Ottawa to tighten rules governing corporate jets

[Widow]

By Andrew Mayeda , Canwest News Service
March 16, 2010

OTTAWA — Transport Minister John Baird will announce Tuesday that the federal government plans to tighten the rules governing private jets used by companies to carry executives and other staff.

In 2005, the government transferred the authority to issue operating licences for such aircraft to the Canadian Business Aviation Association, an organization that represents the corporate-jet industry.

But Baird will announce that Transport Canada will again assume responsibility for issuing such licences, a move that officials hope will improve oversight. The department will also launch a full review of the regulations governing the sector, said a senior government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Corporate executives often turn to private jets to avoid the long lines and hassles associated with commercial flights. But a handful of incidents in recent years have raised questions about whether the sector is subject to adequate oversight.

In 2007, a Bombardier Global 5000 jet carrying Tim Hortons co-founder Ron Joyce undershot the runway in Fox Harbour, N.S., causing the plane to skid out of control. One crew member and a passenger suffered serious injuries.

A report issued last fall by the Transportation Safety Board identified a number of errors or oversights that contributed to the crash, including the pilots' lack of experience. The report also concluded that under the new private licensing system, the jet operator had not adequately assessed the risks associated with such a flight.

In December, Baird hinted that his department was reconsidering its approach.

"I do not support outsourcing safety testing or safety monitoring to the private sector. I think it is an important core responsibility of government and my department," he told the House of Commons at the time.

In February, another company plane owned by Tim Hortons was forced to make an emergency landing in Hamilton, Ont. after experiencing hydraulic problems. No one was injured. According to local reports, Joyce was on the flight.

The change will likely be seen as a blow by the industry, which struggled during the recession as companies cut back on such perks as corporate jets.

The government will not assume responsibility for issuing the licences until April 1, 2011, giving the industry a year to adapt, officials say.

The move will not affect commercial flights.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

www.canada.com

[Dust Devil]

In December, Baird hinted that his department was reconsidering its approach.

"I do not support outsourcing safety testing or safety monitoring to the private sector. I think it is an important core responsibility of government and my department," he told the House of Commons at the time.

Wonder what that means for the College.

[Widow]

... or the CAMC's apparent bid for AME licencing .... or TCCA's whole delegation of authority thing ... CAD 107-005

[cjpilot]

I wonder if the government has any other basis for making these changes other than the two incidents at JetPort. Is there really an endemic problem with the Canadian business jet community or did one bad apple spoil the barrel?

[Widow]

If you look at the multi-modal section of the TSB's new Watchlist, http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/surveillan ... l/mm_1.asp:

Safety Management Systems
The Problem
Implemented properly, safety management systems (SMS) allow transportation companies to identify hazards, manage risks, and develop and follow effective safety processes. However, Transport Canada (TC) does not always provide effective oversight of transportation companies transitioning to SMS, while some companies are not even required to have one.

Background
Safety is a key component of any healthy industry, and an effective SMS enables operators to identify operational hazards, assess risks, and identify potential mitigation strategies.

In the aviation industry, some companies still need to do more to develop their SMS in order to better identify hazards. However, as the TSB noted following two recent investigations,2 without effective oversight, these hazards may not be properly addressed.

Solution
Air
In the aviation industry, recent TSB investigations have shown that the transition from traditional safety programs to SMS needs monitoring to reduce the risk of undetected safety deficiencies.

•The integration of SMS practices into day-to-day operations must be closely monitored by TC to ensure that industry, as a whole, makes a smooth transition to an SMS environment.

The page points to two TSB reports, the Jetport @ http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 7a0134.asp and the ADWEL @ http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 8w0068.asp. ADWEL actually had two fatal accidents, but the other is a Class 5 so there is no public report. Chances are high that there are others currently being investigated, or which were also Class 5's.

[V1 Rotate]

Another move by the conservatives to restrict freedoms.

[P180]

Well maybe TC should be looking at this one company.It wasn't the first time .They did damage to there westwind a few years back going into the same spot where they did there globe.

[Siddley Hawker]

I wonder if the government has any other basis for making these changes other than the two incidents at JetPort. Is there really an endemic problem with the Canadian business jet community or did one bad apple spoil the barrel?

Precisely. This is nothing more than an attempt to spread the misery and make every operator pay for the mistakes of a few.

[Rubberbiscuit]

Another move by the conservatives to restrict freedoms.

I have been reading a lot of bitching and complaining on here about how TC is moving in the wrong direction as far as giving up oversight and licensing. Seem like Baird is hearing the masses and I suspect this is the first of many steps to come where we will see TC reverse some of the changes made under the former DGCA.

Just goes to prove that it does not matter what TC does they will never please everyone. They will always be accused of ruling with an iron fist or being to slack.

[CD]

No H031/10
For release - March 16, 2010

Transport Canada takes full authority for business aviation

OTTAWA — Canada’s Transport Minister John Baird today announced that Transport Canada will take back the certification and oversight functions for business aviation from the Canadian Business Aviation Association (CBAA). This change will come into effect on April 1, 2011. Business aircraft are predominantly used by companies to transport employees as well as goods and parts.

“The safety and security of business aircraft operators and their passengers continues to be a priority for our government,” said Baird. “We will continue to ensure the private operator certification program meets the highest aviation safety expectations.”

With this change, Transport Canada will take back from the CBAA full responsibility for issuing operating certificates to new applicants as well as for processing changes to existing certificate holders. Operators will continue to be responsible for complying with requirements for maintaining their aircraft and Transport Canada will continue to assess compliance.

During the next year, there will be limited change for business aviation operators. CBAA will still be responsible for certification of business aviation until April 1, 2011. In the meantime, starting April 1, 2010, Transport Canada will begin enhancing surveillance of the Association’s certification and oversight functions. During this period of transition, Transport Canada will take the opportunity to conduct a complete review of its surveillance and regulatory structure for business aviation operations.

Although business air operations are not available to the public at large, this sector has been regulated under sections of the Canadian Aviation Regulations due to the sophistication of the aircraft being operated. Canada is the only country that imposes additional regulatory requirements specifically for business aviation. Requirements for business aircraft have been in place since 1983.

– 30 –

[Hedley]

Canada is the only country that imposes additional regulatory requirements specifically for business aviation

Inquiring minds can't help but wonder why this is.

Is it because Canadian pilots and mechanics are dumber than everyone else in the world? Do Canadian pilots not know how to fly airplanes, and Canadian mechanics not know how to fix airplanes? Despite their qualifications, they are incompetent and cannot perform their jobs unless they have legions of bureaucrats to "help" them?

Is that the message?

[CD]

I suspect that the intent of that statement is that Canada has subpart 604 just for private operators while other countries often lump the business operators in with the commercial operating rules that are generally more prescriptive and restrictive (i.e. Parts 125 and 135 in the US). However, even the original subpart 604 was less of a burden then any of the subpart 70X rules.

I think that it will be interesting to see if the Department actually re-regulates 604 or if the CBAA will continue to be able to set their own standards as they have through their POC Program Manual, which replaced the former subpart 624 standards from the CARs. It will also be interesting to see how the Department manages to do this with the government having put a freeze on expenditures...

I also wonder how this will impact on the proposed 607 State Operator regulations. Should be an interesting CARAC meeting next week. Here are those two proposals, for anyone interested:

Issue:

In 2005, Subpart 604 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) was amended. The Canadian Provincial Government Air Operators did not want nor did they feel it appropriate for their Government Air Operations to be overseen by the private sector, the Canadian Business Aviation Association (CBAA).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) recognised the uniqueness of state-run aviation operations and agreed to issue exemptions from the amended Subpart 604, until a new set of regulations could be developed to address the situation.

The new regulations, once in force, will authorize State Air Operations and permit the current exemptions to expire. The design of the State Operator Program will retain a performance-based approach that was introduced as part of Safety Management System (SMS) principles.

Justification:

The NPA will create a regulatory framework specifically targeted to address the operational, often unique realities of state air services and capture some state air services that are presently operating under the issued exemptions. TCCA will retain oversight of state run aviation operations.

These state run operations are mature in nature and have been in operation for a very long time.

NPA 2010-001 - Subpart 607 - State Operator Program
NPA 2010-002 - Subpart 627 - State Operator Program

[Hedley]

other countries often lump the business operators in with the commercial operating rules that are generally more prescriptive and restrictive (i.e. Parts 125 and 135 in the US

Hold on just a second ... if a private individual (or a corporation) in the USA acquires say a King Air, it is flown under Part 91 just like a C172 - not part 125 (20 seats) or part 135 (charter). Is that correct?

But in Canada, a 604 OC is required to fly the same aircraft under the same conditions, correct? With a resulting hideously expensive torrent of alphabet of letters of requirements?

Has anyone in Canada ever done a cost/benefit analysis to see what the benefit of all of the incredible layers of paperwork are - and their cost! - to see if all of the bureaucratic overhead and cost thereof is actually resulting in increased safety?

Or is it just religious dogma that all of the 604/406/etc bureaucratic overhead is sacred, and these kinds of objective cost accounting metrics are merely blasphemy?

Anyone who is familiar with the former head cheese of Timmies will probably agree that regardless of how many layers of paperwork were piled on that operation, an accident was not exactly a surprising outcome.

And this is the hard truth that the regulator cannot swallow - you can't solve every problem by layering more bureaucratic overhead and expensive and time-consuming paperwork on it.

[Cat Driver]

Hold on just a second ... if a private individual (or a corporation) in the USA acquires say a King Air, it is flown under Part 91 just like a C172 - not part 125 (20 seats) or part 135 (charter). Is that correct?

Yes Hedley that is correct.

We operated US registered airplanes all over the world under part 91.

[Tibor]

All your going to see is every private jet get in Canada get registered in Bermuda (VP-XXX) or Isle of Man (MY-XXX, I think).

[YOWza]

All your going to see is every private jet get in Canada get registered in Bermuda (VP-XXX) or Isle of Man (MY-XXX, I think).

Or N Numbers.

[Benwa]

You might wanna read that part of the CAR's if you plan on operating a N registered plane.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#202_42

202.42(1) Subject to section 203.03, no person shall operate in Canada an aircraft that is registered in a foreign state that has been present in Canada for a total of 90 days or more in the immediately preceding twelve-month period unless
(amended 2003/12/01; previous version)

(a) the foreign state is a contracting state;

(b) the operator of the aircraft is

(i) the foreign state,

(ii) an individual who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident but is a citizen or subject of the foreign state, or

(iii) an entity that is incorporated or otherwise formed under the laws of the foreign state; and


(c) if the operator of the aircraft is an entity described in subparagraph (b)(iii), the aircraft is operated in Canada
(amended 2003/12/01; previous version)

(i) in accordance with an air operator certificate, or
(amended 2003/12/01; no previous version)

(ii) in any operation other than an operation that would require a private operator certificate if the aircraft were registered in Canada.
(amended 2003/12/01; no previous version)

[pushyboss]

Word on the street is that this change is being spear-headed by the Transport Canada Employee Union. With the increase in workload at the inspector level that this change would bring (350 current private operators) obviously TC will have to recruit new inspectors. New inspectors pay union dues......You see where I am going.

In any event some changes had to be made to the 604 POC program. It was becoming the wild west with little oversight. For example there are virtually no experience requirements to hold a Ops Mgr/Chief Pilot position in a 604 POC operation and as a result many of the smaller operators exercise very little operational control. Not necessarily deliberatly but many times just out of ignorance.

Just because you can afford to buy a PC-12, and hold a pilot license with 300 hours of total time, does not mean you are capable of managing the total aircraft operation.

Just my .02

[Hedley]

I'd wager that a new PC-12 would be a heck of a lot simpler to fly and maintain than a clapped-out old pressurized piston twin, with it's daily snags.

An OC is required for the new PC-12, but not for the crappy old high-maintenance and trouble-prone twin.

Hm.

Why doesn't Transport make it official, and just ban all aviation in Canada? Isn't that the direction we're really going, where more and more and more and more layers of paperwork (of dubious utility) are added until no one can comply with it?

[2R]

It was nice and cute when some rich and powerful people owned their own airplane and flew their own people.With everyone directly involved with the companies business and ventures on board the aircraft that they owned.
But the gong show of chisel charters that are done under the guise of business flight when the only connection to the aircraft being operated is some loose share agreement to buy shares in one of the dozens of aircraft operated by some chisel charters operations.The term used by the CTA for chisel charters is "non-entity charters".For which you need a specific licence as the companies operating are subject to positioning charges and the crews subject to duty limitations.
The FAA shut the door on these types of operations selling shares in one airplane and flying passengers with no ownership in another operated by the same company selling shares.This was due to the lobbying pressure brought by the airlines who thought it was no longer cute when so many executives where leaving empty seats in the airline planes.
It is ironic that a lot of those airplanes are now operated by Harley-Davidson owners who use them in their business operations making it very difficult (but not altogether impossible )for the FBI and Law enforcement to track the movement of people they are tracking and contraband.
The present situation where many of the passengers are complete strangers with NO OWNERSHIP in the actual aircraft being used is a loophole that needs to be closed in Canada as it was in the USA to bring us closer to the harminization of the CARS and FARS that was agreed to and is in our common interests .

[Hedley]

Clearly, aviation isn't in the "public's interest" in Canada, since according to you it is populated by hated and envied and ridiculed "rich" people, slimy charter operators, and organized crime.

[Sulako]

For example there are virtually no experience requirements to hold a Ops Mgr/Chief Pilot position in a 604 POC operation and as a result many of the smaller operators exercise very little operational control.

I am Ops Manager for a 704/CBAA Operation, and the requirements for CBAA were identical to CAR 704.

I'm interested to see how this will work out - we currently operate both private and charter flights, and we pay CBAA membership fees and audit fees for audits on our private flights, while TC handles the auditing on our charter side. If the CBAA won't be in charge of licensing us any more, hopefully we can dispense with the $3,600/year membership fee and the $2,400 bi-annual audits...

[madtraveller]

[quote="pushyboss"]Word on the street is that this change is being spear-headed by the Transport Canada Employee Union. With the increase in workload at the inspector level that this change would bring (350 current private operators) obviously TC will have to recruit new inspectors. New inspectors pay union dues......You see where I am going.

Pushyboss is correct. In a conference call on Tuesday Transport Canada admitted that this is totally the result of the TC Employee's Union which has been pushing for this ever since there was talk of CBAA taking over control. There was the same push 12 years ago when the Minister's Delegate-Maintenance was started allowing non TCCA people to issue Certificates of Airworthiness.

CBAA was online to take over 702, 703 & 704 oversight in the near future.

The very fact that the CBAA & MD-M process is more efficient for the operators is of no consequence.
The industry will have to go back to dealing with TCCA and their pathetic levels of service.
Remember that TCCA policy is to put private operators on the bottom of the pile.

Everyone will still be responsible for self governing as the SMS program mandates this and TCCA will only audit the SMS system.
If your system doesn't work you get shut down. It's all up to the operator running a professional organization and I believe CBAA POC operators have been meeting or exceeding the standard.

TCCA also said they have to hire and train 50 inspectors to fulfill the need for 604 oversight before April 1, 2011.
Sign up now boys & girls.

[Hedley]

So you're saying that the TSB reports were manipulated by the TCA employee union?

No offense, but I think you're well into tinfoil hat territory on that conspiracy theory.

[HS-748 2A]

Has anyone in Canada ever done a cost/benefit analysis to see what the benefit of all of the incredible layers of paperwork are - and their cost! - to see if all of the bureaucratic overhead and cost thereof is actually resulting in increased safety?

Eventually, after all the headaches, it does indeed result in less flying.

Statistically, that has to equate to in increased safety.

Nobody moves. Nobody gets hurt.

I sure look forward to the day the pendulum comes back. Hope I'm not too old and grey to get the benefit of it.

'48