TC Overstepping

[ChrisB]

From the Facebook BC Float Pilot page...

Fort Langley Air Ltd.

Understandably, many people are interested in knowing why Fort Langley Air Ltd. (FLA) ceased operating. As such, and to set the record straight, this is the story of FLA's final chapter, direct from the source, and it's a cautionary tale.

In 2024 Fort Langley Air Ltd. had its best season for many years, completing many dozens of float ratings, lots of 50-hour courses, charters and government aerial survey work.

Unfortunately, early in the fall of 2024, the company’s operations manager at the time conducted a flight that was not in accordance with the company operating manual or safe airmanship, and after reviewing the event and looking for mitigating circumstances, that persons employment was immediately terminated.

The company chief pilot at the time agreed to take on the role of operations manager, but shortly thereafter unexpectedly resigned from both positions and left immediately, without providing any notice period.

As the company was now without the necessary personnel required under our Air Operating Certificate (AOC), we had to cease operating and Transport Canada (TC) was advised of the situation, including that we were actively starting discussions with people to take on the role of chief pilot and operations manager.
Transport Canada acknowledged the situation and requested we voluntarily surrender our Air Operators Certificate until we had the necessary staff back in place.

As it was then almost wintertime, we decided to voluntarily surrender our AOC and shut the doors for December 2024 and January 2025, to reopen in February 2025 with everything ready to go (we bought new computers, furniture, etc and hired a new Chief Pilot and Operations Manager who was approved by TC). My daughter Samantha completed the Transport Canada tests and was approved by TC to become the company’s Person Responsible for Maintenance (PRM). In early 2025 we notified TC we would like the AOC to be reinstated, and we received an email from TC stating our AOC was ready to be re-issued and that we would receive it "shortly". Happy days!

TC then changed their tune and stated that a meeting was required prior to reinstatement of the AOC. We agreed and set a date, however I was out of the country at the time and informed them that the Chief Pilot, Operations Manager and PRM would all be there in person and that I, as the Accountable Executive, would join by zoom.
TC told us this was not acceptable and everyone had to be present in-person at the meeting. I asked where it was stated in CAR's or any other regulation, that the Accountable Executive had to be in attendance personally at all meetings, but no justification was provided.
Then TC proceeded to suggest I was maybe no longer qualified to act as Accountable Executive for the company as I was out of the country for a few weeks. Again, I asked where this was stated in CAR's and this was once again ignored.
I informed then that I had owned the company for years, had run many successful large businesses, had well qualified staff in place, and was perfectly capable of acting as Accountable Executive for the operation of, at that time during the winter, one Cessna 180 floatplane.
Transport Canada made it clear they were now going to hold reinstatement of the AOC until I was back in the country and everyone was available to meet in person, delaying things by weeks, and were knowingly vague on the reason and necessity for the in-person meeting.

Now, I am in a little different position than some, and didn't own and operate FLA to put "food on the table" so to speak. That put me in a position that I have no issue pushing back when I am getting a run-around.
Also as background, float plane training can be legally conducted in a private (i.e. not commercially registered) airplane by any commercial pilot with minimum 50 hours float time (doesn't have to be an instructor) that is independent of (at "arms length" to) the airplane owner.

As such, as we had only a minor amount of floatplane charter work and the 180 floatplanes were primarily used for training, we decided that to get operational (while we waited to get the AOC reinstated for charter work with the 206) we would cancel the leases for a couple of our 180 floatplanes, and they would then be owned, and available for rental, by a separate company to prospective floatplane students, who could then retain an approved and qualified commercial pilot to complete their training.

While TC acknowledged to us that this structure was indeed legal and in accordance with CAR's, they were not happy with the situation and wanted to stop us moving forward with this plan. They claimed the pilots who had flown by hourly contract in the past for FLA, and knew the airplanes well, were not at "arms length" to the new company that was renting the floatplanes. While this claim by TC was proven to be false, a TC inspector (Al Balogh) called each of those contract pilots and threatened TC action against them if they flew any of these aircraft.
Understandably those pilots, under the threat by TC of losing their pilots license, would no longer pilot these aircraft, so float training operations stopped once again.

Again, we asked in writing for clarification as to which section of CAR's TC claimed we, or the contract pilots, were in breach of, but TC would not respond.
We attempted multiple times to escalate the matter higher within TC, but the organization effectively closed ranks and this lead nowhere.

At this point, we felt it wasn't worth fighting the bureaucracy, and since TC would not reinstate our AOC in a timely manner, nor allow the floatplanes to operate under a separate totally legal ownership structure, we made the difficult decision to "throw in the towel".
We shut the office, cancelled the phone line, cancelled the employment agreement with our recently appointed chief pilot and operations manager, and started to sell the floatplanes.

Transport Canada then contacted me asking FLA to voluntarily cancel its AOC, prior to the date it would be terminated by them (May 31, 2025) which I refused to do. I told them if they wanted it cancelled early, then they could go ahead and do it themselves, and that I was beyond furious that they had masterminded the destruction of a viable aviation business that had not broken any aviation regulation.

We had no choice but to move on, and as all of my children are pilots, we decided to transfer the ownership of FLA (which was now basically a worthless shell, as the planes were only leased to FLA by another of my company's) to them, as they were interested in exploring other ways to remain involved in the business side of aviation.

TC wrote again in early May with a formal letter stating that our AOC was being terminated effective May 31, 2025. Again, we responded saying that' it was TC's actions and inactions that killed the company and that it was an egregious example of TC overstepping their authority.
We also noted that we had heard through the "grapevine" that TC was working on new floatplane training regulations to make it so that commercial pilots could no longer provide instruction for float ratings on rental airplanes - in other words, they were working on drafting regulations that would allow them to deal with this same situation in the future, but at the same time effectively acknowledging that the regulations TC had “enforced” against FLA don't currently exist....

I had refused to discuss anything on the phone with TC from early in the process, as there is no record of what’s stated in a phone call. As such, and since there was nothing left to discuss, when I received a voice message from TC in late May to please return their call, I simply ignored it.

To my astonishment, a few days later, and just prior to the May 31 cancellation date of the AOC, we received by courier the Air Operating Certificate for Fort Langley Air, fully reinstated by Transport Canada.

I am pretty certain that their internal risk management people (i.e. their lawyers) looked at the situation and decided to try and mitigate the damage TC had done by reinstating the AOC, without the need for any meetings, phone calls or anything else.

Unfortunately, as I communicated back to TC, while it was nice that they had finally acknowledged the error in their ways by reinstating the AOC, the damage had already been done. A profitable, viable aviation business had been completely destroyed by TC bureaucracy and the AOC was reinstated to a company I didn't even own anymore (TC had not been notified of the ownership change as there was no AOC in place and thus no requirement to notify them of anything).

I am not naive, but was clearly far too trusting of Transport Canada. The takeaways from this cautionary tale include:

- Don’t trust TC, they are bullies.
- TC will fabricate regulations that simply don't exist to get their way.
- Regardless of how long you have had a good working relationship with TC (FLA’s was over 40 years) they cannot be trusted.
- Document everything and every conversation and interaction with TC in writing.
- Doing the "right thing" with TC can work against you. Don’t give them anything unless you absolutely have to.
- TC employees are untouchables, hiding behind the TC firewall and will not provide any justification for their actions or inactions.
- Shona Hiroto and Al Balogh are two particularly troublesome bureaucrats at TC here in Western Canada, and I would recommend anyone avoid dealing with them if at all possible.

This post is to set the record straight, as we have heard rumours that FLA was “shut down” by TC for breaching air regulations, which is the polar opposite of the truth.

[digits_]

Not nice, but it takes two to tango...

It's not hard to imagine that TC won't like an operator to move their airplanes (leased or owned) to another company just to get around the 'at arms length' requirement. That setup is exactly what TC doesn't like. It is supposed to be used in situations where a student is looking for an instructor to get a rating on a friend's airplane. Not to have a commercial operation where a student shows up at your door and you provide both the plane and an instructor, albeit via a subsidiary. If companies keep trying to abuse this, the 'at arms length' option will go away, which would be a shame for the private folks that are actually using it as intended.

Having an accountable executive out of country for a longer period of time, is also a bit of a red flag. It's hard to keep an accountable executive accountable when he's abroad. It defeats the purpose of having an accountable executive.

None of what you described is necessarily illegal, which is likely why you got your AOC back. But it's completely understandable that TC takes its time to investigate this. Sounds as if the discussion part itself only lasted about 3 months (end of february to end of may). That's not too bad. From TC's point of view, it might have been hard to convince them that it was urgent if you couldn't be bothered to come back to Canada to attend the meeting.

Also note that just because they couldn't prove that what you did was illegal or a bit too dark grey, doesn't mean that it wasn't skirting some of the regulations.

[DanWEC]

Being dictated to maintain a constant physical, geographical presence at all times in this day and age is a completely egregious, unresonable, and arbitrary stipulation for any accountable executive. I disagree that it's any type of valid concern whatsoever. Sounds like TC was putting the squeeze on for whatever reason.

[digits_]

Being dictated to maintain a constant physical, geographical presence at all times in this day and age is a completely egregious, unresonable, and arbitrary stipulation for any accountable executive. I disagree that it's any type of valid concern whatsoever. Sounds like TC was putting the squeeze on for whatever reason.

That's not a requirement per se. They only wanted a meeting to give the AOC back.

I do recall some instances where key position holders were interviewed by TC with regards to their availability to supervise operations. If (and that's genuine *if*) that's allowed, then it would make sense to hold an accountable executive to the same standards IMO. A chief pilot who's abroad or never visits his office would likely not get appointed. A PRM(C) or chief AME who's never in the hangar or is unable to supervise AMEs would likely not be welcomed either.

I don't know of any operator that has such meetings, or any important meeting, remotely with TC. And it is absolutely abysmal customer service, but I wouldn't call it overstepping. I doubt many other government branches have remote meetings to issue such documents. There are other government branches that require an in person meeting to issue documents, even though none of the relevant acts or regulations stipulate that one needs to meet in person to get the documents. I suppose if one were to hire some lawyers that those requirements would get retracted after a few months of back and forth, which seems to be exactly what happened here.

[YYCAME]

It could be that they had concerns that OP were not actually able to fulfill the legal responsibilities of the position if you were unable to return to the country which I think is a reasonable question. Which in turn prompted more time required to investigate whether that was true or not which definitely takes time. Just because a person says they can do their job remotely doesn't always mean it's true.

The argument that I think TC would make is how do you as the accountable executive actually oversee and be responsible for an operation without being present. Hiring someone doesn't make you responsible, checking the work of the person you hired to ensure it meets the standards makes you responsible. A small operator where the boss is always away is a very different situation then a large operator with many executives who report electronically about the various departmental issues.

Ref. Advisory Circular (AC) No.300-002

9.0 ACCOUNTABLE EXECUTIVE

Coincident with the introduction of SMS regulations, organizations are also required to appoint an accountable executive. The accountable executive is a single, identifiable person within each organization who will discharge the certificate holder’s responsibilities, and in particular, lead the necessary cultural change. It is imperative that the correct person be identified as the accountable executive, and that the individual understands and accepts the roles and responsibilities associated with that position. This is not intended to be a position title without accountability.

[Dry Guy]

The mysterious unsafe flight the Ops Manager did in October suggests a lack of operational control. I could see this being why TC would want the accountable executive to be spending more time in Canada. If OP is "in a little different position than some" they could have just hired someone to be their accountable executive so they wouldn't be bothered by little things like attending meetings with the regulator.

[digits_]

It could be that they had concerns that OP were not actually able to fulfill the legal responsibilities of the position if you were unable to return to the country which I think is a reasonable question. Which in turn prompted more time required to investigate whether that was true or not which definitely takes time. Just because a person says they can do their job remotely doesn't always mean it's true.

Good point. Most companies I worked at that operated a satellite base that was being managed remotely, had some kind of procedure in their COM that explained how operational control was maintained.

If such a procedure was described on OP's situation, it would likely have smoothed things over easier.

[2022]

So, are you saying that an Accountable Executive is never allowed to take holidays? Take some time to deal wth a family emergency or some other personal reason? That they must be around 24/7/365?

[ruddersup?]

Soooo, an accountable executive can't even take a holiday?

[digits_]

So, are you saying that an Accountable Executive is never allowed to take holidays? Take some time to deal wth a family emergency or some other personal reason? That they must be around 24/7/365?

Why wouldn't they? It just seems that some critical functions such as the reinstatement of an AOC require the accountable executive to be present. Sounds like TC was perfectly fine to wait until he was back a few weeks later.

I know TC can be unreasonable at times, but this doesn't seem too farfetched. One could say that the times where an operation is (re) starting would likely be one of the times where an accountable executive should be present. It's when the procedures defined in your COM get put into place, theoretically at least.

There's a difference between going on vacation when an operation is set up and running smoothly and going away for a few weeks while starting up. If you want to do that, fine, but then why not make someone else the accountable executive?

[YYCAME]

Ian Porter and his family were in the news a few years ago for taking a year off to fly around the world in a single engine aircraft to raise money for a charity. I don't think you need to worry about whether TC was interrupting his vacation time

[Bede]

While TC acknowledged to us that this structure was indeed legal and in accordance with CAR's, they were not happy with the situation and wanted to stop us moving forward with this plan. They claimed the pilots who had flown by hourly contract in the past for FLA, and knew the airplanes well, were not at "arms length" to the new company that was renting the floatplanes. While this claim by TC was proven to be false, a TC inspector (Al Balogh) called each of those contract pilots and threatened TC action against them if they flew any of these aircraft.
Understandably those pilots, under the threat by TC of losing their pilots license, would no longer pilot these aircraft, so float training operations stopped once again.

Unfortunately, such a scheme is illegal. https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... ocument.do

[‘Bob’]

Even from the one side of this story I can see where it all went wrong.

I’d love to hear the other side.

Something as important as reinstating an AOC after numerous issues with it is not something you can phone in.

And definitely not trying to use rudimentary understanding of laws to find loopholes to keep operating in spite.

The world doesn’t give a flying @#$! who you are, your social status, your wealth, or your benevolence.

Play by the rules and don’t be a dick.

Sounds like aviation has experienced no great loss.

[DanWEC]

Overly harsh and presumptuous. We can't dismiss the value of small operators and the effort it takes to stay afloat in an increasingly difficult climate. They're like all small businesses. The more that die the more the market succumbs to conglomerates.

Let's call it what it is. TC purposefully zeroeing in, and making a mountain out of a molehill because someone didn't instantly bend over and pushed back with some reasonable requests.

We know the game. But really, should it be like this? This is the Federal regulator we're talking about, not a restaurant manager. Or POTUS.

[digits_]

Overly harsh and presumptuous. We can't dismiss the value of small operators and the effort it takes to stay afloat in an increasingly difficult climate.

Nobody is dismissing the value if small operators, nor the effort. Although one can wonder about the level of motivation if a small business owner can not be bothered to attend a meeting with the regulator when, arguably, the business's most important license is at stake? Or, alternatively, wait a few months until the regulator figures out an alternative cause of action.

Let's call it what it is. TC purposefully zeroeing in, and making a mountain out of a molehill because someone didn't instantly bend over and pushed back with some reasonable requests.

You could argue the requirement for an ftu oc for small operators is overkill, and you might be right, but TC's job is to enforce the current regulations. Abusing the arm's length exception absolutely deserves extra scrutiny to level the playing field with other small operators.

This owner preferred to set up another company, play with leases, instead of attending one meeting with the regulator. Is that a wise course of action in a highly regulated industry?

We know the game. But really, should it be like this? This is the Federal regulator we're talking about, not a restaurant manager. Or POTUS.

I don't know a single restaurant manager who goes on vacation for 3 weeks during opening night, or who would bail on a liquor license issuing meeting.

[DanWEC]

I meant to imply that TC acts like a petty restaurant manager, playing favorites and needs to be coddled in order to deliver what should be the standard. Also, as like the POTUS.
I stand by the rest of my opinion however.

[digits_]

I meant to imply that TC acts like a petty restaurant manager, playing favorites and needs to be coddled in order to deliver what should be stabdard. Also, like the POTUS.

True.

However, I've noticed that they mainly do those things when there's some shenanigans going on that everyone knows are happening, but they can't prove. Sort of like 'we can't prove you are operating illegal charters, but we know you do, so we're going to make your life as hard as possible and bring out all the guns for any minor violation that we can find, for example the missing signature on page 43 in the journey log from 5 years ago.

Definitely not ideal that a government branch (needs to?) act that way, but somewhat understandable.

I stand by the rest of my opinion however.

Do you think the arm's length setup as described is perfectly legal?