely piloted aircraft but that is not required for flight. (charge utile)

visual observer

means a crew member who is trained to assist the pilot in ensuring the safe conduct of a flight. (observateur visuel)

(3) Section 900.01 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

BVLOS operation

means an operation of a remotely piloted aircraft that is not a VLOS operation, but does not include an extended VLOS operation or a sheltered operation. (opération en BVLOS)

contingency procedures

means the procedures to be followed to address conditions that could lead to an unsafe situation. (procédure d’urgence)

contingency volume

means the area immediately surrounding the flight geography within which contingency procedures are intended to be used to return a remotely piloted aircraft to the flight geography or safely terminate the flight. (volume de contingence)

extended VLOS operation

means an operation of a remotely piloted aircraft that is not a VLOS operation but during which unaided visual contact is maintained with the airspace in which the aircraft is operating in a manner sufficient to detect conflicting air traffic and other hazards and take action to avoid them. (opération en VLOS prolongée)

flight geography

means the area within which a remotely piloted aircraft is intended to fly for a specific operation. (géographie de vol)

ground risk buffer

means the area immediately surrounding the contingency volume that, when measured horizontally from the perimeter of the contingency volume, is at least equal to the planned maximum altitude of the remotely piloted aircraft for the flight. (tampon de risque au sol)

medium remotely piloted aircraft

means a remotely piloted aircraft that has an operating weight of more than 25 kg (55 pounds) but not more than 150 kg (331 pounds). (aéronef télépiloté moyen)

operating weight

means the weight of a remotely piloted aircraft at any point during a flight, including any payload and any safety equipment that is on board or otherwise connected to the aircraft. (masse opérationnelle)

operational volume

means the area that is composed of the flight geography, contingency volume and ground risk buffer. (volume opérationnel)

populated area

means an area with more than five people per square kilometre. (zone peuplée)

RPAS ground school instruction

means instructor-led training given to one or more persons, delivered in-person or virtually, and covering an organized program of lectures, homework or self-paced study. (instruction théorique au sol pour les SATP)

RPAS operations manual

means the manual established by an RPAS operator under section 901.217. (manuel d’exploitation de SATP)

RPAS operator

means the holder of an RPAS operator certificate. (exploitant de SATP)

RPAS operator certificate

means a certificate issued under section 901.214. (certificat d’exploitation de SATP)

sheltered operation

means an operation of a remotely piloted aircraft that is not a VLOS operation and during which the aircraft remains at a distance of less than 200 feet (61 m), measured horizontally, from a building or structure and at an altitude no greater than 100 feet (30 m) above that building or structure. (opération protégée)

small remotely piloted aircraft

means a remotely piloted aircraft that has an operating weight of at least 250 g (0.55 pounds) but not more than 25 kg (55 pounds). (petit aéronef télépiloté)

sparsely populated area

means an area with more than 5 but less than 25 people per square kilometre. (zone peu densément peuplée)

Standard 922

means Standard 922 — RPAS Safety Assurance, published by the Department of Transport. (norme 922)

Standard 924

means Standard 924 — RPAS Medical Requirements, published by the Department of Transport. (norme 924)

VLOS

means unaided visual contact maintained with a remotely piloted aircraft in a manner sufficient to maintain control of the aircraft, know its location and scan the airspace in which it is operating in order to detect conflicting air traffic and other hazards and take action to avoid them. (VLOS)

VLOS operation

means an operation of a remotely piloted aircraft in VLOS. (opération en VLOS)

43 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 900.02:

Delayed Application of Certain Provisions

900.02.1 Paragraph 901.26(b), subsections 901.30(2), 901.34(2), (3) and (4) and 901.47(3) and sections 901.74, 901.75, 901.88, 901.89, 901.91 to 901.94, 901.97 and 901.98 do not apply until April 1, 2025.

44 Section 900.02.1 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

45 The heading “Division II — General Prohibition” before section 900.06 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Division II — General Operating and Flight Rules

46 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 900.06:

Inadvertent Entry Into Restricted Airspace

900.07 A person that operates a remotely piloted aircraft shall ensure that the appropriate air traffic control unit, flight service station or user agency is notified immediately any time the aircraft is no longer under the person’s control and inadvertent entry into Class F Special Use Restricted airspace, as specified in the Designated Airspace Handbook, occurs or is likely to occur.

Prohibition — Emergency Security Perimeter

900.08 (1) No person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft over or within the security perimeter established by a public authority in response to an emergency.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft for the purpose of an operation to save human life, a police operation, a firefighting operation or other operation that is conducted in the service of a public authority.

Prohibition — Commercial Air Service

900.09 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft having an operating weight of 250 g (0.55 pounds) or more to provide a commercial air service unless that person is Canadian or an employee, agent, mandatary or representative of an RPAS operator.

(2) A person who does not meet the criteria referred to in subsection (1) may operate a remotely piloted aircraft to provide a specialty air service if

• (a) they are a citizen, permanent resident or corporation of a foreign state with which Canada has entered into a free trade agreement that Canada has implemented and under which the operation is authorized; and
• (b) the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

(3) A person that does not meet the criteria referred to in subsection (1) may operate a remotely piloted aircraft to provide an air transport service if the person holds a licence issued under section 61 of the Canada Transportation Act.

[900.10 to 900.12 reserved]

Division III — Registration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft

Registration

900.13 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system that includes, as an element of the system, a remotely piloted aircraft having an operating weight of 250 g (0.55 pounds) or more unless the remotely piloted aircraft is registered in accordance with this Division.

(2) A person may operate a remotely piloted aircraft system that includes a remotely piloted aircraft that is not registered in accordance with this Division if the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

Registration Number

900.14 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless the registration number referred to in paragraph 900.16(3)(a) is clearly visible on the remotely piloted aircraft.

Qualifications To Be Registered Owner of Remotely Piloted Aircraft

900.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person is qualified to be the registered owner of a remotely piloted aircraft if they are

• (a) a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada;
• (b) a corporation or entity that is incorporated or formed under the laws of Canada or a province; or
• (c) a government in Canada or an agent or mandatary of such a government.

(2) No individual is qualified to be the registered owner of a remotely piloted aircraft unless that individual is at least 14 years of age.

Registration Requirements

900.16 (1) The Minister shall, on receipt of an application, register a remotely piloted aircraft if the applicant is qualified to be the registered owner of the aircraft.

(2) The application shall include the following information:

• (a) if the applicant is an individual,
  • (i) the applicant’s name and address,
  • (ii) the applicant’s date of birth, and
  • (iii) an indication as to whether the applicant is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada;
• (b) if the applicant is a corporation or entity that is incorporated or formed under the laws of Canada or a province,
  • (i) the corporation’s or entity’s legal name and address,
  • (ii) the name and title of the person making the application, and
  • (iii) the business number assigned to the corporation or entity by the Minister of National Revenue, if any;
• (c) if the applicant is His Majesty in right of Canada or a province,
  • (i) the name of the government body, and
  • (ii) the name and title of the person making the application;
• (d) an indication as to whether the aircraft was purchased or built by the applicant;
• (e) the date of purchase of the aircraft by the applicant, if applicable;
• (f) the manufacturer and model of the aircraft, if applicable;
• (g) the serial number of the aircraft, if applicable;
• (h) the category of aircraft, such as a fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, hybrid aircraft or lighter-than-air aircraft; and
• (i) any Canadian registration number previously issued in respect of the aircraft.

(3) On registering a remotely piloted aircraft, the Minister shall issue to the registered owner of the aircraft a certificate of registration that includes

• (a) a registration number;
• (b) the name and address of the registered owner; and
• (c) the serial number of the aircraft, if applicable.

Register of Remotely Piloted Aircraft

900.17 The Minister shall establish and maintain a register of remotely piloted aircraft, in which there shall be entered, in respect of each aircraft for which a certificate of registration has been issued under section 900.16,

• (a) the registered owner’s name and address;
• (b) the registration number referred to in paragraph 900.16(3)(a); and
• (c) such other particulars concerning the aircraft as the Minister determines necessary for the registration of the remotely piloted aircraft.

Cancellation of Certificate of Registration

900.18 (1) A registered owner of a remotely piloted aircraft shall, within seven days after becoming aware that any of the following events has occurred, notify the Minister that

• (a) the aircraft is destroyed;
• (b) the aircraft is permanently withdrawn from use;
• (c) the aircraft is missing and the search for the aircraft is terminated;
• (d) the aircraft has been missing for 60 days or more; or
• (e) the registered owner has transferred legal custody and control of the aircraft.

(2) When an event referred to in subsection (1) has occurred, the certificate of registration in respect of the remotely piloted aircraft is cancelled.

(3) The certificate of registration of a remotely piloted aircraft is cancelled when

• (a) a registered owner of the aircraft dies;
• (b) an entity that is a registered owner of the aircraft is wound up, dissolved or amalgamated with another entity; or
• (c) a registered owner ceases to be qualified to be a registered owner under section 900.15.

(4) For the purposes of this Division, an owner has legal custody and control of a remotely piloted aircraft when the owner has complete responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the remotely piloted aircraft system of which the aircraft is an element.

Change of Name or Address

900.19 The registered owner of a remotely piloted aircraft shall notify the Minister of any change in the name or address of the registered owner by not later than seven days after the change.

Access to Certificate of Registration

900.20 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless the certificate of registration issued in respect of the remotely piloted aircraft is easily accessible to the pilot for the duration of the operation.

47 The heading “Subpart 1 — Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft” before section 901.01 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Subpart 1 — Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft and Medium Remotely Piloted Aircraft

48 Section 901.01 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.01 This Subpart applies in respect of the operation of remotely piloted aircraft systems that include, as an element of the system, a small remotely piloted aircraft or a medium remotely piloted aircraft.

49 Division II of Subpart 1 of Part IX of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Division II — [Reserved]

[901.02 to 901.10 reserved]

50 (1) The heading before section 901.11 of the Regulations and sections 901.11 and 901.12 are replaced by the following:

VLOS

901.11 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless the pilot or a visual observer has the aircraft in VLOS.

(2) A pilot may operate a remotely piloted aircraft system without the pilot or a visual observer having the aircraft in VLOS if the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

[901.12 reserved]

(2) Subsection 901.11(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) A pilot may operate a remotely piloted aircraft system without the pilot or a visual observer having the aircraft in VLOS if the operation is a sheltered operation or an extended VLOS operation conducted under Division V or a BVLOS operation conducted under Division VI, or if the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

51 Sections 901.13 to 901.15 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

901.13 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no pilot operating a remotely piloted aircraft shall cause the aircraft to leave Canadian Domestic Airspace.

(2) A pilot may operate a remotely piloted aircraft outside of Canadian Domestic Airspace if the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

Controlled Airspace

901.14 Subject to subsection 901.71(1), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace.

Inadvertent Entry into Controlled Airspace

901.15 A pilot of a remotely piloted aircraft shall ensure that the appropriate air traffic control unit, flight service station or user agency is notified immediately any time the aircraft is no longer under the pilot’s control and inadvertent entry into controlled airspace occurs or is likely to occur.

52 Section 901.14 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.14 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace except in accordance with

• (a) subsection 901.71(1), in the case of an operation conducted under Division V; and
• (b) a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03, in any other case.

53 Subsection 901.20(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.20 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system if visual observers are used to assist the pilot in detecting and avoiding conflicting air traffic and other hazards unless reliable and timely communication is maintained between the pilot and each visual observer during the operation.

54 Section 901.22 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Carriage of Persons

901.22 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft that carries persons on board except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate – RPAS issued under section 903.03.

55 (1) The portion of subsection 901.23(1) of the French version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

901.23 (1) Il est interdit au pilote d’utiliser un système d’aéronef télépiloté à moins que les procédures ci-après n’aient été établies :

(2) Paragragh 901.23(1)(b) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of subparagraph (v), by adding “and” at the end of subparagraph (vi) and by adding the following after subparagraph (vi):

• (vii) the detection and avoidance of conflicting air traffic and other hazards.

(3) Subsection 901.23(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) If the manufacturer of the remotely piloted aircraft system or the person who has made a declaration referred to in section 901.194 in respect of that model of system provides instructions with respect to the topics referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), the procedures established under subsection (1) shall reflect those instructions.

56 Section 901.24 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.24 A pilot of a remotely piloted aircraft shall, before commencing a flight, be familiar with the information that is relevant to the intended flight, including

• (a) the results of the site survey conducted under section 901.27;
• (b) any declaration referred to in section 901.194 made in respect of the model of remotely piloted aircraft system to be used for the flight; and
• (c) the qualifications of all crew members.

57 Section 901.26 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.26 Unless the operation is conducted under Division V, no pilot shall operate

• (a) a small remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from a person not involved in the operation; or
• (b) a medium remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation at a distance of less than 500 feet (152.4 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from a person not involved in the operation.

58 Section 901.27 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.27 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless, before commencing the operation, they determine that the operational volume is suitable by conducting a site survey that takes into account the following factors:

• (a) the type of airspace and any requirements applicable to the flight geography, including any specified in a NOTAM;
• (b) the altitudes and routes to be used for approach, take-off, launch, landing or recovery;
• (c) the proximity of other aircraft operations;
• (d) the proximity of airports, heliports and other aerodromes;
• (e) the location and height of obstacles, including wires, masts, buildings, cell phone towers and wind turbines;
• (f) the predominant weather and environmental conditions and the weather forecast for the duration of the flight;
• (g) in the case of a VLOS operation, an extended VLOS operation or a sheltered operation, the horizontal distance from any person not involved in the operation; and
• (h) in the case of a BVLOS operation, the distance from any populated area or sparsely populated area.

59 Paragraphs 901.29(b) to (d) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

• (b) the remotely piloted aircraft system has been maintained, and all mandatory actions have been completed, in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer or of the person who has made a declaration referred to in section 901.194 in respect of that model of system and, if applicable, the RPAS operator’s maintenance control manual; and
• (c) all equipment required by these Regulations or the manufacturer’s instructions, including any system element necessary to support the operation of the remotely piloted aircraft system, is installed, if applicable, and serviceable.

60 Section 901.30 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Availability of Manuals

901.30 (1) No pilot shall conduct the take-off or launch of a remotely piloted aircraft unless the operating manuals applicable to the remotely piloted aircraft system of which the aircraft is an element are immediately available to crew members.

(2) No pilot shall conduct the take-off or launch of a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation under Division VI unless the RPAS operator’s RPAS operations manual is immediately available to crew members.

61 Section 901.31 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Instructions and Manuals

901.31 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless it is operated in accordance with the operating manuals applicable the system and, if applicable, the RPAS operator’s maintenance control manual and RPAS operations manual.

62 Section 901.32 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.32 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system that is not designed to allow pilot intervention in the management of a flight.

63 Section 901.34 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.34 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation unless the weather conditions at the time of flight permit

• (a) the operation to be conducted in accordance with any operating manuals applicable to the remotely piloted aircraft system of which the aircraft is an element; and
• (b) the pilot or any visual observer to conduct the entire flight in VLOS.

(2) If the ground visibility is four miles or less, no pilot shall operate a medium remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation at a distance of more than half of the ground visibility unless the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation unless the distance of the aircraft from cloud is not less than 500 feet (152.4 m) vertically and 2,000 feet (609.6 m) horizontally and

• (a) in the case of an operation conducted during the day, ground visibility is not less than two miles; or
• (b) in the case of an operation conducted at night, ground visibility is not less than three miles.

(4) A pilot may operate a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation when the distance from cloud or the ground visibility is less than that set out in subsection (3) if

• (a) a declaration referred to in section 901.194 has been made in respect of the model of remotely piloted aircraft system of which the aircraft is an element and in respect of the technical requirements set out in section 922.10 of Standard 922 and the operating manuals applicable to the system allow for operation in such conditions; or
• (b) the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

64 (1) Section 901.38 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.38 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system using a first-person view device unless a visual observer maintains unaided visual contact with the airspace in which the remotely piloted aircraft is operating in order to detect conflicting air traffic and other hazards and take action to avoid them.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), first-person view device means a device that generates and transmits a streaming video image to a control station display or monitor, giving the pilot of a remotely piloted aircraft the illusion of flying the aircraft from an onboard pilot’s perspective.

(2) Subsection 901.38(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.38 (1) Unless the operation is conducted under Division VI, no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system using a first-person view device unless a visual observer maintains unaided visual contact with the airspace beyond the field of view displayed on the device in order to detect conflicting air traffic and other hazards and take action to avoid them.

65 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 901.38:

Anti-collision Lights

901.38.1 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation unless the aircraft is equipped with anti-collision lights and those lights are turned on.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), anti-collision lights shall

• (a) be white in colour;
• (b) for operations at night, be visible using night-vision goggles;
• (c) flash at a rate of not less than 40, and not more than 100, cycles per minute;
• (d) be visible in all directions within 75 degrees above and below the horizontal plane of the aircraft, with the exception of solid angles of obstructed visibility totalling not more than 0.5 steradians; and
• (e) have an intensity such that they are visible in all directions from a distance of not less than one mile.

(3) Anti-collision lights may be turned off if the pilot determines that, because of operating conditions, doing so would be in the interests of aviation safety.

66 Subsection 901.39(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.39 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system at night unless the remotely piloted aircraft is equipped with lights that are sufficient to allow the aircraft to be visible to the pilot or a visual observer, whether with or without night-vision goggles, and those lights are turned on.

67 Sections 901.40 and 901.41 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

901.40 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no pilot shall operate more than one remotely piloted aircraft at a time unless

• (a) the aircraft are operated to conduct a VLOS operation;
• (b) the aircraft are operated in accordance with the operating manuals applicable to the remotely piloted aircraft system;
• (c) the remotely piloted aircraft system is designed to permit the operation of multiple aircraft from a single control station; and
• (d) no more than five aircraft are operated at a time.

(2) A pilot may operate more than five remotely piloted aircraft at a time if the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

(3) A pilot may operate more than one remotely piloted aircraft at a time to conduct a operation that is not a VLOS operation if the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

Advertised Events

901.41 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system at any advertised event except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system for the purpose of an operation to save human life, a police operation, a fire-fighting operation or any other operation that is conducted in the service of a public authority.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), advertised event means an outdoor event that is advertised to the general public, including a concert, festival, market or sporting event.

68 (1) Paragraph 901.43(1)(a) of the Regulations is repealed.

(2) Paragraph 901.43(1)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (d) is attached to the aircraft by means of a line, unless such an operation is conducted in accordance with the operating manuals applicable to the system.

69 Section 901.44 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.44 No pilot shall activate a system that terminates the flight of a remotely piloted aircraft if it will endanger or will likely endanger aviation safety or the safety of any person.

70 Subsections 901.47(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) Subject to section 901.73, no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation when the aircraft is at a distance of less than

• (a) three nautical miles from the centre of an airport; and
• (b) one nautical mile from the centre of a heliport.

(3) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation when the aircraft is at a distance of less than five nautical miles from the centre of an aerodrome that is listed in the Canada Flight Supplement or the Water Aerodrome Supplement unless the operation is conducted in accordance with a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued under section 903.03.

(4) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft when the aircraft is at a distance of less than three nautical miles from the centre of an aerodrome operated under the authority of the Minister of National Defence unless authorized to do so by the Department of National Defence.

71 The reference “[901.50 to 901.52 reserved]” after section 901.49 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Dropping of Objects

901.50 No pilot shall create a hazard to persons or property on the surface by dropping an object from a remotely piloted aircraft in flight.

Service Difficulty Reporting

901.51 The pilot of a remotely piloted aircraft system of a model for which a declaration referred to in section 901.194 has been made and for which an acceptance letter has been issued under section 901.196 shall ensure that any reportable service difficulty that is discovered with respect to the system is reported to the person who has made the declaration as soon as feasible after the discovery.

[901.52 reserved]

72 Section 901.53 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.53 This Division applies in respect of the VLOS operation of small remotely piloted aircraft in uncontrolled airspace and at a distance of not less than 100 feet (30 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation.

73 (1) Paragraph 901.54(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) holds
  • (i) a pilot certificate — small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) — basic operations issued under section 901.55,
  • (ii) a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations issued under section 901.64, or
  • (iii) a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90.

(2) Subsection 901.54(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the operation of the remotely piloted aircraft system is conducted under the direct supervision of a person who can operate such a system under this Division, Division V or Division VI.

74 Paragraph 901.55(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) has successfully completed the examination, “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems — Basic Operations”, that is based on the standard entitled Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, 250 g up to and including 150 kg, Basic and Advanced Operations, TP 15263, published by the Minister and that covers the subjects set out in section 921.01 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

75 Subsection 901.56(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.56 (1) No holder of a pilot certificate — small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) — basic operations, a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations or a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the holder has, within the 24 months preceding the flight,

• (a) been issued a pilot certificate — small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) — basic operations under section 901.55, a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations under section 901.64 or a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations under section 901.90; or
• (b) successfully completed
  • (i) any of the examinations referred to in paragraph 901.55(b), 901.64(b) or 901.90(e),
  • (ii) any of the flight reviews referred to in paragraph 901.64(c) or 901.90(f), or
  • (iii) any of the recurrent training activities set out in section 921.04 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

76 (1) Paragraph 901.57(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the pilot certificate — small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) — basic operations issued under section 901.55, the pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations issued under section 901.64 or the pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90; and

(2) Paragraph 901.57(b) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• b) un document démontrant que le pilote respecte les exigences relatives à la mise à jour des connaissances prévue à l’article 901.56.

77 Section 901.59 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Retaking of Examination

901.59 No person who fails an examination taken under this Division shall retake the examination for a period of 24 hours after the examination.

78 Section 901.62 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.62 This Division applies in respect of the following operations of a remotely piloted aircraft system:

• (a) the operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation,
  • (i) in controlled airspace,
  • (ii) at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m) but not less than 16.4 feet (5 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation,
  • (iii) at a distance of less than 16.4 feet (5 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from a person not involved in the operation, or
  • (iv) within three nautical miles from the centre of an airport, or within one nautical mile from the centre of a heliport;
• (b) the operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft to conduct an extended VLOS operation in uncontrolled airspace;
• (c) the operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a sheltered operation;
• (d) the operation of a medium remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation, in uncontrolled airspace and at a distance of 500 feet (152.4 m) or more, measured horizontally and at any altitude, from a person not involved in the operation;
• (e) the operation of a medium remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation, in uncontrolled airspace and at a distance of less than 500 feet (152.4 m) but not less than 100 feet (30 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation;
• (f) the operation of a medium remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation; and
• (g) the operation of a medium remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation in controlled airspace.

79 (1) Paragraph 901.63(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (b) holds either
  • (i) a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations issued under section 901.64, or
  • (ii) a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90.

(2) Subsection 901.63(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the operation of the remotely piloted aircraft system is conducted under the direct supervision of a person who can operate such a system under this Division or Division VI.

80 Paragraphs 901.64(b) and (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

• (b) has successfully completed the examination, “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems — Advanced Operations”, that is based on the standard entitled Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, 250 g up to and including 150 kg, Basic and Advanced Operations, TP 15263, published by the Minister and that covers the subjects set out in section 921.02 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft; and
• (c) has, within 12 months before the date of application, successfully completed a flight review in accordance with section 921.02 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft conducted by a person qualified to act as a flight reviewer under subsection 901.175(1).

81 Subsection 901.65(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.65 (1) No holder of a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations or of a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the holder has, within the 24 months preceding the flight,

• (a) been issued a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations under section 901.64 or a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations under section 901.90; or
• (b) successfully completed
  • (i) any of the examinations referred to in paragraph 901.55(b), 901.64(b) or 901.90(e),
  • (ii) any of the flight reviews referred to in paragraph 901.64(c) or 901.90(f), or
  • (iii) any of the recurrent training activities set out in section 921.04 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

82 Paragraph 901.66(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations issued under section 901.64 or the pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90; and

83 Sections 901.68 and 901.69 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

901.68 No person who fails an examination or a flight review taken under this Division shall retake the examination or flight review for a period of 24 hours after the examination or review.

Declaration — Permitted Operations

901.69 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division to conduct any of the following operations unless a declaration to the Minister has been made in accordance with section 901.194 in respect of that model of system and in respect of each of the technical requirements set out in Standard 922 applicable to the operation:

• (a) the VLOS operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace;
• (b) the VLOS operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m) but not less than 16.4 feet (5 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation;
• (c) the VLOS operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft at a distance of less than 16.4 feet (5 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation;
• (d) the operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a sheltered operation in controlled airspace;
• (e) the VLOS operation of a medium remotely piloted aircraft at a distance of 500 feet (152.4 m) or more, measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation;
• (f) the VLOS operation of a medium remotely piloted aircraft at a distance of less than 500 feet (152.4 m) but not less than 100 feet (30 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation;
• (g) the VLOS operation of a medium remotely piloted aircraft at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation; or
• (h) the VLOS operation of a medium remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace.

84 Section 901.70 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.70 (1) No pilot shall conduct any of the operations described in section 901.69 using a remotely piloted aircraft system that has been modified in any way unless

• (a) the pilot is able to demonstrate to the Minister that, despite the modification, the system continues to meet the technical requirements set out in Standard 922 applicable to the operation; and
• (b) if applicable, the modification was performed in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the part or equipment used to modify the system.

(2) No pilot shall conduct an operation described in paragraph 901.69(g) or (h) using a remotely piloted aircraft system that has been modified in any way unless the modification was performed in accordance with the instructions of the person who has made a declaration referred to in 901.194 in respect of that model of system.

85 (1) The portion of subsection 901.71(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

901.71 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace under this Division unless an authorization has been issued by the provider of air traffic services in the area of operation and, if requested, the following information has been provided to that provider:

(2) Paragraphs 901.71(1)(d) to (f) of the Regulations are repealed.

(3) Section 901.71 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace under this Division unless the authorization referred to in subsection (1) is easily accessible to the pilot during the operation.

86 Section 901.73 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

901.73 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division if the aircraft is at a distance of less than three nautical miles from the centre of an airport or less than one nautical mile from the centre of a heliport unless the operation is conducted in accordance with the established procedure with respect to the safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems applicable to that airport or heliport.

87 The reference “[901.74 and 901.75 reserved]” after section 901.73 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Extended VLOS Operations and Sheltered Operations

901.74 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division to conduct an extended VLOS operation or a sheltered operation unless

• (a) the pilot and control station are located at the site set aside for take-off, launch, landing or recovery at the time of those activities;
• (b) the remotely piloted aircraft is at a distance of not more than two nautical miles from the pilot, the control station and the visual observer at any time during the flight; and
• (c) the operation is conducted at a distance of at least 100 feet (30 m), measured horizontally and at any altitude, from any person not involved in the operation.

(2) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division to conduct an extended VLOS operation unless a visual observer maintains unaided visual contact with the airspace in which the remotely piloted aircraft is operating in a manner sufficient to detect conflicting air traffic and other hazards and take action to avoid them.

Visual Observers

901.75 No visual observer shall perform visual observer duties with respect to an extended VLOS operation under this Division unless they

• (a) hold a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations issued under section 901.64 or a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90;
• (b) maintain unaided visual contact with the airspace in which the remotely piloted aircraft is operating in a manner sufficient to detect conflicting air traffic and other hazards and take action to avoid them; and
• (c) remain at a distance of not more than two nautical miles from the remotely piloted aircraft at all times during the flight.

[901.76 to 901.86 reserved]

88 Divisions VI and VII of Subpart 1 of Part IX of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Division VI — Level 1 Complex Operations

Application

901.87 This Division applies in respect of the following operations of a remotely piloted aircraft system:

• (a) the operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft or a medium remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation, in uncontrolled airspace and at a distance of not less than 1 km from a populated area; and
• (b) the operation of a small remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation, in uncontrolled airspace over a sparsely populated area or at a distance of less than 1 km from a populated area.

Requirement for RPAS Operator Certificate

901.88 No person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the person

• (a) is an RPAS operator or an employee, agent, mandatary or representative of an RPAS operator; and
• (b) complies with the conditions in the RPAS operator certificate issued to the RPAS operator.

Pilot Requirements

901.89 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the person

• (a) is at least 18 years of age; and
• (b) holds a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the operation of the remotely piloted aircraft system is for the purposes of training and is conducted under the direct supervision of a person who is 18 years of age or older and who can operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division.

Issuance of Pilot Certificate — Remotely Piloted Aircraft — Level 1 Complex Operations

901.90 The Minister shall, on receipt of an application, issue a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations if the applicant demonstrates to the Minister that the applicant

• (a) is at least 18 years of age;
• (b) meets the medical fitness requirements set out in Standard 924 by
  • (i) having made an RPAS medical declaration in accordance with subsection 901.156(1) that is valid,
  • (ii) holding a valid RPAS medical certificate issued under subsection 901.157(1), or
  • (iii) holding a valid medical certificate issued under section 404.04, other than a Category 4 medical certificate for which a physician signature was not required;
• (c) has successfully completed the examination, “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems — Advanced Operations”, that is based on the standard entitled Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, 250 g up to and including 150 kg, Basic and Advanced Operations, TP 15263, published by the Minister and that covers the subjects set out in section 921.02 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft;
• (d) has completed 20 hours of RPAS ground school instruction delivered by a training provider referred to in section 901.182 and based on the standard entitled Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems — Level 1 Complex Operations, TP 15530, published by the Minister and covering the subjects set out in section 921.07 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft;
• (e) has, after completion of the instruction referred to in paragraph (d), successfully completed the examination, “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems — Level 1 Complex Operations”, that is based on the standard entitled Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems — Level 1 Complex Operations, TP 15530, published by the Minister and that covers the subjects set out in section 921.07 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft; and
• (f) has, within 12 months before the date of application, successfully completed a flight review in accordance with section 921.07 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft conducted by a person qualified to act as a flight reviewer under subsection 901.175(2).

Prohibition — Medical Fitness

901.91 No holder of a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the holder

• (a) has made an RPAS medical declaration in accordance with subsection 901.156(1) and that declaration is valid;
• (b) holds a valid RPAS medical certificate issued under subsection 901.157(1); or
• (c) holds a valid medical certificate issued under section 404.04, other than a Category 4 medical certificate for which a physician signature was not required.

Prohibition — Certain Medical Circumstances

901.92 (1) No holder of a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division if

• (a) one of the following circumstances exists and could impair the holder’s ability to conduct operations under this Division safely:
  • (i) the holder suffers from an illness, injury or disability,
  • (ii) the holder is taking a drug, or
  • (iii) the holder is receiving medical treatment; or
• (b) the holder has been involved in an aircraft accident that is wholly or partially the result of any of the circumstances referred to in paragraph (a) and that results in injuries to any person requiring medical attention.

(2) No holder of a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations who is referred to in paragraph (1)(b) shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless

• (a) the holder has undergone a medical examination referred to in section 901.163; and
• (b) the medical examiner has indicated in a report submitted to the Minister under paragraph 901.162(b) that the holder is medically fit to operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division.

(3) The Minister may, in writing, authorize the holder of a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations to operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division under the circumstances described in paragraph (1)(a) if such authorization is in the public interest and is not likely to affect aviation safety.

Recency Requirements

901.93 No holder of a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the holder has, within the 24 months preceding the flight,

• (a) been issued a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations under section 901.90; or
• (b) successfully completed
  • (i) any of the examinations referred to in paragraph 901.55(b), 901.64(b) or 901.90(e),
  • (ii) any of the flight reviews referred to in paragraph 901.64(c) or 901.90(f), or
  • (iii) any of the recurrent training activities set out in section 921.04 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

Access to Certificate and Proof

901.94 No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the following are easily accessible during the operation of the system:

• (a) the pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90;
• (b) documentation demonstrating that the pilot meets the recency requirements set out in section 901.93; and
• (c) a valid RPAS medical declaration referred to in subsection 901.156(1), a valid RPAS medical certificate issued under subsection 901.157(1) or a valid medical certificate issued under section 404.04, other than a Category 4 medical certificate for which a physician signature was not required.

Examination Rules

901.95 No person shall commit an act referred to in paragraphs 901.58(a) to (c) in respect of an examination taken under this Division.

Retaking of an Examination or Flight Review

901.96 No person who fails an examination or a flight review taken under this Division shall retake the examination or flight review for a period of 24 hours after the examination or review.

Declaration — Permitted Operations

901.97 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless a declaration to the Minister has been made in accordance with section 901.194 in respect of that model of system and in respect of each of the technical requirements set out in Standard 922 applicable to the operation.

(2) Despite subsection (1), a pilot may operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division without a declaration having been made in respect of the technical requirements set out in section 922.10 of Standard 922 if a visual observer maintains unaided visual contact with the airspace in which the remotely piloted aircraft is operating in a manner sufficient to detect conflicting air traffic and other hazards and take action to avoid them and the operation is conducted in accordance with the Standard 923 — Vision-Based DAA.

Operation of a Modified Remotely Piloted Aircraft System

901.98 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division if the system has been modified in any way unless

• (a) the pilot is able to demonstrate to the Minister that, despite the modification, the system continues to meet the technical requirements set out in Standard 922 applicable to the operation; and
• (b) if applicable, the modification was performed in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of the part or equipment used to modify the system.

(2) No pilot shall conduct an operation described in paragraph 901.87(b) using a remotely piloted aircraft system that has been modified in any way unless the modification was performed in accordance with the instructions of the person who has made a declaration referred to in section 901.194 in respect of that model of system.

[901.99 to 901.109 reserved]

Division VII — [Reserved]

[901.110 to 901.132 reserved]

Division VIII — [Reserved]

[901.133 to 901.155 reserved]

Division IX — Medical Requirements

RPAS Medical Declaration

901.156 (1) For the purposes of subparagraph 901.90(b)(i) and paragraph 901.91(a), an RPAS medical declaration shall attest to the fact the applicant or holder meets the medical fitness requirements set out in Standard 924 and shall be endorsed by a physician licensed to practise medicine in Canada.

(2) An RPAS medical declaration is valid starting on the day on which it is endorsed by a physician until the end of 60 months.

(3) The Minister may request that a person who has made an RPAS medical declaration undergo, before a specified date, any medical tests or examinations or provide any additional medical information, as necessary, to determine whether they continue to meet the medical fitness requirements set out in Standard 924 and may suspend the person’s pilot certificate for which the RPAS medical declaration was made if that person fails to comply with the request.

RPAS Medical Certificate — Issuance, Renewal and Validity Period

901.157 (1) Subject to subsection (3) and subsection 901.158(1), the Minister shall, on receipt of an application, issue or renew an RPAS medical certificate if it is established, by means of a medical examination conducted by a physician referred to in section 901.161, that the applicant meets the medical fitness requirements set out in Standard 924.

(2) An RPAS medical certificate is also renewed if it is signed, dated and stamped in accordance with paragraph 901.163(a).

(3) The Minister

• (a) may request an applicant for the issuance or renewal of an RPAS medical certificate to undergo, before a specified date, any medical tests or examinations that are necessary to determine whether the applicant meets the medical fitness requirements set out in Standard 924;
• (b) shall not issue or renew an RPAS medical certificate until the applicant has undergone all of the tests and examinations requested by the Minister under paragraph (a); and
• (c) may suspend, or refuse to issue or renew, the applicant’s RPAS medical certificate if the applicant fails to comply with the request referred to in paragraph (a) before the specified date.

(4) The Minister may

• (a) request the holder of an RPAS medical certificate to undergo, before a specified date, any medical tests or examinations or provide any additional medical information, as necessary to determine whether the holder continues to meet the medical fitness requirements set out in Standard 924; and
• (b) suspend, or refuse to renew, the holder’s RPAS medical certificate if the holder fails to comply with the request referred to in paragraph (a) before the specified date.

(5) An RPAS medical certificate is subject to any restrictions or limitations that have been endorsed on the certificate in accordance with subsection 901.158(2).

(6) An RPAS medical certificate is valid starting on the day on which the medical examination for the issuance or renewal of the certificate is conducted until the earliest of

• (a) the end of a period of 60 months,
• (b) the end of any shorter validity period endorsed on the certificate by the Minister, and
• (c) the day on which a new RPAS medical certificate is issued to the holder.

(7) The end of the validity period of an RPAS medical certificate that is issued or renewed under subsection (1) is calculated from the first day of the month following the day on which the medical examination for the issuance or renewal of the certificate is conducted.

(8) The end of the validity period of an RPAS medical certificate that is renewed in accordance with subsection (2) is calculated from

• (a) the day on which the preceding validity period ends if the medical examination for the renewal of the certificate is conducted within 90 days before the end of that validity period; or
• (b) the first day of the month following the day on which the medical examination for the renewal of the certificate is conducted if the examination is conducted more than 90 days before the end of the preceding validity period.

(9) The Minister shall endorse a shorter validity period on an RPAS medical certificate if

• (a) a physician referred to in section 901.161 recommends the shorter validity period in their medical report; and
• (b) it is warranted by the results of an assessment conducted in accordance with subsection 901.159(1).

(10) Despite subsection (6), the Minister shall extend the validity period of an RPAS medical certificate for a period of not more than 60 days beginning on the day on which the certificate would otherwise expire if

• (a) the application for extension is made while the certificate is still valid; and
• (b) the applicant demonstrates that there has been no reasonable opportunity to undergo a medical examination within the 90 days before the day on which the certificate would otherwise expire.

Medical Standards Flexibility — Limitations and Restrictions

901.158 (1) The Minister may issue an RPAS medical certificate to an applicant who does not meet the requirements referred to in subsection 901.157(1) if it is in the public interest and is not likely to affect aviation safety.

(2) If the Minister issues an RPAS medical certificate under subsection (1), the Minister shall endorse the certificate with any limitation or restriction that is necessary to ensure aviation safety.

(3) The Minister may amend or remove any limitation or restriction referred to in subsection (2) when it is no longer required to ensure aviation safety.

(4) The Minister may suspend or cancel an RPAS medical certificate if the applicant fails to comply with any limitation or restriction referred to in subsection (2).

(5) Before issuing an RPAS medical certificate under subsection (1), the Minister may require an applicant to undergo any practical test in respect of the functions of a pilot under this Division, or any medical examination that is necessary to determine whether the applicant meets the medical fitness requirements set out in Standard 924.

(6) For the purposes of a practical test referred to in subsection (5), the Minister may designate as a testing officer any person qualified to act as a flight reviewer under section 901.175.

Minister’s Assessment — Medical Fitness

901.159 (1) The Minister shall assess any medical reports submitted under paragraph 901.162(b) to determine whether an applicant for the issuance or renewal of an RPAS medical certificate meets the medical fitness requirements set out in Standard 924 that are necessary for the issuance or renewal of the RPAS medical certificate.

(2) The Minister shall, by personal service or registered mail sent to the applicant at their latest known address,

• (a) notify the applicant of the result of an assessment; and
• (b) in the case of an application for the renewal of an RPAS medical certificate, inform the applicant that the Minister will, no earlier than 30 days after the day on which the applicant receives the notification, make a decision based on the result of the assessment.

Reconsideration of Assessment

901.160 (1) An applicant for the renewal of an RPAS medical certificate who is assessed by the Minister as not meeting the requirements referred to in subsection 901.159(1) may, within 30 days after the day on which the applicant receives the notification referred to in subsection 901.159(2),

• (a) request the Minister to reconsider the assessment; and
• (b) submit additional information to the Minister regarding the medical fitness of the applicant in support of the request.

(2) If requested to reconsider an assessment under subsection (1), the Minister shall

• (a) take into consideration any additional information regarding the medical fitness of the applicant; and
• (b) notify the applicant in writing of the result of the reconsideration of the assessment.

Authority to Conduct Medical Examinations

901.161 No physician shall conduct a medical examination of an applicant for the issuance or renewal of an RPAS medical certificate unless the physician conducts the medical examination in the region in which the physician is licensed to practise and

• (a) the physician is a Civil Aviation Medical Examiner appointed by the Minister to conduct medical examinations of applicants for the issuance or renewal of RPAS medical certificates under subsection 901.157(1);
• (b) if the applicant is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces or an air cadet, the physician is a Canadian Armed Forces flight surgeon; or
• (c) if the applicant resides or is examined in a contracting state other than Canada, the physician is authorized by the licensing authority of the contracting state to conduct such examinations.

Responsibilities of Medical Examiner

901.162 When a physician referred to in paragraph 901.161(a) or (b) conducts a medical examination of an applicant for the issuance or renewal of an RPAS medical certificate, the physician shall

• (a) conduct the medical examination in accordance with the procedures set out in the Personnel Licensing and Training Standards respecting Medical Requirements; and
• (b) submit a medical report to the Minister that specifies the results of the medical examination and contains, if warranted by those results, the physician’s recommendation that the RPAS medical certificate be restricted to a validity period that is shorter than the validity period set out in paragraph 901.157(6)(a).

Examination for Renewal of RPAS Medical Certificate or for Permission to Continue to Operate RPAS

901.163 When the holder of an RPAS medical certificate undergoes a medical examination by a physician referred to in paragraph 901.161(a) or (b) for the purpose of renewing their certificate or obtaining permission to continue to operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division, the physician shall

• (a) sign and date the RPAS medical certificate, stamp it with their official stamp indicating that the holder is “fit” and return the certificate to the holder; or
• (b) advise the holder that the holder is “unfit” and return the RPAS medical certificate to the holder.

[901.164 to 901.174 reserved]

Division X — Training and Flight Review

Prohibition — Flight Reviewer

901.175 (1) No person shall perform the duties of a flight reviewer for a flight review referred to in paragraph 901.64(c) unless that person

• (a) holds a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations endorsed with a flight reviewer rating under section 901.176 or a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations endorsed with such a rating; and
• (b) is able to demonstrate that they are affiliated with a training provider that has made a declaration to the Minister in accordance with the requirements of section 921.05 or 921.08 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

(2) No person shall perform the duties of a flight reviewer for a flight review referred to in paragraph 901.90(f) unless that person

• (a) holds a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations endorsed with a flight reviewer rating under section 901.176; and
• (b) is able to demonstrate that they are affiliated with a training provider that has made a declaration to the Minister in accordance with the requirements of section 921.08 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

Flight Reviewer Rating

901.176 The Minister shall, on receipt of an application, endorse the applicant’s pilot certificate with a flight reviewer rating if the applicant demonstrates to the Minister that the applicant

• (a) is at least 18 years of age;
• (b) holds a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations issued under section 901.64 or a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90 and meets the recency requirements set out in section 901.65 or 901.93, respectively;
• (c) has held one of the certificates referred to in paragraph (b) for at least six months immediately before the date of application; and
• (d) has successfully completed the examination, “Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems — Flight Reviewers”, that is based on the standard entitled Knowledge Requirements for Pilots of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, 250 g up to and including 150 kg, Basic and Advanced Operations, TP 15263, published by the Minister and that covers the subjects set out in section 921.03 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

Examination Rules

901.177 No person shall commit an act referred to in paragraphs 901.58(a) to (c) in respect of an examination taken referred to in paragraph 901.176(d).

Retaking of Examination

901.178 No person who fails an examination referred to in paragraph 901.176(d) shall retake the examination for a period of 24 hours after the examination.

Eligibility to Make Declaration

901.179 A training provider is eligible to make a declaration to the Minister in accordance with the requirements of section 921.05 or 921.08 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft if the training provider is Canadian.

Training Provider Requirements — Flight Reviews

901.180 A training provider that has made a declaration to the Minister referred to in paragraph 901.175(1)(b) or (2)(b) shall

• (a) submit to the Minister the name of any person who is affiliated with the provider and who intends to perform the duties of a flight reviewer;
• (b) ensure that the person referred to in paragraph (a) conducts flight reviews in accordance with section 901.181; and
• (c) if the person referred to in paragraph (a) ceases to be affiliated with the provider, notify the Minister of that fact within seven days after the day on which the affiliation ceases.

Conduct of Flight Reviews

901.181 No person shall conduct a flight review referred to in paragraph 901.64(c) or 901.90(f) unless the review is conducted in accordance with section 921.06 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

Training Provider Requirements — RPAS Ground School Instruction

901.182 (1) No training provider shall deliver the RPAS ground school instruction referred to in paragraph 901.90(d) unless the training provider

• (a) has made a declaration to the Minister in accordance with the requirements of section 921.08 of Standard 921 — Remotely Piloted Aircraft; and
• (b) has appointed a chief ground instructor responsible for the delivery of the training provider’s RPAS ground school instruction.

(2) A training provider shall inform the Minister within 30 days after any change in the appointment of a chief ground instructor.

Requirements for Chief Ground Instructor

901.183 No person shall act as chief ground instructor unless the person holds a pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — level 1 complex operations issued under section 901.90 and endorsed with a flight reviewer rating under section 901.176.

Proof of Ground Instruction

901.184 A training provider shall provide written proof of completion to every person who completes the RPAS ground school instruction referred to in paragraph 901.90(d).

[901.185 to 901.193 reserved]

Division XI — RPAS Declaration

Declaration

901.194 (1) A person who makes a declaration to the Minister in respect of a model of remotely piloted aircraft system and in respect of any technical requirement set out in Standard 922 shall do so in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) The declaration shall

• (a) specify the legal name, trade name, if any, address and contact information of the person making the declaration and, in respect of the remotely piloted aircraft system,
  • (i) the name of the model,
  • (ii) the configurable elements that comprise the system,
  • (iii) the operations described in section 901.69 or 901.87 that the model of system is intended to conduct, and
  • (iv) the technical requirements set out in Standard 922 that are the subject of the declaration; and
• (b) indicate that the person making the declaration has verified that the model of system meets the technical requirements specified under subparagraph (a)(iv) and, in the case of a model for which an acceptance letter has been issued under section 901.196, has completed that verification using the means set out in the person’s application for an acceptance letter under subparagraph 901.196(c)(ii).

(3) In the case of a model of remotely piloted aircraft system that is intended to conduct any of the operations described in paragraph 901.69(g) or (h) or 901.87(b), no person shall provide the Minister with a declaration referred to in subsection (1) unless an acceptance letter has been issued in respect of that model of system under section 901.196 in the two years before the making of the declaration.

(4) The declaration is invalid if

• (a) the Minister has determined that the model of remotely piloted aircraft system does not meet the technical requirements specified under subparagraph (2)(a)(iv);
• (b) the person who has made the declaration has provided a notification to the Minister under section 901.195; or
• (c) the person who has made the declaration has failed to submit their annual report in accordance with section 901.199.

(5) In the case referred to in paragraph (4)(b) in respect of a notification referred to in paragraph 901.195(1)(b), the declaration is only invalid with respect to the operations described in paragraphs 901.69(g) and (h) and 901.87(b).

(6) In the case referred to in paragraph (4)(c), the declaration is only invalid with respect to the operations described in paragraphs 901.69(g) and (h) and 901.87(b) and only for the period during which the annual report is outstanding.

(7) A person who has made a declaration shall notify the Minister within 30 days of any change to the names, address or contact information referred to in paragraph (2)(a).

Notice to the Minister

901.195 (1) A person who has made a declaration to the Minister referred to in section 901.194 shall notify the Minister of

• (a) any deficiency related to the model of remotely piloted aircraft system that causes the system to no longer meet the technical requirements specified under subparagraph 901.194(2)(a)(iv); and
• (b) the fact that they are no longer maintaining a service difficulty reporting system, if they are required to establish and maintain such a system under section 901.197.

(2) The person shall notify the Minister, in the case referred to in paragraph (1)(a), as soon as feasible after the deficiency is identified and, in the case referred to in paragraph (1)(b), on the day on which the person ceases to maintain the service difficulty reporting system.

Issuance of Acceptance Letter

901.196 The Minister shall, on receipt of an application containing all of the following, issue an acceptance letter to the applicant in respect of the model of remotely piloted aircraft system that is the subject of the application:

• (a) the applicant’s legal name, trade name, if any, address and contact information;
• (b) a concept of operations that includes
  • (i) a description of the principal design features and specifications of the remotely piloted aircraft system, including a technical description of
    • (A) the remotely piloted aircraft, including the category of aircraft, such as a fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, hybrid aircraft or lighter-than-air aircraft, and
    • (B) all other elements of the system that are required for it to meet the technical requirements identified under subparagraph (c)(i),
  • (ii) an indication of the operations described in section 901.69 or 901.87 that the model of system is intended to conduct,
  • (iii) a description of any operating limitations of the system, including personnel or environmental limitations, that must be adhered to in order for the system to meet the technical requirements identified under subparagraph (c)(i),
  • (iv) any procedures for operating the system, instructions for integrating and testing the elements of the system, instructions related to the servicing and maintenance of the system, and
  • (v) any mandatory actions that must be completed in order for the system to meet the technical requirements referred to in subparagraph (iii);
• (c) a declaration plan that identifies
  • (i) the technical requirements set out in Standard 922 for which the applicant proposes to make a declaration referred to in section 901.194,
  • (ii) the means to be used to demonstrate that the model of remotely piloted aircraft system meets the technical requirements referred to in subparagraph (i), including references to any industry standards that will be followed and any proposed deviations from those standards, and an explanation of how those means will demonstrate that the system meets those technical requirements,
  • (iii) the resources necessary for carrying out the demonstration of conformity referred to in subparagraph (ii), and
  • (iv) the schedule for carrying out the demonstration of conformity referred to in subparagraph (ii);
• (d) copies in French or English, or both, of all standards the applicant intends to follow to demonstrate that the remotely piloted aircraft system meets the technical requirements identified under subparagraph (c)(i);
• (e) documentation that demonstrates that the applicant has, or has access to, the technical capability to
  • (i) conduct the design analyses and tests required to demonstrate that the remotely piloted aircraft system meets the technical requirements identified under subparagraph (c)(i),
  • (ii) manufacture any elements of the remotely piloted aircraft system for which the applicant is the manufacturer, and
  • (iii) support the operation of the remotely piloted aircraft system in service;
• (f) in the case of an applicant who manufactures an element of the remotely piloted aircraft system, a manufacturing plan that includes a description of the applicant’s
  • (i) manufacturing processes, including how the applicant will ensure production consistency,
  • (ii) quality control procedures, including with respect to work performed by a supplier contracted by the applicant, and
  • (iii) configuration management processes for all aspects of production;
• (g) in the case of an applicant who provides a service that is an element of the remotely piloted aircraft system, a commissioning plan that includes a description of the applicant’s
  • (i) procedures and tests for the service’s activation, and
  • (ii) procedures for verifying that the service is functioning as intended; and
• (h) a product support plan that describes how the applicant will support the operation of the remotely piloted aircraft system in service, including
  • (i) a description of the service difficulty reporting system that the applicant will establish under section 901.197,
  • (ii) a description of the modifications can be performed on the system by a person other than the applicant and any instructions with respect to those modifications,
  • (iii) a description of how the system is to be maintained and how the system, or elements of it, can be returned for maintenance, and
  • (iv) a description of how any mandatory actions will be made available to each user of the model of system.

Establishing a Service Difficulty Reporting System

901.197 (1) If a declaration referred to in section 901.194 is made in respect of a model of remotely piloted aircraft system for which an acceptance letter has been issued under section 901.196, the person who has made the declaration shall establish and maintain a service difficulty reporting system for the purpose of receiving, recording, analyzing and investigating reports and information concerning any reportable service difficulty related to that model.

(2) The service difficulty reporting system shall include

• (a) a means for receiving reports and information concerning any reportable service difficulty; and
• (b) instructions regarding what information must be submitted to the person who has made the declaration.

Investigation of Service Difficulty Reports

901.198 If a person receives a service difficulty report in respect of a model of remotely piloted aircraft system for which they have made a declaration referred to in section 901.194 and for which an acceptance letter has been issued under section 901.196, that person shall investigate the service difficulty and, if it results from a deficiency in the model that causes the system to no longer meet the technical requirements specified under subparagraph 901.194(2)(a)(iv), develop a mandatory action to rectify the deficiency.

Annual Report

901.199 (1) A person who has made a declaration referred to in section 901.194 in respect of a model of remotely piloted aircraft system for which an acceptance letter has been issued under section 901.196 shall submit to the Minister an annual report in respect of that model.

(2) The annual report shall include

• (a) the name of the person submitting the report;
• (b) the name of the model of remotely piloted aircraft system;
• (c) the actual, if available, or estimated total number of hours of operation in Canada of systems of that model during the year to which the annual report relates; and
• (d) the number of reportable service difficulty reports received during the year to which the annual report relates, a summary of the reports in respect of which mandatory actions were developed and a description of those mandatory actions.

(3) The annual report shall be submitted to the Minister each year by not later than the anniversary of the day on which the declaration referred to in section 901.194 was made.

Documentation

901.200 A person who has made a declaration referred to in section 901.194 in respect of a model of remotely piloted aircraft system shall make available to each user of that model of system

• (a) a maintenance program that includes
  • (i) instructions related to the servicing and maintenance of the system, and
  • (ii) an inspection program to maintain system readiness;
• (b) any mandatory actions the person develops in respect of the system; and
• (c) an operating manual that includes
  • (i) a description of the system,
  • (ii) the ranges of weights and centres of gravity within which the system may be safely operated under normal and emergency conditions and, if a weight and centre of gravity combination is considered safe only within certain loading limits, those limits and the corresponding weight and centre of gravity combinations,
  • (iii) with respect to each flight phase and mode of operation, the conditions required to maintain a stable command and control link and the minimum and maximum altitudes and velocities within which the aircraft can be operated safely under normal and emergency conditions,
  • (iv) a description of the effects of foreseeable weather conditions and other environmental conditions on the performance of the system,
  • (v) the characteristics of the system that could result in severe injury to crew members during operation,
  • (vi) the design features of the system, and their associated operations, that are intended to protect against injury to persons not involved in the operations,
  • (vii) the warning information provided to the pilot in the event of a degradation in system performance that may result in an unsafe operation condition,
  • (viii) procedures for operating the system in normal and emergency conditions,
  • (ix) assembly, adjustment and modification instructions for the system, and
  • (x) instructions for integrating the elements of the system.

Record-keeping

901.201 (1) A person who has made a declaration referred to in section 901.194 in respect of a model of remotely piloted aircraft system shall keep, and make available to the Minister on request, a record of

• (a) any mandatory actions developed in respect of the system;
• (b) the results of, and the reports related to, the verifications that the person has undertaken to ensure that the model of system meets the technical requirements specified under subparagraph 901.194(2)(a)(iv); and
• (c) the results of any service difficulty investigations that the person has undertaken, if that person must establish and maintain a service difficulty reporting system under section 901.197.

(2) The person shall keep the records referred to in subsection (1) for the later of

• (a) two years after the day on which manufacturing of the model of remotely piloted aircraft system permanently ceases; and
• (b) two years after the day on which the person provides a notification to the Minister under section 901.195.

[901.202 to 901.212 reserved]

Division XII — RPAS Operator Certificate

Eligibility to Hold an RPAS Operator Certificate

901.213 A person is eligible to hold an RPAS operator certificate if

• (a) with respect to a person who proposes to provide a commercial air service, the person is Canadian; or
• (b) in any other case, the person is
  • (i) a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada,
  • (ii) a government in Canada or an agent or mandatary of such a government, or
  • (iii) a corporation or entity that is incorporated or formed under the laws of Canada or a province.

Issuance

901.214 (1) The Minister shall, on receipt of an application containing the information set out in subsection (3), issue an RPAS operator certificate if the applicant demonstrates to the Minister the ability to

• (a) maintain an adequate organizational structure;
• (b) identify, assess and mitigate risks;
• (c) comply with training program requirements;
• (d) comply with maintenance requirements; and
• (e) conduct an operation safely.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an applicant shall have

• (a) an RPAS operations manual that meets the requirements of section 901.217;
• (b) the processes set out in section 901.218; and
• (c) a training program that meets the requirements of section 901.219.

(3) The application shall include the following:

• (a) the applicant’s legal name, trade name, if any, address and contact information;
• (b) the name of the accountable executive;
• (c) a declaration stating that the applicant has the RPAS operations manual, processes and training program referred to in subsection (2); and
• (d) an indication of the type of operations the applicant intends to conduct and whether they intend to provide a commercial air service.

Contents of RPAS Operator Certificate

901.215 An RPAS operator certificate shall contain the following information:

• (a) the legal name, trade name, if any, address and contact information of the RPAS operator;
• (b) the number of the certificate;
• (c) the date of issue of the certificate; and
• (d) the general conditions set out in section 901.216.

General Conditions of RPAS Operator Certificate

901.216 An RPAS operator certificate shall contain the following general conditions:

• (a) the RPAS operator shall maintain an adequate organizational structure;
• (b) the RPAS operator shall conduct training in accordance with section 901.219;
• (c) the RPAS operator shall maintain remotely piloted aircraft systems that are properly equipped for the type of operation to be conducted; and
• (d) the RPAS operator shall conduct maintenance of remotely piloted aircraft systems in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

RPAS Operations Manual

901.217 (1) Every RPAS operator shall establish and maintain an RPAS operations manual that consists of the following information:

• (a) a description of the roles and responsibilities of crew members before, during and after a flight;
• (b) a description of the roles and responsibilities of all operational and maintenance personnel, and the hierarchy and chain of command within management;
• (c) the processes established under section 901.218;
• (d) the procedures established under section 901.23; and
• (e) a description of personnel training and qualifications, including a detailed syllabus of the RPAS operator’s training program established under section 901.219.

(2) If there is a change in any aspect of an RPAS operator’s operations or the RPAS operations manual no longer meets the requirements of subsection (1), the RPAS operator shall amend its operations manual.

(3) An RPAS operator shall provide a copy of its RPAS operations manual and a copy of every amendment to that manual to every person who is involved in the RPAS operator’s operations.

(4) An RPAS operator shall provide a copy of its RPAS operations manual to the Minister on request.

Processes

901.218 (1) An RPAS operator shall establish and maintain processes for

• (a) setting goals for the improvement of aviation safety, measuring the attainment of those goals and addressing instances when those goals are not met;
• (b) identifying and documenting hazards to aviation safety and evaluating, managing and documenting the associated risks;
• (c) evaluating the effectiveness of measures taken to mitigate or remove the hazards and associated risks;
• (d) internally reporting and analyzing hazards, incidents and accidents and taking corrective actions to prevent their recurrence; and
• (e) ensuring that maintenance is conducted in accordance with the RPAS operator’s maintenance control manual.

(2) The processes required under subsection (1) shall be under the control of the accountable executive appointed by the RPAS operator under paragraph 106.02(1)(a).

Training Program

901.219 (1) Every RPAS operator shall establish and maintain a training program that is designed to ensure that each person who receives training acquires the competence to perform their assigned duties.

(2) An RPAS operator’s training program shall include

• (a) indoctrination training;
• (b) initial and annual training, including training in respect of
  • (i) the models of remotely piloted aircraft operated by the RPAS operator,
  • (ii) remotely piloted aircraft servicing and ground handling, and
  • (iii) training in respect of the procedures set out in the RPAS operations manual; and
• (c) a process for assessing the competency of each person who receives training and for evaluating the effectiveness of the training program.

(3) An RPAS operator shall ensure that any training provided to meet the requirements of this section is based on the content of the RPAS operator’s training program.

(4) No RPAS operator shall permit a person to act, and no person shall act, as an instructor unless

• (a) the person has demonstrated to the RPAS operator knowledge of the content of the operator’s RPAS operations manual; and
• (b) in the case of a flight training instructor, the person holds the pilot certificate required by this Part in respect of the operations to be conducted.

(5) No RPAS operator shall permit a person to act, and no person shall act, as an instructor unless the person has received, before the day on which the person begins to act as an instructor, training that includes the following elements:

• (a) the teaching and learning processes;
• (b) instructional techniques; and
• (c) the student-instructor relationship.

Person Responsible for RPAS Maintenance

901.220 (1) An RPAS operator shall appoint a person responsible for RPAS maintenance.

(2) The person responsible for RPAS maintenance shall

• (a) plan and oversee the maintenance of the RPAS operator’s remotely piloted aircraft systems, including the coordination of maintenance arrangements with third-party maintenance providers; and
• (b) ensure that maintenance is carried out in accordance with the RPAS operator’s maintenance control manual.

Maintenance Control Manual (MCM)

901.221 (1) An RPAS operator shall establish and maintain a maintenance control manual that includes

• (a) the name of every person authorized by the RPAS operator to perform maintenance actions;
• (b) any records referred to in paragraph 901.223(1)(e); and
• (c) procedures for servicing, maintenance and pre-flight and post-flight inspections of the RPAS operator’s remotely piloted aircraft systems that are consistent with any instructions from the manufacturer.

(2) The RPAS operator shall ensure that the maintenance control manual is made available to the Minister on request.

Designation of Pilot-in-Command

901.222 An RPAS operator shall designate a pilot-in-command for each operation conducted under Division VI.

Records

901.223 (1) Every RPAS operator shall keep the following records:

• (a) a record containing the names of the pilots, designated pilots-in-command and other crew members who are involved in each flight and, in respect of a remotely piloted aircraft system, the time of each flight or series of flights;
• (b) a record containing the names of all employees, agents, mandataries and representatives of the operator;
• (c) a record containing the names of every person who has received training provided by the operator and the nature of that training;
• (d) a record containing the registration numbers of all remotely piloted aircraft it operates; and
• (e) a record containing the particulars of any mandatory action and any other maintenance action, modification or repair performed on a remotely piloted aircraft system, including
  • (i) the names of the persons who performed them,
  • (ii) the dates on which they were undertaken,
  • (iii) in the case of a modification, the manufacturer, model and a description of the part or equipment installed to modify the system, and
  • (iv) if applicable, any instructions provided to complete the work.

(2) Every RPAS operator shall ensure that the records referred to in subsection (1) are made available to the Minister on request and are retained for a period of

• (a) in the case of the records referred to in paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c), 12 months after the day on which they are created; and
• (b) in the case of the records referred to in paragraphs (1)(d) and (e), 24 months after the day on which they are created.

89 (1) Section 903.01 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

903.01 No person shall conduct any of the following operations using a remotely piloted aircraft system unless the person complies with the provisions of a special flight operations certificate — RPAS issued by the Minister under section 903.03:

• (a) the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft having an operating weight of more than 25 kg (55 pounds); and
• (b) any other operation of a system that includes, as an element of the system, a remotely piloted aircraft having an operating weight of 250 g (0.55 pounds) or more for which the Minister determines that a special flight operations certificate — RPAS is necessary to ensure aviation safety or the safety of any person.

(2) Paragraph 903.01(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft having an operating weight of more than 150 kg (331 pounds);

90 The portion of section 903.02 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

903.02 An application for a special flight operations certificate — RPAS shall be submitted to the Minister and include the following information:

91 Sections 903.02 and 903.03 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

903.02 (1) For the purposes of an application for a special flight operations certificate — RPAS, the following operations are low-complexity operations:

• (a) the operation, other than for the purpose of providing a commercial air service, of a remotely piloted aircraft system that includes a remotely piloted aircraft that is not registered in accordance with Division III; and
• (b) the operation of a system at an advertised event.

(2) For the purposes of an application for a special flight operations certificate — RPAS, the following operations are high-complexity operations:

• (a) the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft having an operating weight of more than 150 kg (331 pounds);
• (b) the operation by a person described in subsection 900.09(2) of a remotely piloted aircraft system for the purposes of providing a commercial air service;
• (c) the operation, for the purpose of providing a commercial air service, of a remotely piloted aircraft system that includes a remotely piloted aircraft that is not registered in accordance with Division III;
• (d) the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system without the pilot or a visual observer having the aircraft in VLOS if the operation is not a sheltered operation or an extended VLOS operation conducted under Division V or a BVLOS operation conducted under Division VI;
• (e) the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft at an altitude greater than one of the altitudes referred to in subsection 901.25(1), unless the operation at a greater altitude is authorized under subsection 901.71(2);
• (f) the operation of more than five remotely piloted aircraft at a time to conduct a VLOS operation, or operation of more than one remotely piloted aircraft at a time to conduct an operation that is not a VLOS operation, from a single control station;
• (g) the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft to transport any of the payloads referred to in subsection 901.43(1);
• (h) the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation within five nautical miles of an aerodrome that is listed in the Canada Flight Supplement or the Water Aerodrome Supplement;
• (i) the operation, in conditions inferior to the weather conditions set out in section 901.34, of a remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a BVLOS operation or of a medium remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a VLOS operation;
• (j) the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft that carries persons on board;
• (k) the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft outside of Canadian Domestic Airspace; and
• (l) any other operation of a system for which the Minister determines that a special flight operations certificate — RPAS is necessary to ensure aviation safety or the safety of any person.

(3) A person who proposes to operate a remotely piloted aircraft system to conduct any low-complexity operation set out in subsection (1) shall apply to the Minister for a special flight operations certificate — RPAS by submitting the following information:

• (a) the legal name, trade name, if any, address and contact information of the applicant;
• (b) the means by which the person responsible for the operation can be contacted;
• (c) the operation set out in subsection (1) for which the application is made;
• (d) the manufacturer and model of the system and the registration number, if any, referred to in paragraph 900.16(3)(a);
• (e) the pilot certificate number issued to any crew member; and
• (f) any other information requested by the Minister pertinent to the safe conduct of the operation.

(4) A person who proposes to operate a remotely piloted aircraft system to conduct any high-complexity operation set out in subsection (2) shall apply to the Minister for a special flight operations certificate — RPAS by submitting the following information:

• (a) the legal name, trade name, if any, address and contact information of the applicant;
• (b) the means by which the person responsible for the operation can be contacted;
• (c) the operation set out in subsection (2) for which the application is made;
• (d) the manufacturer and model of the system and the registration number, if any, referred to in paragraph 900.16(3)(a), as well as a complete description of the remotely piloted aircraft that is an element of the system, including its performance, operating limitations and equipment;
• (e) a detailed plan describing how the operation is to be carried out;
• (f) a risk assessment for the operation that accounts for both ground and air risks;
• (g) the pilot certificate number issued to any crew member or a description of the means by which the applicant will ensure that all crew members hold the necessary certificates and qualifications;
• (h) the standard procedures for crew members in the case of an operation requiring more than one crew member;
• (i) the instructions for maintaining the system in a state that is fit and safe for flight;
• (j) the type, manufacturer, model and operating limitations of the detect and avoid system to be used, if any, and the procedures respecting the detection and avoidance of conflicting air traffic and other hazards; and
• (k) any other information requested by the Minister pertinent to the safe conduct of the operation.

Application to Amend a Special Flight Operations Certificate — RPAS

903.02.1 (1) The holder of a special flight operations certificate — RPAS may apply to the Minister to amend the certificate to change

• (a) the dates and alternate dates of the operation;
• (b) the location of the operation;
• (c) its validity period;
• (d) the pilot certificate number issued to a crew member;
• (e) the type, manufacturer, model and operating limitations of the detect and avoid system to be used and the procedures respecting the detection and avoidance of conflicting air traffic and other hazards; and
• (f) in the case of a certificate in respect of an operation set out in subsection 903.02(1), the manufacturer and model of the remotely piloted aircraft system and the registration number referred to in paragraph 900.16(3)(a).

(2) An application to amend a special flight operations certificate — RPAS shall include the following information:

• (a) the number of the certificate;
• (b) the validity period of the certificate; and
• (c) the change that is the subject of the application.

Issuance or Amendment of Special Flight Operations Certificate — RPAS

903.03 The Minister shall, on receipt of an application submitted in accordance with section 903.02 or 903.02.1, issue or amend a special flight operations certificate — RPAS if the applicant demonstrates to the Minister the ability to perform the proposed operation without adversely affecting aviation safety or the safety of any person.

Contents of Special Flight Operations Certificate — RPAS

903.04 A special flight operations certificate — RPAS shall contain the following information:

• (a) the name and address of the certificate holder;
• (b) the number of the certificate;
• (c) the date of issue of the certificate;
• (d) the validity period of the certificate;
• (e) the type of operation authorized; and
• (f) any condition pertaining to the operation that the Minister considers necessary for aviation safety or the safety of any person.

92 The Regulations are amended by replacing “pilot certificate — small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) — advanced operations” with “pilot certificate — remotely piloted aircraft — advanced operations” in the following provisions:

• (a) item 26 in Schedule IV to Subpart 4 of Part I in column I;
• (b) items 28 and 29 in Schedule IV to Subpart 4 of Part I in column I;
• (c) the heading before section 901.64; and
• (d) the portion of section 901.64 before paragraph (a).

Transitional Provisions

93 (1) The issuance of a special flight operations certificate — RPAS the application for which is submitted before the day on which section 31 of these Regulations comes into force is subject to the charges that were in force on the day on which the application was submitted.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the application is considered to be submitted on the day on which it is delivered or, if it is sent by mail, the day on which it is mailed, with the date of the postmark being evidence of that day.

Coming into Force

94 (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(2) Sections 11, 22 and 23, subsection 30(2), sections 31 and 44, subsection 50(2), sections 52, 54, 58 and 61, subsection 64(2), section 65, subsections 68(1) and 89(2) and section 91 come into force on April 1, 2025.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

• contain personal information
• contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
• express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
• contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
• contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
• constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
• encourage or incite any criminal activity
• contain external links
• contain a language other than English or French
• otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that public email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.