Blackhawks on civilian registry

[BMLtech]

"Deputy Commissioner Bryan Larkin said the RCMP leased two Black Hawks from an aviation company, and they will be in use starting Friday for enhanced surveillance."
I'm still trying to get my head around how these ex-military aircraft were ever certified to operate on the civil registry in Canada. This has to be a major bone of contention for all the operators who have tried this in the past, such as Buffalo,with the p3's, Coulson Hercs and Chinooks, the CC109 Cosmos, etc.

[helicopterray]

This has to be a major bone of contention for all the operators who have tried this in the past

It is. Still being contested by some operators.

[goingnowherefast]

Government money? RCMP paying TC for tons of fees, approvals and such?
Stick a couple bureaucrats in a room with several million tax payer dollars and suddenly things become possible.

Try that with private business, with a desire to make money. Then it's not worth the investment. I'm sure it can be done, but it's not worth the lawyers.

I also wonder where the lessor is based for the Blackhawk helicopters? Is there political meddling involved, given the intended use of said helicopters?

[TailwheelPilot]

I see four commercially registered UH-60As on the registry (one since 2022), so it seems like it is not a problem registering them? If the RCMP are leasing them from the operator with two registered to them, perhaps it was straight forward?

[BMLtech]

I can only think of one example in recent history where ex-military aircraft have been permitted on the Canadian registry, and that is the KF CV5800 stretch program. Those airframes were ex-military USAF C131’s, but they were completely gutted and overhauled. Before that, you have to go all the way back to the Dakota/DC3 and C54/DC4 days. I can’t imagine what it would cost to zero time and overhaul every component of a Blackhawk , but I’m sure it would be prohibitive.

[porcsord]

There are already 4 registered in Canada.

[B206Fan]

https://globalnews.ca/video/10966812/th ... ack-hawks/

[TeePeeCreeper]

I can only think of one example in recent history where ex-military aircraft have been permitted on the Canadian registry, and that is the KF CV5800 stretch program. Those airframes were ex-military USAF C131’s, but they were completely gutted and overhauled. Before that, you have to go all the way back to the Dakota/DC3 and C54/DC4 days. I can’t imagine what it would cost to zero time and overhaul every component of a Blackhawk , but I’m sure it would be prohibitive.

Why on earth would one have to be zero timed?
I’m not sure I am following having personally witnessed and worked alongside Type 1 helicopters in Canada before and although they were N registered… I can’t see TC stonewalling Canadian operators while allowing their American counterparts to operate with exemptions…


Perhaps I’m missing a piece of the puzzle and you can fill me in?

Take Care,

TPC

[BMLtech]

"Why on earth would one have to be zero timed?
I’m not sure I am following having personally witnessed and worked alongside Type 1 helicopters in Canada before and although they were N registered… I can’t see TC stonewalling Canadian operators while allowing their American counterparts to operate with exemptions…


Perhaps I’m missing a piece of the puzzle and you can fill me in?"

Take Care,

TPC
[/quote]

The issue at hand is that ex-military aircraft have generally been banned from the civilian registry in canada, with very few exceptions such as the Top Aces fighter fleet, and they are a special category C of A. Many other operators have tried to do this in the past without success.
The core of the issue is that Military Certs for engines and components etc are not applicable to civilian airworthiness requirements, that is why I made the comment that to convert a military aircraft to civilian use would typically require overhaul and certification of the entire machine.
My opinion is this policy should be revised to more closely align with the FAA policy on ex-military aircraft, this would open up a slew of new options for all of our operators for firefighting etc.

[boeingboy]

"Why on earth would one have to be zero timed?
I’m not sure I am following having personally witnessed and worked alongside Type 1 helicopters in Canada before and although they were N registered… I can’t see TC stonewalling Canadian operators while allowing their American counterparts to operate with exemptions…


Perhaps I’m missing a piece of the puzzle and you can fill me in?"

Take Care,

TPC

The issue at hand is that ex-military aircraft have generally been banned from the civilian registry in canada, with very few exceptions such as the Top Aces fighter fleet, and they are a special category C of A. Many other operators have tried to do this in the past without success.
The core of the issue is that Military Certs for engines and components etc are not applicable to civilian airworthiness requirements, that is why I made the comment that to convert a military aircraft to civilian use would typically require overhaul and certification of the entire machine.
My opinion is this policy should be revised to more closely align with the FAA policy on ex-military aircraft, this would open up a slew of new options for all of our operators for firefighting etc.
[/quote]

No they aren't. Ex-military aircraft are all over the place in Canada in the hands of private owners...usually they are certified in the restricted catagory - Only for airshows and such.

A quick look at the Blackhawks on the civillian regisrty shows that they all have a Special CofA - Limited. Go to CARS and you find the answer...

(5) Special Certificate of Airworthiness Limited

A Special C of A in the Limited classification is issued by the Minister for:

(a) aircraft for which a flight permit (Private) had been issued on or before January 1, 1989;

Information Note:

The continuous flight permit was converted to the Special C of A on January 1, 1989.

(b) aeroplanes of a type which have been accepted for use in the military service and which are approved by the Minister for operations, other than those conducted under CAR Part IV or CAR Part VII, providing the aeroplane has been maintained to standards acceptable to the Minister which afford a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by the maintenance standards set out in Chapter 571 of this manual; and has been subject to evaluation leading to its acceptance by the Minister; or

(c) any other aircraft, except a rotorcraft, that has been approved by the Minister for operations other than those conducted under CAR Part IV or CAR Part VII.

Information Note:

Additional guidance concerning the suitability of ex-military aircraft in respect of a flight authorisation is in Appendix F of this chapter.

[boeingboy]

"Why on earth would one have to be zero timed?
I’m not sure I am following having personally witnessed and worked alongside Type 1 helicopters in Canada before and although they were N registered… I can’t see TC stonewalling Canadian operators while allowing their American counterparts to operate with exemptions…


Perhaps I’m missing a piece of the puzzle and you can fill me in?"

Take Care,

TPC


The issue at hand is that ex-military aircraft have generally been banned from the civilian registry in canada, with very few exceptions such as the Top Aces fighter fleet, and they are a special category C of A. Many other operators have tried to do this in the past without success.
The core of the issue is that Military Certs for engines and components etc are not applicable to civilian airworthiness requirements, that is why I made the comment that to convert a military aircraft to civilian use would typically require overhaul and certification of the entire machine.
My opinion is this policy should be revised to more closely align with the FAA policy on ex-military aircraft, this would open up a slew of new options for all of our operators for firefighting etc.

No they aren't. Ex-military aircraft are all over the place in Canada in the hands of private owners...usually they are certified in the restricted, experimental, or limited catagories - generally only for airshows and such.

A quick look at the Blackhawks on the civillian regisrty shows that they all have a Special CofA - Limited. Go to CARS and you find the answer...

(5) Special Certificate of Airworthiness Limited

A Special C of A in the Limited classification is issued by the Minister for:

(a) aircraft for which a flight permit (Private) had been issued on or before January 1, 1989;

Information Note:

The continuous flight permit was converted to the Special C of A on January 1, 1989.

(b) aeroplanes of a type which have been accepted for use in the military service and which are approved by the Minister for operations, other than those conducted under CAR Part IV or CAR Part VII, providing the aeroplane has been maintained to standards acceptable to the Minister which afford a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by the maintenance standards set out in Chapter 571 of this manual; and has been subject to evaluation leading to its acceptance by the Minister; or

(c) any other aircraft, except a rotorcraft, that has been approved by the Minister for operations other than those conducted under CAR Part IV or CAR Part VII.

Information Note:

Additional guidance concerning the suitability of ex-military aircraft in respect of a flight authorisation is in Appendix F of this chapter.

[BMLtech]

[
[/quote]

No they aren't. Ex-military aircraft are all over the place in Canada in the hands of private owners...usually they are certified in the restricted, experimental, or limited catagories - generally only for airshows and such.

Yes thanks for that I should have been more clear, I was talking about commercial operations.

A quick look at the Blackhawks on the civillian regisrty shows that they all have a Special CofA - Limited. Go to CARS and you find the answer...

(5) Special Certificate of Airworthiness Limited

A Special C of A in the Limited classification is issued by the Minister for:

(a) aircraft for which a flight permit (Private) had been issued on or before January 1, 1989;

Information Note:

The continuous flight permit was converted to the Special C of A on January 1, 1989.

(b) aeroplanes of a type which have been accepted for use in the military service and which are approved by the Minister for operations, other than those conducted under CAR Part IV or CAR Part VII, providing the aeroplane has been maintained to standards acceptable to the Minister which afford a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by the maintenance standards set out in Chapter 571 of this manual; and has been subject to evaluation leading to its acceptance by the Minister; or

(c) any other aircraft, except a rotorcraft, that has been approved by the Minister for operations other than those conducted under CAR Part IV or CAR Part VII.

Information Note:

Additional guidance concerning the suitability of ex-military aircraft in respect of a flight authorisation is in Appendix F of this chapter.
[/quote]

Good info, that explains a lot. What would the special C of A be valid for? Lease for police or military use only,fire suppression, not normal commercial use? I've always thought the same process should be used for water bombers. Sure seems like a grey area.

[boeingboy]

Good info, that explains a lot. What would the special C of A be valid for? Lease for police or military use only,fire suppression, not normal commercial use? I've always thought the same process should be used for water bombers. Sure seems like a grey area.

Not 100% sure - however I don't know if military or police necessarily need approvals. I'm sure there would be exceptions for those types of uses. The Blackhawks may get use as there is a civillian version but I don't know how different the military version is from the civillian one.

Most (if not all) of the water bombers have types certificates (DHC8, Tractors, Firecats, Mars) - so that's not an issue.

[BMLtech]

[quote=

Most (if not all) of the water bombers have types certificates (DHC8, Tractors, Firecats, Mars) - so that's not an issue.
[/quote]

Not to drift off topic, but I was referring to ex-military water bombers operated in other countries,but not here, such as the Coulson Hercs and Chinooks, the P3's, etc, that do not have civilian type certificates. TC should align with the FAA on this, particularly for fire suppression. How long can we realistically depend on 65 year old Electras?

[TeePeeCreeper]

[quote=

Most (if not all) of the water bombers have types certificates (DHC8, Tractors, Firecats, Mars) - so that's not an issue.

Not to drift off topic, but I was referring to ex-military water bombers operated in other countries,but not here, such as the Coulson Hercs and Chinooks, the P3's, etc, that do not have civilian type certificates. TC should align with the FAA on this, particularly for fire suppression. How long can we realistically depend on 65 year old Electras?
[/quote]

Coulson’s Chinooks have operated extensively in Canada as recently as our last fire season (2024). Not sure where you are getting your info but I can personally confirm it as incorrect.

Respectfully,
TPC

[SpyPilot]

Curious if they are being flown by contract pilots. I believe aircraft operating in support of the RCMP must have a regular service member at the controls.

[BMLtech]

[quote=

Most (if not all) of the water bombers have types certificates (DHC8, Tractors, Firecats, Mars) - so that's not an issue.

Not to drift off topic, but I was referring to ex-military water bombers operated in other countries,but not here, such as the Coulson Hercs and Chinooks, the P3's, etc, that do not have civilian type certificates. TC should align with the FAA on this, particularly for fire suppression. How long can we realistically depend on 65 year old Electras?

Coulson’s Chinooks have operated extensively in Canada as recently as our last fire season (2024). Not sure where you are getting your info but I can personally confirm it as incorrect.

Respectfully,
TPC
[/quote]

That may be the case, but I’m fairly certain they are not registered here, but are N registered and operate under FAR’s. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

[The Mole]

Curious if they are being flown by contract pilots. I believe aircraft operating in support of the RCMP must have a regular service member at the controls.

HTS pilots are flying the UH-60s. RCMP pilots , flying RCMP aircraft last i heard are still required to be fully blessed cops. I gather the RCMP have gone back and forth on being regular members vs special constables over the decades. Last i checked new hires are required to attend cop school in Regina just like any new recruit and get paid basically min wage. I think thats causing a huge problem for them finding experienced pilots, it's also a massively intrenched union environment.

[magnum]

https://verticalmag.com/opinions/questi ... operation/

[BMLtech]

Great article. Seems to me there's an aroma around this issue of who/how/why the exemption was granted for sure. Good explanation of the subject of non-type certificated aircraft being operated on the civilian register.