Biennial flight review requirement coming to Canada from 2024

[tsgarp]

The is another one of those ideas that looks good at first glance, but whose implementation has huge potential for cluster @#$!.

[Big Pistons Forever]

\
So Photo how would you word the instructor requirements for thr 24 month practical ?

Given the goal is pilot training, and not pilot proficiency in any particular type, I don't see why owner-pilots of rarer types or classes should be permitted any lesser qualified instructor than pilots of Cessna 172s. To conduct your recency training in your own plane is a convenience only, and there's nothing to prevent you from finding a C172 to show off your skills to a local instructor instead. So if a particular level of hours or experience is adequate to conduct this training on a twin otter on floats, the same qualification should suffice for providing training for the same purpose in a 150.

That said, how about this:

425.21(20) An instructor providing dual insruction in an aircraft towards the requirement of Standard 421.05(h) shall meet the requirements specified in (1) through (19) above for the provision of dual instruction towards any licence or rating that is required to act as pilot in command of that aircraft.

That's on the basis that if a person is qualified to instruct towards a particular licence in that plane, they are doubtless qualified to conduct recency training in the same aircraft. It covers people who hold instructor ratings as well as people who qualify to provide seaplane ratings or multi-engine ratings by virtue of their experience.

I am OK with that approach

[Big Pistons Forever]

The is another one of those ideas that looks good at first glance, but whose implementation has huge potential for cluster @#$!.

The train has left the station, so if you don’t like the destination send your issue to TC

[PilotDAR]

I've read the posts, and given them thought, so I'm thinking a step back: What is the purpose of the BFR? A check of competency? Or, Instruction? I believe that the purpose is a check. Thus, the term "instructor" for the role of the check pilot is parallel, and not required. Sure, if it works that an instructor do the check, that's fine. But, if no instructor with appropriate skills and experience is available, then another pilot who meets the experience and skill requirements of check pilot should suffice.

Now, define "check pilot" for this purpose: Must have some competency to assess the candidate skills. I think that airplane type and class considered, an instructor would. If an instructor is not available for the type and class of airplane, then a pilot with minimum experience on class and type (notice I'm not saying CPL/ATPL), who has also received basic instruction on the standards required for demonstration of pilot skills (which may be a new couple of hour "ground" course), probably in conjunction with an instructor's involvement.

I can think of a number of situations where the "best" mentor pilot available was only a PPL, just a really experienced on type PPL. Indeed, I recall that a group of police pilots were type endorsed by a PPL (I knew) - by special exemption, because there was no CPL with the required type endorsement, and experience to provide the training, and recommendation for type endorsement.

[photofly]

I don't think it's a check or assessment of any kind. I'd fight very very strongly against any proposal that had the possibility of anyone either failing, or not passing, or any other form or words that means that if you undertake the described process whatever it may be that it's possible your recency requirement isn't renewed.

If TC intends to implement any kind of pass/fail process (again, no matter how it's worded) that's a whole different question, and the pilot community needs test guides, and trained and assessed examiners to carry out the testing, and a programme to equalize standards nationwide, and an appeal process, and the whole works, just like there is for the initial issue of a licence or rating. In other words, it's a formal PPC. Otherwise we have the whole "Bob's a soft touch but don't fly with Alice, and I hear Phyllis will pass you if you donate to her son's charity" scenario, and it's all a disaster.

I'm 100% solid that this should be some amount (an hour, two hours, something like that) of instruction, and if the instructor doesn't think you fly nice enough, then that's his or her lookout, and your recency is renewed regardless.

[rookiepilot]

A 200 hour instructor on 172’s has absolutely zero business holding carte blanche authority for the licence qualifications for a 4000 hour PPL in their hands to renew or deny, when the instructor would have a hard time even starting the complex high performance aircraft the PPL flies.

This is stupid, and no other industry would do anything but laugh at an equivalent.

Lets instead discuss how instructors are allowed to teach IFR without one minute seeing the inside of a cloud.

[tsgarp]

The is another one of those ideas that looks good at first glance, but whose implementation has huge potential for cluster @#$!.

The train has left the station, so if you don’t like the destination send your issue to TC

I would if; 1.) I thought anyone was there to read it; and 2.) I thought they would listen.

[digits_]

The is another one of those ideas that looks good at first glance, but whose implementation has huge potential for cluster @#$!.

The train has left the station, so if you don’t like the destination send your issue to TC

I would if; 1.) I thought anyone was there to read it; and 2.) I thought they would listen.

They do read your reply and you will get a response.

[photofly]

You now have an extra month to send in comments - the consultation period has been extended to 6 July.

[Aviatard]

A 200 hour instructor on 172’s has absolutely zero business holding carte blanche authority for the licence qualifications for a 4000 hour PPL in their hands to renew or deny, when the instructor would have a hard time even starting the complex high performance aircraft the PPL flies.

What do you consider the minimum experience level to be for an instructor to be able to renew or deny a 4000 hour PPL? Is a Cirrus really that hard to start? I'm assuming you meant "high-performance" and not high performance. For the record I agree with you, I'm just wondering where you'd draw the line on experience.

I had an experience having to check out a new renter pilot on our aircraft. As we are chatting before the flight, I asked him what was the last aircraft he flew. His answer: T38. So I asked, you mean the USAF supersonic trainer? That T38? He said yup. So the I asked how he came to do that, and he answered: NASA.

I was checking out an actual 2-time Space Shuttle astronaut.

[PilotDAR]

I was checking out an actual 2-time Space Shuttle astronaut.

Very cool! I bet his forced approaches were good!

[Bede]

A 200 hour instructor on 172’s ....

There's no such thing as a 200 hour instructor.

....the licence qualifications for a 4000 hour PPL in their hands to renew or deny...

Some of the scariest pilots are high time PPL holders. Not all, or even most, but you can develop an awful lot of bad habits in 4000 hours of unsupervised flying.

...hard time even starting the complex high performance aircraft the PPL flies....

I've never met a PPL who has access to a high performance aircraft, and if they have one, they're usually the type to get biannual training at Simcom or FlightSafety. Granted, the Garrett engines are a bit tricky to start with all the fingers pressing all different buttons. (I'm being serious, Garrett's are ridiculous to start.)

Lets instead discuss how instructors are allowed to teach IFR without one minute seeing the inside of a cloud.

Agree 100%.

[photofly]

Lets instead discuss how instructors are allowed to teach IFR without one minute seeing the inside of a cloud.

Agree 100%.

Right, but could you (both) go and do that in a thread started for that purpose?

A 200 hour instructor on 172’s has absolutely zero business holding carte blanche authority for the licence qualifications for a 4000 hour PPL in their hands to renew or deny, when the instructor would have a hard time even starting the complex high performance aircraft the PPL flies.

Nobody is suggesting handing over any authority - blanche, rouge or vert - over anyone else's licence, to anyone. So let's dial back the straw-man outrage a couple of notches.

All this is, is a proposal that pilots undertake (as it stands) one hour of flight training, and one hour of ground training, every two years. There's no pass/fail and nobody is passing judgement.

[rookiepilot]

So if I do, for argument’s sake, my annual first class (and expensive) flight training at FlightSafety on my own Malibu, Meridian, Baron, TBM, 414, Cirrus, or any of dozens of other advanced types, with thousands of hours, you’re saying I can Still lose my pilot privileges cause some class 4 with 200 hours doesn’t like the way I fly a 172?

Do these rule changes apply to ATPL holders as well flying A320’s?

Haven’t read it in detail, seems unclear to me.

I’ve bolded this part of my prior post.

You know, there are high time, and even low time, PPL’s that take their flying and recurrent training seriously.

This seems like one of those proposed changes that is all about appearance and little about substance.

[photofly]

So if I do, for argument’s sake, my annual first class (and expensive) flight training at FlightSafety on my own Malibu, Meridian, Baron, TBM, 414, Cirrus, or any of dozens of other advanced types, with thousands of hours, you’re saying I can Still lose my pilot privileges cause some class 4 with 200 hours doesn’t like the way I fly a 172?

Do these rule changes apply to ATPL holders as well flying A320’s?

Haven’t read it in detail, seems unclear to me.

I’ve bolded this part of my prior post.

You know, there are high time, and even low time, PPL’s that take their flying and recurrent training seriously.

This seems like one of those proposed changes that is all about appearance and little about substance.

I doubt that high and low time PPLs who take their flying seriously will object to a requirement for two hours of training very two years.

Please write to the address given in the document and say you think it’s important that whatever the requirements for recurrent training are, that periodic type training at somewhere like FlightSafety meets those requirements.

Complaining on here about regulations that don’t exist yet isn’t productive when you are being begged by government (begged - they just gave you another month to respond) for your input.

for comparison, we know what the rule in the USA is. Here’s the rule from the UK:

Is My PPL Licence Valid Forever?

Your EASA-PPL is valid for lifetime, but your Single Engine Piston Rating is only valid for two years. To keep this ‘current’ you must fly at least 12 hours in the last year before expiry, of which one hour must be with a flying instructor.

[tuqi]

"Here’s the rule from the UK"

That's an incomplete description of the "revalidation by experience" criteria. The criteria are optional. In the alternative, the rating will be revalidated/renewed by passing a proficiency check. Some pilots will do that in combination with the instrument rating proficiency check, which needs doing with an examiner annually.

[photofly]

Either way, it’s significantly more onerous and expensive than anything mooted here.

[digits_]

Are there any updates on this? Is this extra requirement still coming into force this year?

[rigpiggy]

My problem with it will be the unscrupulous owners of said "flight schools" that will milk the shit out of people. Had a Malibu that insurance wanted him to do a bfr. Went up for an 1.5 signed off by their CFI the owner then called the insurance company to tell them his instructor made a mistake, and he should come back for another 5 hrs. I have called this schools poi several times over this now former owner.

[piperdriver]

I love it Transport Canada coming out with stupid regulations in the guise of "making aviation safer." Very similar to the water egress training that was mandated in the spring of 2023. It won't make float flying safer but it will certainly make some people in the industry richer $$$. Meanwhile Northstar Air can crash aircraft at a rate of 1 accident per year and Transport buries its head in the sand. The incompetence at Transport Canada never ceases to amaze me.

[Fly0nTheWall]

I love it Transport Canada coming out with stupid regulations in the guise of "making aviation safer." Very similar to the water egress training that was mandated in the spring of 2023. It won't make float flying safer but it will certainly make some people in the industry richer $$$.

Except water egress training does make aviation safer by saving lives in the event of a water ditching. Have you done the training before? The first time you do the training, it's quite disorienting and difficult to do. Then add to that difficulty the stress of the situation in a real world accident (crashing, upside down, potentially cold water shock, potential injuries, etc.). It is good training to do if you operate aircraft on/around water.

Edited: Posted second part of post to the wrong thread xD