Night Rating Aeroclub? LEGAL?

[xplane]

Is it legal to do a night rating at an Aeroclub that doesn't have an AOC or a private operator registration?

My interpretation of CARs 406.03(2)(a) makes me think yes, because there is an an "OR" at the end of the paragraph, meaning the aeroclub doesn't need an AOC or a private operator registration. Not sure why, but the "OR" is omitted in the french version of the CARs.

The Aeroclub is structured such that the members are owners of the corporation which ensures we respect 406.03(2)(b)(i) and the instructors are at arm's length from the person offering the plane which respects 406.03(2)(b)(iii)

SEE CARs here:
https://app.screencast.com/v99XFrzVWYi6s


406.03(2)(b)(iii) requires also I notify the minister. Do I just email aviation.que@tc.gc.ca for the Quebec region?

[digits_]

406.03 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no person shall operate a flight training service in Canada using an aeroplane or helicopter in Canada unless the person holds a flight training unit operator certificate that authorizes the person to operate the service and complies with the conditions and operations specifications set out in the certificate.

(2) A person who does not hold a flight training unit operator certificate may operate a flight training service if

(a) the person holds a private operator registration document or an air operator certificate, the aircraft used for training — in the case of the holder of an air operator certificate — is specified in the air operator certificate, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit — recreational, a private pilot licence, a commercial pilot licence or a flight instructor rating; or

(b) the trainee is

(i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training,

(ii) a director of a corporation that owns the aircraft used for training, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit — recreational or a private pilot licence, or

(iii) using an aircraft that has been obtained from a person who is at arm’s length from the flight instructor, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit — recreational or a private pilot licence.

I think 406.03(2)(b)(i) does not apply. You're not the owner. The corporation or flying club is the owner. You are likely a shareholder of the flying club?
So if you're a 'normal' member/shareholder, 406.03(2)(b)(ii) doesn't apply either, as it specificly mentions a director.

So possibly 406.03(2)(b)(iii), but then it depends on the relationship of the instructor and the aircraft. If the instructor is a member as well, it might be hard(er) to argue the plane is acquired at arm's length. If it's an outside instructor, I think you can use that rule, assuming the flying school (and their insurance!) is ok with this.

[xplane]

406.03 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no person shall operate a flight training service in Canada using an aeroplane or helicopter in Canada unless the person holds a flight training unit operator certificate that authorizes the person to operate the service and complies with the conditions and operations specifications set out in the certificate.

(2) A person who does not hold a flight training unit operator certificate may operate a flight training service if

(a) the person holds a private operator registration document or an air operator certificate, the aircraft used for training — in the case of the holder of an air operator certificate — is specified in the air operator certificate, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit — recreational, a private pilot licence, a commercial pilot licence or a flight instructor rating; or

(b) the trainee is

(i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training,

(ii) a director of a corporation that owns the aircraft used for training, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit — recreational or a private pilot licence, or

(iii) using an aircraft that has been obtained from a person who is at arm’s length from the flight instructor, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit — recreational or a private pilot licence.

I think 406.03(2)(b)(i) does not apply. You're not the owner. The corporation or flying club is the owner. You are likely a shareholder of the flying club?
So if you're a 'normal' member/shareholder, 406.03(2)(b)(ii) doesn't apply either, as it specificly mentions a director.

So possibly 406.03(2)(b)(iii), but then it depends on the relationship of the instructor and the aircraft. If the instructor is a member as well, it might be hard(er) to argue the plane is acquired at arm's length. If it's an outside instructor, I think you can use that rule, assuming the flying school (and their insurance!) is ok with this.

Thanks for the reply. My interpretation is that 406.03(2)(b)(i) AND (406.03(2)(b)(ii) OR 406.03(2)(b)(iii)) have to be true.

This is because , at the end of 406.03(2)(b)(ii) there is and OR, but not at the end of 406.03(2)(b)(i), 406.03(2)(b)(iii). Is that accurate?

Insurance is covers me and the student, and I'm an outside instructor not part of the club. The student would be a shareholder of the aeroclub that owns the club.

[digits_]

Thanks for the reply. My interpretation is that 406.03(2)(b)(i) AND (406.03(2)(b)(ii) OR 406.03(2)(b)(iii)) have to be true.

This is because , at the end of 406.03(2)(b)(ii) there is and OR, but not at the end of 406.03(2)(b)(i), 406.03(2)(b)(iii). Is that accurate?

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's true. In lots of places in the CARs, and other regulations, you can find multiple options, and only the last option will have an OR or AND. I can't find any example where these are combined.

I'm quite confident only one of those options is required.

Insurance is covers me and the student, and I'm an outside instructor not part of the club. The student would be a shareholder of the aeroclub that owns the club.

I would also ask permission from the owner/flying club to do what you're doing, as you'll be PIC. But it sounds like this should be legal yes.

[ruffdeezy]

if the instructor is not associated with the aircraft then it is good

[Bede]

So possibly 406.03(2)(b)(iii), but then it depends on the relationship of the instructor and the aircraft. If the instructor is a member as well, it might be hard(er) to argue the plane is acquired at arm's length. If it's an outside instructor, I think you can use that rule, assuming the flying school (and their insurance!) is ok with this.

You raise an important point. Is it legal as an instructor to do non-ab initio training (and be paid for it) on an aircraft from a flying club? Yes. However, let's say that you start doing A LOT of training on said aircraft and the flying club is referring business to you. It starts looking like a regulatory avoidance scheme which is not legal.

The other thing of note- it's not the "flight training" that is at issue, it's the collection of money which is a "flight training service".

[digits_]

So possibly 406.03(2)(b)(iii), but then it depends on the relationship of the instructor and the aircraft. If the instructor is a member as well, it might be hard(er) to argue the plane is acquired at arm's length. If it's an outside instructor, I think you can use that rule, assuming the flying school (and their insurance!) is ok with this.

You raise an important point. Is it legal as an instructor to do non-ab initio training (and be paid for it) on an aircraft from a flying club? Yes. However, let's say that you start doing A LOT of training on said aircraft and the flying club is referring business to you. It starts looking like a regulatory avoidance scheme which is not legal.

The other thing of note- it's not the "flight training" that is at issue, it's the collection of money which is a "flight training service".

In extreme forms, perhaps. But freelance instructors can make good money if they have 10 - 20+ students all owning their own airplane. The money doesn't make it a problem, as long as the other rules are followed.

It's my understanding that TC wants to avoid instructors teaching in their own possibly poorly maintained aircraft without an FTU structure around it to keep things in check, and subsequently killing unlicensed and unaware student pilots.
If a student pilot shows up with his own poorly maintained death trap, that's on him.
If a plane is rented/acquired from a flying club that's truly at arms length from the instructor, I don't think TC would have a lot of grounds to get the instructor into trouble. Even if 10 flying club members start to do the same thing. I'd even go so far as to say that the instructor could even advertise his services, as long as he has no control over the aircraft or its maintenance.

[Bede]

If a plane is rented/acquired from a flying club that's truly at arms length from the instructor, I don't think TC would have a lot of grounds to get the instructor into trouble. Even if 10 flying club members start to do the same thing. I'd even go so far as to say that the instructor could even advertise his services, as long as he has no control over the aircraft or its maintenance.

But you do start running into the "regulatory avoidance scheme", maybe not with what you've described, but here's a situation that would attract that: 10 students own airplane together & instructor manages the maintenance, parking, insurance, etc. for them. Once finished, the instructor arranges the sale of the share to someone else.