Aviation in Ontario

[TwinHuey]

For those curious, here is the latest NOTAM issued for the Rogers Centre:

(G3913/25 NOTAMN
A) CZYZ B) 2510122300 C) 2510132300
D) OCT 12 2300-0300, OCT 13 1900-2300
E) PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.1 OF THE AERONAUTICS ACT, THE AIRSPACE
WITHIN RADIUS 0.3NM CENTRE 433829N 792321W (ROGERS CENTRE,
CENTRE APRX 0.6NM NE TORONTO / BILLY BISHOP TORONTO CITY
AIRPORT (WATER) (CPZ9), APRX 0.8NM NNE TORONTO / BILLY BISHOP
TORONTO CITY AIRPORT AD (CYTZ)) EXC THE AREA SOUTH OF THE
GARDINER EXPRESSWAY IS RESTRICTED DRG POLICE OPS. NO PERSON
SHALL OPR A REMOTELY PILOTED ACFT (RPAS, DRONE) WITHIN THE AREA
DESCRIBED EXC FOR POLICE OPS UNLESS PRIOR AUTH HAS BEEN RECEIVED
BY TPS COORD 416-671-2159
F) SFC G) 1000FT AGL)

For anyone not used to reading NOTAMs, here’s what the restriction around the Rogers Centre actually means in plain language:

Transport Canada has temporarily restricted the airspace around the Rogers Centre during police operations. The restricted zone is a 0.3 nautical mile radius (about 550 metres) around the stadium, from ground level up to 1,000 feet.

The restriction is in effect during these time windows:

• Oct 12, 7:00 PM–11:00 PM (EDT)
• Oct 13, 3:00 PM–7:00 PM (EDT)

During those times, no drones are allowed to fly in that zone unless you’re police or have prior authorization.

Anyone flying within that bubble during the restriction would be in violation.

NOTAM issued by NAV CANADA under the authority of Transport Canada.

 

[lenaitch]

Good points, and you're absolutely right that most front-line officers aren’t deep into the CARs — it’s a niche world even for people in aviation. That’s why I don’t think TPS acted on their own in the Rogers Centre situation.

Transport Canada has Regional Aviation Enforcement Offices, and the Inspectors there live and breathe this stuff. They know the regs inside out and they’re the ones who normally drive these files.

My guess is TC Enforcement was involved behind the scenes and worked with TPS to investigate and lay the charges. Sort of a “they load the gun, TPS pulls the trigger” arrangement.

It wouldn’t surprise me if TC wanted to set an example early under the new advertised-event rule, especially with a high-profile venue like the Rogers Centre during playoffs.

Could be. It's an area that is way out of my 'ken'. As mentioned, I have no clue regarding the enforcement authority of TC staff (demand identification/documents, arrest, obtain warrants, swear informations, etc. - all the stuff you need to be able to do to charge someone). The way the courts operates now, you have to be 'known' to the system and it would be unlikely that the TC agents would be unless they do a lot of court-directed activity rather than purely regulatory work. It may well be the TPS cops (who would be 'in the system') are using the TC agents as their expert witness. Cool gig for the TC folks - you get to watch a game while looking for drones.

I checked the federal Contraventions Act (basically, the authority to write a federal 'ticket') and the only Aeronautics Act offences that are identified there are for shining lasers.

 

[TwinHuey]

Could be. It's an area that is way out of my 'ken'. As mentioned, I have no clue regarding the enforcement authority of TC staff (demand identification/documents, arrest, obtain warrants, swear informations, etc. - all the stuff you need to be able to do to charge someone). The way the courts operates now, you have to be 'known' to the system and it would be unlikely that the TC agents would be unless they do a lot of court-directed activity rather than purely regulatory work. It may well be the TPS cops (who would be 'in the system') are using the TC agents as their expert witness. Cool gig for the TC folks - you get to watch a game while looking for drones.

I checked the federal Contraventions Act (basically, the authority to write a federal 'ticket') and the only Aeronautics Act offences that are identified there are for shining lasers.

When I was flying, it was the RCMP who handled this kind of thing with Transport Canada.

I was told they were federally sworn, so they had the authority to enforce the Air Regs directly.

Not that I had any… ahem… extensive dealings with RCMP and aviation regulations myself….

 

[lenaitch]

When I was flying, it was the RCMP who handled this kind of thing with Transport Canada.

I was told they were federally sworn, so they had the authority to enforce the Air Regs directly.

Not that I had any… ahem… extensive dealings with RCMP and aviation regulations myself….

I recall that as well. Back in the day, there were still small RCMP detachments scattered throughout Ontario and one member told us that any peace officer could demand five documents from a pilot:
- Certificate of Registration
- Certificate of Airworthiness
- Pilot Licence
- Radio Licence
- (forget the last one - pax manifest maybe?).

We used to 'pay attention' to some bush operators who were known to bootleg booze into remote FNTs and we would sometimes demand these documents as a way to both take a quick look in the aircraft and as a way to telegraph that we are watching. We really had no clue about these documents.

 

[TwinHuey]

Thanks @Tim MacDonald for making me aware.

"Eight charges were laid against seven individuals operating drones, including micro-drones (under 249 grams) under Part IX of the Canadian Aviation Regulations and issued fines for violating the federally designated no-fly zone, as well as other legislation directly related to drone operations at advertised events."

https://www.tps.ca/media-centre/news-releases/64325/#:~:text=Eight%20charges%20were%20laid%20against,drone%20operations%20at%20advertised%20events.

7 people charged after police intercept 7 drones flying over Rogers Centre during ALCS games

Seven people have been charged after allegedly flying drones over the Rogers Centre during the first two games of the American League Championship Series (ALCS).

www.cp24.com

 

[TwinHuey]

Important information for drone pilots:

In December 2024, NAV CANADA quietly introduced a new category called RPAS Restricted Airspace Zone.

These are permanent, drone-specific no-fly zones created around sensitive sites like nuclear power plants, correctional facilities, and military bases.

They don’t appear in the CARs, and they aren’t temporary — so no NOTAMs.

NAV CANADA is responsible for defining and publishing these zones for "safety and security" reasons.

The only place you'll actually find them listed is in NAV CANADA's Designated Airspace Handbook (excerpt below)

The NAV Drone website / app displays all RPAS Restricted Airspace Zones and NOTAMs.

The only thing it won’t show are advertised public events / open air assemblies.

https://www.navcanada.ca/en/flight-planning/drone-flight-planning.aspx

 

[lenaitch]

Important information for drone pilots:

In December 2024, NAV CANADA quietly introduced a new category called RPAS Restricted Airspace Zone.

These are permanent, drone-specific no-fly zones created around sensitive sites like nuclear power plants, correctional facilities, and military bases.

They don’t appear in the CARs, and they aren’t temporary — so no NOTAMs.

NAV CANADA is responsible for defining and publishing these zones for "safety and security" reasons.

The only place you'll actually find them listed is in NAV CANADA's Designated Airspace Handbook (excerpt below)

View attachment 690933
View attachment 690934

The NAV Drone website / app displays all RPAS Restricted Airspace Zones and NOTAMs.

The only thing it won’t show are advertised public events / open air assemblies.

https://www.navcanada.ca/en/flight-planning/drone-flight-planning.aspx

It's an odd collection of site. Only two RCN bases (no RCAF base with flight operations) and includes the Quebec 'National' Assembly.

 

[TwinHuey]

It's an odd collection of site. Only two RCN bases (no RCAF base with flight operations) and includes the Quebec 'National' Assembly.

I think they’re just getting started with this.

Give it a bit of time and we’ll probably see a lot more sites designated as RPAS Restricted Airspace Zones — wouldn’t surprise me if Queen’s Park ends up on the list next .

Just like how TPS is now actively enforcing NOTAMs, this whole drone framework is still fairly new - it hasn't even been a year yet - and it'll likely keep expanding as awareness (and enforcement) grows.

 

[TwinHuey]

I’ve been a bit confused by the NAV CANADA NAV Drone website.

It started with the NOTAM issued last month restricting airspace within a 0.5 nautical-mile radius of David Pecaut Square.

On the NAV Drone site, the restricted area appeared as a red circle—but their circle had a 1.0 nautical-mile radius, twice as large as stated in the NOTAM.

To clarify, I overlaid a green circle showing the true limit of the restricted airspace, as described by the NOTAM.

I wanted to fly my micro drone outside the restricted airspace (green circle) but still within NAV Drone’s larger red circle.

That raised the question: Is that legal?

Taken from the NAV Drone website:

• If you are operating within the Area of Influence of an active NOTAM, ensure you comply with the scheduled times and contact the controlling agency if necessary to ensure you are authorized to operate in that area.

That wording made things even more confusing—it sounds like flying within the Area of Influence requires authorization, even if it’s outside the actual restricted zone.

To clarify, I emailed NAV CANADA directly and asked whether a flight in the green area—outside the restricted radius but inside the displayed Area of Influence—would be allowed without authorization.
(Apologies to Pac-Man for the visual.)

.

To their credit, NAV Drone Support replied within a couple of days:

Yes, you may operate within the Area of Influence of a NOTAM if you don’t fly in the area restricted by that NOTAM.

 

[hawc]

So then what's the significance of the area of influence vs an area of non-influence?

 

[lenaitch]

I’ve been a bit confused by the NAV CANADA NAV Drone website.

It started with the NOTAM issued last month restricting airspace within a 0.5 nautical-mile radius of David Pecaut Square.

On the NAV Drone site, the restricted area appeared as a red circle—but their circle had a 1.0 nautical-mile radius, twice as large as stated in the NOTAM.

To clarify, I overlaid a green circle showing the true limit of the restricted airspace, as described by the NOTAM.

View attachment 694586

I wanted to fly my micro drone outside the restricted airspace (green circle) but still within NAV Drone’s larger red circle.

That raised the question: Is that legal?

Taken from the NAV Drone website:

• If you are operating within the Area of Influence of an active NOTAM, ensure you comply with the scheduled times and contact the controlling agency if necessary to ensure you are authorized to operate in that area.

View attachment 694588

That wording made things even more confusing—it sounds like flying within the Area of Influence requires authorization, even if it’s outside the actual restricted zone.

To clarify, I emailed NAV CANADA directly and asked whether a flight in the green area—outside the restricted radius but inside the displayed Area of Influence—would be allowed without authorization.
(Apologies to Pac-Man for the visual.)



View attachment 694591.

To their credit, NAV Drone Support replied within a couple of days:

Yes, you may operate within the Area of Influence of a NOTAM if you don’t fly in the area restricted by that NOTAM.

Well that's as clear as mud. To me, the authority lies in the NOTAM text, not a website image they created. How do they define an "area of influence", and is that published?

 

[Tim MacDonald]

I wonder how long N252UP will be stuck at Vista cargo? It has been there since November 7th when the AD grounded the Md11 type. I don't quite understand the grounding of the DC10s in addition to the MD11s. The DC10 are much higher time air frames, albeit with lighter engines than the MD11. You would think fatigue cracking would have manifest in some of the higher time DC10 airframes first, particularly the ones that Fedex converted to freight.

From Flightradar24:
20 November 2025 — The NTSB released its preliminary report on the crash, including details of the sequence of events and preliminary metallurgical findings from the engine pylon assembly. Preliminary examination of the engine pylon found fatigue cracking in multiple locations.
Image via NTSB preliminary report

“... examination of the left pylon aft mount lug fractures found evidence of fatigue cracks in addition to areas of overstress failure. On the aft lug, on both the inboard and outboard fracture surfaces, a fatigue crack was observed where the aft lug bore met the aft lug forward face. For the forward lug's inboard fracture surface, fatigue cracks were observed along the lug bore. For the forward lug's outboard fracture surface, the fracture consisted entirely of overstress with no indications of fatigue cracking.”
NTSB preliminary report

Annotated image via NTSB preliminary report

 

[PL1]

I wonder how long N252UP will be stuck at Vista cargo? It has been there since November 7th when the AD grounded the Md11 type. I don't quite understand the grounding of the DC10s in addition to the MD11s. The DC10 are much higher time air frames, albeit with lighter engines than the MD11. You would think fatigue cracking would have manifest in some of the higher time DC10 airframes first, particularly the ones that Fedex converted to freight.

My understanding is the similarities between this accident and the 1979 DC10 loss (see @TwinHuey 's post immediately below) that also occurred after engine separation after pylon failure due to fatigue. And the MD11 and DC10 pylon design is similar. Hopefully just an abundance of caution.

 

[TwinHuey]

Geez Tim, those photos are shocking!

Reminded me of American Airlines Flight 191, Chicago, May 1979.

https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/N110AA

 

[Tim MacDonald]

Those guys on the MD11 never stood a chance with it detaching right at V-R.

AA191 was such a terrible crash. A little more than a decade later when I started working on the AA DC10s at YYZ, I'd look at those massive engines and think how horrifying it was the for the passengers and witnesses. After seeing those photos today of the MD11 it is just truly horrifying. Thank God it didn't happen when that type was in passenger service.