A friend of my mom's has a lodge.
They have purchased a spanking newly redone Turbo Beaver to fly guests in/out.
The friend's son wants to be the pilot.
He has never flown a plane before.
He has one eye.

I'm not really up on the regs on this side of things...

Before she even said he had one eye, I said there would be no way I would send my newly done $million+ Turbo Beaver out with a new pilot to learn on, and I suspect the insurance companies would think the same...

Then she said he had one eye and I grimaced... really not a good idea, if not impossible, me thinks...

I have known a couple monocular pilots over the years, 1 fixed wing airline, 1 heavy rotary (atpl-h)... both cases they lost their eye well established in their careers, fly 2 crew machines, and still had to jump through a lot of hoops for Transport to clear them to go... in fact so many hoops it's more like Transport never thought they would clear them...

So here are the questions:

Can you fly commercial single pilot with one eye?

Obviously you can hold a Cat1 medical, but what type of restrictions do they put on it?

To fly for your own lodge do you even need a CPL?

Any other comments or experience to pass along are appreciated.

See CAR 424.05 (5)(b)
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 24-172.htm

As for needing a CPL, that depends what they want to do with the Beaver. My guess is that they will want to put guests into the Beaver at some point at which they will need a 703 AOC, and obviously the pilot will need a CPL. If they never want to fly any guest, no AOC will be needed and someone with a PPL could fly it. Bad idea though.

Thanks Bede,

I'll pass that on.

I think their idea is to fly guests.

Honestly it seems this is more an idea hatched and money dropped without much thought, since they don't seem to know who will fly this machine or what the rules are for operating it at their lodge.

There is a reason most lodges charter separate 703 companies to fly their guests as opposed to having their own aircraft.

I know one private pilot who flew legal for many years with one eye. Do not know about commercial. As I under stand ; a lodge may fly its own guests in its own plane . I believe the lodge just needs an approval to do so. Not too different than a farmer being able to fly his plane on his own crops and others within a 25 mile radius. Not considered commercial.

That’s not correct. They absolutely cannot fly guests around without an AOC.

See https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/1 ... 12356.html
paras. 26-29 if you don’t want to read the whole thing.

The farmer dusting crops for a neighbour is a specific exemption in the CARs. Even so, a farmer was successfully prosecuted for doing just that, because his plane was held under a company registration rather than in his name as an individual. TC applies the rules extremely narrowly.

This is a tough one to comprehend. A business spent upwards of $1.5 million+ on a Turbo Beaver for their one-eyed son, who has no piloting experience at all and didn't bother to find out what the regs are? This seems a bit fishy.

photofly wrote:That’s not correct. They absolutely cannot fly guests around without an AOC.

See https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/1 ... 12356.html
paras. 26-29 if you don’t want to read the whole thing.

I flew in an area with several private aircraft that flew clients around. Well known that they did it, supposedly TC did not care because it was a 'grey area' (not so grey with the above not in favour of it), and it sounded like there were never any violations because of it.

At the same time, receiving a hug from a happy child after taking them for a flight would seem to fall under the definition of 'hire and reward' (receiving the benefit of a hug). Shit, I cannot take my kid flying anymore.

As far as the second part regarding publicly available flights. If clients are a subset of the public, would something as simple as a phone interview prior to allowing them to book a trip make it not publicly available? If not, one could argue that essentially any non-family passengers are a subset of the general public, thus there would be a whole lot of violations by private pilots/commercial pilots in private aircraft who are violating the National Transportation Act.

All those points are addressed in the court's judgement, very clearly.

The basic point I think was that Parliament had decided that people paying money for any service (like staying in a lodge) deserve the protections afforded by the requirement for the operator to hold an OC for any air transport associated with that service. That being the purpose of the legislation, it should be interpreted and could be enforced by the Government to ensure those ends.

There are also discussion and precedents there for the principle that a service doesn't have to be open to each and every single member of the public still to be a public service.

But sure - until the letter from Transport Canada's enforcement division arrives, they can do whatever they want. And that letter may come - never.

Fishy indeed...

Some people have more money than I can imagine to jump into things without much of a plan...

I will pass on the AOC requirements. It sounds like they had never thought about that.

I'm still interested to hear about the monocular CPL requirements is anyone has any info.

Thanks for the comments so far.

Bede posted for you the link with information about monocular pilots.

Here’s the section relevant to your question:

(b) Monocular Applicants

(i) A monocular applicant is an applicant who has lost the use of one eye or whose central vision is such that it cannot be corrected to at least 20/200 (6/60). A monocular applicant shall be granted the issue or revalidation of those permits or licences, for which a Category 3 or lower medical is required, provided that the following conditions are met:....

A CPL needs a Category 1 medical, so I suspect it’s not possible.

Thanks photofly... it does go on to say there is flexibility though...

424.05 Medical Standards Flexibility - Limitations and Restrictions

(1) Under special circumstances such as monocular or paraplegic applicants, flexibility may be applied and the permit or licence issued or validated where the following conditions are met:

(a) Accredited medical conclusion indicates that the applicant’s failure to meet any requirement, whether numerical or otherwise, is such that exercise of the privileges of the permit or licence applied for is not likely to affect air safety. The Licensing Authority shall be satisfied that any relevant ability, skill or experience of the applicant has been given due consideration.

(b) The permit or licence is endorsed with any special limitation or limitations when the safe performance of the permit or licence holder’s duties is dependent on compliance with such limitations or restrictions.

(c) The applicant complies with any required conditions.

Also, your quote is under a header of common examples... not limiting...

(5) The following are examples of the most common cases, but not limited to these cases, where a practical test shall be required before flexibility of the Medical Standards is applied:

As I mentioned, I have known a couple guys over the years flying commercially with one eye, but have lost touch with them both so can't ask directly. So clearly a CAT 1 medical can be issued... maybe it was 2 crew only though or something like that...

Maybe you're right though, as I go onto reading it more... I'm not so sure the flexibility can be applied to CPL holders, or at least if the license wasn't previously issued...

Can’t hurt to ask. Good luck to the dude.

photofly wrote:Can’t hurt to ask. Good luck to the dude.

For sure... Thanks.

Maybe they'll let me take a peel in that Beaver...

It’s not inspiring, though, is it? A mom-and-pop operation flying paying passengers around in a multi-million dolllar airplane on floats with no OC and zero-hours one-eyed junior as the pilot.... what could possibly go worng?

As I said...

altiplano wrote:I grimaced...

Clear case of diving head first straight into a shallow puddle...

Met a monocular Twin Otter captain at Borek when I was there. According to him, we're all monocular past 20', bifocal vision only gives us depth perception up close. He was a licensed pilot who lost vision in one eye as an adult, not sure if that makes a difference but I believe he was restricted to day VFR and had to have a co-joe. Docking and parking would be a challenge.

Thanks for the info.

The trend I've been seeing is 2 crew.

I've passed all the info along and suggested to talk to Transport also... something they obviously should have done prior to spending a mil on a machine...

I am monocular Pilot who lost my Right Eye 2 years after getting my PPL at 53 yrs old.

In order to re-certify, I had to do a day and night check ride to renew my day/night VFR Rating.

I know the RDMO and Canada's Snr Flt Med Officers from my previous line of work and in order to go CPL I would have to pass a Class 1 Medical but could only be issued a Restricted CPL. The restriction would be to fly as or with a Co Pilot and I would have to fly in the seat with my good eye closest to the outside window. This would allow me to detect the peripheral motion during TO and Landing.

I would still like to be able to fly commercial cargo or ferry aircraft without a co-pilot, since I'm able to fly any sized A/C I'm trained on with passengers as a PPL but those are the Medical Restrictions in Canada.

Kind of hard to do your training and get the amount of hours you would need for any commercial carrier with the 2 seat restriction.