TC's requirements for Turbine Aircraft

[Jerryflyguy]

I'm curious if anyone has an input on TC's requirements to allow a person to fly a personal turbine a/c. If the required insurance criteria is met, are there any other ratings or certifications that need to be met per TC? I've got high performance experiance etc etc... just no real turbine exeriance... yet..

[Sulako]

If it's a pressurized turbine or a large aircraft you'll have to operate it on a CBAA POC (Private Operator's Certificate). That means having Ops Manuals, trained management, etc.

http://cbaa-acaa.ca/poc/certification/applicability

That page also shows the certification process and the requirements for operators.

As far as personal experience to fly a turbine aircraft, once you have the CBAA POC and have done an acceptable risk assessment, then it's more a matter between you and your insurance company.

[The Old Fogducker]

The above only applies if you will be carrying passengers in your new whiz-bang turbine powered and pressurized aircraft. Otherwise, a Private Licence with type rating will do the trick.

OFD

[Hedley]

only applies if you will be carrying passengers

Exactly! Absolutely no one ever bothers to actually read the regulations themselves. In this case it's CAR 604.

This out-of-control Canadian fetish for OC's I find bewildering.

One instructor and a buck fifty - gotta have an OC!

Private (non-commercial) jumper dumping - gotta have an OC!

Hedley's going to the toilet to take a dump - do I need to have an OC for that too?! My load is going to be unsecured and will momentarily be airborne before it hits the toilet bowl water - what CAR will I be charged with contravening?

[The Old Fogducker]

Hedley:

You wouldn't have needed an OC until you said you were going to be airborne as a result of the reactive forces involved.

I'm pretty sure there is an exemption available to those who only be airborne for some interval less than 5 seconds ... conditional upon no fare-paying passengers being carried. Once somebody steps up to a ticket counter and pays hard-earned cash for a ride .... then they are afforded all the protection possible.....up to, and including exhaust fans. An alternate method of compliance would be a set of nostril plugs .. similar to those used by swimmers, but of course certified for aviation use.

OFD

[nookie201]

Yup, it's really funny.

PA31P which is identical in many ways to a Cheyenne I. but yet I'm not required to have a POC or be a member of CBAA.
There's no difference in performance, risk and insurance on my PA31P vs a PA31T ??.............except for...yup...the fuel type and few bucks more in my pocket.

[Jerryflyguy]

Thanks guy/gals. It's a corporate job that had a twin cessna and has now moved up to a turbine twin cessna. I'm an Atpl but have no "logged" turbine time [a little right seat Twin Otter and KA time], so I wasn't sure what would be required for TC. The insurance company is fine w/ me flying as long as I get 20hrs dual w/ an approved [on the insurance] pilot. That's all easy, it's the 'unknown' [well I know now ] of what TC wanted that was bugging me.

And yes, there will be passengers aboard, not 'paying' ones but rather company personnel.

I've dropped a note to the CBAA to see how we get this whole process rolling.

Thanks again!

JFG

[albertdesalvo]

My load is going to be unsecured and will momentarily be airborne

[Hedley]

Thank you.

I know the guy who wrote CAR 604, and the intent was simply to ensure that the pilots of corporate bizjets were trained to a some reasonable standard, for the sake of the non-paying passengers.

Somehow it morphed into this enormous paperwork monstrosity requiring an AMO, membership in CBAA, etc. Typical Canadian out-of-control bureaucracy.

Keep in mind that corporate-owned turbo-props and bizjets in the USA are operated under part 91, just like your two-seat buck fifty. No OC required.

Personally I think that an OC for little, non-commercial turbo-prop aircraft is ridiculous paperwork overkill and completely unnecessary.

[vova_k]

The above only applies if you will be carrying passengers in your new whiz-bang turbine powered and pressurized aircraft. Otherwise, a Private Licence with type rating will do the trick.

OFD

It's not true. One needs POC for all types of operations in turbine pressurized aircrafts, even if it's personal transportation only.

[Jerryflyguy]

So does anyone have contacts in Western Canada who are able to consult and assist w/ getting set up w/ a POC? I've not had time yet today to read through the POC documents on the CBAA site but in just scanning them, it does look complex enough that a person probably wouldn't try and "go it" alone on the first time 'round.

JFG

[The Old Fogducker]

The above only applies if you will be carrying passengers in your new whiz-bang turbine powered and pressurized aircraft. Otherwise, a Private Licence with type rating will do the trick.

OFD

It's not true. One needs POC for all types of operations in turbine pressurized aircrafts, even if it's personal transportation only.

Vova_K ... here is a copy & paste of the application section of 604, which spefically states it only applies if passengers are carried.

Otherwise, if it is a single-seat aircraft ... an F-86 for example, only a type rating and a valid licence for the category and class of aircraft is required.....not a POC. IF PASSENGERS ARE CARRIED, I AGREE ... otherwise, section 604 has zero to do with things. You arrive at this conclusion by breaking the regulation into its elements .. all of which must be complied with sequentially, or the applicabilty of the regulation ceases then and there.

So lets do that excersize in regulatory interpretation together shall we? ....

1- "Subject to subsection (2)" which states ..... "This Subpart does not apply in respect of an aircraft that is required to be operated under Subpart 6 of Part IV or under Part VII." Our f-86 is not being used for flight training under an FTU (part 4) for flight training nor sight-seeing ... nor is it being flown under the 700 series of commercial operations for the transportation of persons or goods nor aerial work. This means we continue reading, because subsection (2) does not apply to the way the AC is being operated.

2- "this Subpart applies in respect of the operation of a Canadian aircraft used for the transport of passengers if....." And here is where we have a break in the continuity of the elements, in that no passengers are carried. Once that break in the legislative elements is established, there is no need to continue reading the following sections except as a matter of curiosity, as they have zip-all to do with the circumstance.

Our lesson in regulation interpretation ends the moment we read the words "transport of passengers" because none will be carried in the single-seat F-86 Sabre, flown for pure recreation.

The Old Fogducker



Application

604.02 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of the operation of a Canadian aircraft used for the transport of passengers if

(a) the aircraft is a turbine-powered pressurized aeroplane;

(b) the aircraft is a large aeroplane;

(c) the aircraft is not an aeroplane referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), the operator of that aircraft holds a certificate in respect of an aeroplane referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) and the Association has amended the certificate to include that aircraft; or

(d) the aircraft is authorized by the Minister to be operated under this Subpart.

(2) This Subpart does not apply in respect of an aircraft that is required to be operated under Subpart 6 of Part IV or under Part VII.

[vova_k]

The above only applies if you will be carrying passengers in your new whiz-bang turbine powered and pressurized aircraft. Otherwise, a Private Licence with type rating will do the trick.

OFD

It's not true. One needs POC for all types of operations in turbine pressurized aircrafts, even if it's personal transportation only.

Vova_K ... here is a copy & paste of the application section of 604, which spefically states it only applies if passengers are carried.

I'm sorry, you are right - if you are not planning to take your friends or family with you, you don't need POC. My point was if it's even a transportation of private passengers (like family members), one needs POC anyway.

I had to do whole POC thing after brought my PC12 to Canada...

[The Old Fogducker]

Quite all right ... I have a lot of experience in that sort of thing.

[Hedley]

OFD - thank you so much for clearly that up. Very very very very very few pilots and mechanics actually bother to read the regulations, and if they do, they can't comprehend them. Instead, they ask someone else, who asked someone else, who asked someone else ...

It is patently clear that if no pax are carried - single seat is excellent example - then no 604 OC is required.

However, let's look at that regulation again:

used for the transport of passengers

It does not say "carriage" of pax, which means pax on board.

It says "transport" of pax, which to me means that you are going to transport them from one location to another - look up the dictionary definition of transport:

1.to carry, move, or convey from one place to another

unless the dictionary definition of transport is superceded in some nook or cranny of the CARs, that's the one I'm going with.

So, as long as you don't "convey" passengers from one place to another in a pressurized, turbine powered aircraft, you pretty clearly can carry passengers in a pressurized, turbine powered aircraft without a CAR 604 OC - as long as you take off and land from the same airport, because you are NOT transporting passengers.

That's the way I interpret the regulations - not how everyone else does, which is that ALL pressurized, turbine-powered aircraft in Canada require a 604 OC, which is NOT what the regulations say.

One needs POC for all types of operations in turbine pressurized aircraft

Totally false.

[The Old Fogducker]

Hedley ... finally, someone with some regulatory intelligence ... LOL. Must be all your time in front of the TATC Chairman coming to the fore.

Techically, the CARs would be contravened if an operator so much as taxiied the airplane from one spot on the ramp to another while awaiting a POC to be issued by the CBAA.

After all, passengers were "transported."

I'd go further and say even sitting in a King Air as its being towed by the mule at the FBO would require a POC. They are, by definition, being "transported."

Now there's something for the Regional Enforcement guys to go after ... hiding out behind garbage cans with binoculars and cameras equipped with telephoto lenses looking for aviation enthusiast passengers being towed into the hangar ... and not being on a manifest by a POC holder.

Just poking some "White Hat vs Black Hat" fun with that suggestion ... so relax and have a grudging smirk if not a full-blown laugh.

The Old Fogducker