CARs help

[Alex335]

Hi,

I’m trying to find a reference in the cars in regards to receiving flight instruction on private aircraft owned by a partnership. I know it’s not allowed to provide an aircraft and pilot without an AOC or FTU.

I cannot find anything to clarify if a student who is seeking a rating, who owns a share of an aircraft can hire an instructor who also owns a share in the same aircraft. Would this be legal, or does it cross the line where an commercial registration and an AOC or FTU is needed?

Any references to applicable CARs would be appreciated.

Thanks

[photofly]

It doesn’t matter whether an instructor owns a share in an airplane; if the student owns it, that’s fine. If it’s a proper partnership you can even use it for primary training; if it’s owned by a corporation and the part owner is a director of the corporation it can be used for training other than a PPL or PP-R.

There is a dodge around the regulations for an instructor to sell shares in their airplane to their students, which is legal, but hard to arrange.

406.03(2)(b)(i)

[ahramin]

Keep in mind that you will not find a regulation to allow you to do something. If it's not in the regulations, you're allowed.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Alex335

Is your name on the C of R ?

[photofly]

There is no rule about someone's name being on the certificate of registration; an airplane can quite legitimately have a dozen owners; only the first 4 will appear on the C of R.

[Alex335]

Thanks for the replies! 406.03 was the only reg I could find as well, thought I might be missing something.

In regards to the C or R, it’s in the name of a corporation that we use to hold the asset. Owners hold shares in the corporation.

406.03(2)(b)(ii) is interesting, anyone can be a director regardless of their ownership in a corporation.

[CensoredLF]

There is no rule about someone's name being on the certificate of registration; an airplane can quite legitimately have a dozen owners; only the first 4 will appear on the C of R.

Wrong. All 10 partners in our C150 are on the CofR

LF

[Bede]

Hi,

I’m trying to find a reference in the cars in regards to receiving flight instruction on private aircraft owned by a partnership. I know it’s not allowed to provide an aircraft and pilot without an AOC or FTU.

I cannot find anything to clarify if a student who is seeking a rating, who owns a share of an aircraft can hire an instructor who also owns a share in the same aircraft. Would this be legal, or does it cross the line where an commercial registration and an AOC or FTU is needed?

Any references to applicable CARs would be appreciated.

Thanks

You are correct in the first paragraph. For the second, I don’t think that that question has ever come up in a formal setting. Ironically, it may be more legal to do a PPL than non ab initio training because 406.03 does not have an arms length requirement for ab initio training.

Here’s some reading material that may help answer your question. https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 6/index.do

Careful with the “as long as they’re on the Cof R” argument. That may be legal to an extent but at a certain point (I don’t know where that point is) it will become obvious that you’re participating in a scheme to circumvent the regulations, which carries obvious consequences. You can google Drieger modern statutory interpretation.

[photofly]

Thanks for the replies! 406.03 was the only reg I could find as well, thought I might be missing something.

In regards to the C or R, it’s in the name of a corporation that we use to hold the asset. Owners hold shares in the corporation.

406.03(2)(b)(ii) is interesting, anyone can be a director regardless of their ownership in a corporation.

In that case, no ab-initio instruction for the directors.

[photofly]

Careful with the “as long as they’re on the Cof R” argument. That may be legal to an extent but at a certain point (I don’t know where that point is) it will become obvious that you’re participating in a scheme to circumvent the regulations, which carries obvious consequences. You can google Drieger modern statutory interpretation.

But on the other hand, be careful with "you're doing it to circumvent the regulations" argument - if the regulations explicitly permit an owner to train in the plane they own, buying a share in a plane in order to train in it isn't circumventing any regulations.

Moreover, can anyone point out a regulation that says all the owners must be registered with Transport Canada? Per 202.25, the MInister issues a C of R to the registered owner, but there may be other owners, and 406.03 permits training to "the owner", not "the registered owner".

[Big Pistons Forever]

My only point with respect to the name on the C of R issue is that TC will accept a copy of the the C of R with your name on it as proof of meeting the requirement of 403 (2) (b) (i). It is not the only way to prove compliance with the CAR just an easy way if the OP had been listed on the C of R

[photofly]

My only point with respect to the name on the C of R issue is that TC will accept a copy of the the C of R with your name on it as proof of meeting the requirement of 403 (2) (b) (i). It is not the only way to prove compliance with the CAR just an easy way if the OP had been listed on the C of R

That's helpful to know, thanks

[Bede]

I forgot to ask, is the instructor charging money? If not, that changes everything. An instructor not charging money can instruct on his own aircraft, or anyone else’s aircraft, for any license that they are qualified to instruct. (Hint: follow the chain of definitions for “flight training service”.)

[photofly]

Not just money - the instructor can’t be paid in marshmallows or hugs either. Are we going to consider whether the instructor logging the hours of instructional flight is “reward”?

[digits_]

I forgot to ask, is the instructor charging money? If not, that changes everything. An instructor not charging money can instruct on his own aircraft, or anyone else’s aircraft, for any license that they are qualified to instruct. (Hint: follow the chain of definitions for “flight training service”.)

[Bede]

Not just money - the instructor can’t be paid in marshmallows or hugs either. Are we going to consider whether the instructor logging the hours of instructional flight is “reward”?

Its not.

But yes your sentiment is correct. No money or other valuable consideration.

[Alex335]

I forgot to ask, is the instructor charging money? If not, that changes everything. An instructor not charging money can instruct on his own aircraft, or anyone else’s aircraft, for any license that they are qualified to instruct. (Hint: follow the chain of definitions for “flight training service”.)

Really? So when insurance asks for someone to be checked out on my aircraft I can do it myself?

Still seems better to use an instructor at arms length, or one who is also a co-owner, I wouldn’t want to pay for someone else’s fuel, and simultaneously donate my time. Lol

[photofly]

A "checkout" doesn't meet the CARS definition of "flight training" so none of the rules that apply to flight training apply to it; anyone can do it, in any airplane.

[CensoredLF]

To be legal for your insurance the checkout has to be done by a CPL who meets all recency requirements.
At least in all the policies I have been involved in.

YMMV
CLF

[photofly]

That would be up to the insurance company; the last type “checkout” I received was from a PPL who was the previous owner, which satisfied the insurance requirements.

You may have difficulty finding a CPL to check you out in an unusual type, if they’re not the owner.

[ahramin]

My last checkout was also by a PPL as directed by the insurance company.

[Bede]

I forgot to ask, is the instructor charging money? If not, that changes everything. An instructor not charging money can instruct on his own aircraft, or anyone else’s aircraft, for any license that they are qualified to instruct. (Hint: follow the chain of definitions for “flight training service”.)

Really? So when insurance asks for someone to be checked out on my aircraft I can do it myself?

Still seems better to use an instructor at arms length, or one who is also a co-owner, I wouldn’t want to pay for someone else’s fuel, and simultaneously donate my time. Lol

Are you a commercial pilot? If so, yes.

[Bede]

That would be up to the insurance company; the last type “checkout” I received was from a PPL who was the previous owner, which satisfied the insurance requirements.

I love silly insurance checkouts. I bought an airplane and insurance wanted 10 hours dual from an instructor.
Me: My wife is an instructor. Can she check me out on the type? (She has no experience on the plane.)
Insurance agent: yes
Me: Excellent, and once I'm checked out, as an instructor, may I check my wife out on the plane.
Insurance: ahhuuummmm

Another time, on the insistence of a family member, I got a checkout in a type I hadn't flown in 20 years from an old guy at the local field that I didn't know at the time, but owned the same type (I assumed he was one of these, flown and fixed this thing all my life kind of pilot). After the "checkout" we started talking. He got a rec permit 2 years ago and had about 20 hours post permit on the type. Not quite sure what he was going to teach me. Fantastic guy though.

[photofly]

I don’t think it’s *quite* as silly as it sounds. A checkout is at least a sanity check with two people present in the plane. So yes, I would say once she’d checked you out, you’d be ideally placed to reciprocate.

[ahramin]

Agreed, it's not "Are you completely out of your mind" silly, it's just "you have no idea what you are doing" silly. They figure something is better than nothing even if it fails to accomplish their stated purpose. Either way, it demonstrates the lack of expertise and competence at insurance companies these days.