Transport Takeover of 604 POC's

[Therewewere]

I found this on the CBAA web site:

"Applicability for those operators requiring a POC will be slightly different and will reflect the standards and recommendation practices established by ICAO in Annex 6, Part 2, coming in to effect on November 1, 2010. These standards and recommendations are as follows:

- Aeroplanes with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg; (12566.348944545 LBS)
- Aeroplanes equipped with one or more turbojet engines;
- An operation involving an aeroplane with a seating configuration of more than 9 passenger seats; or
- A corporate aviation operation involving three or more aircraft that are operated by pilots employed for the purpose of flying the aircraft."

It would mean that anything up to a King Air 200 with seating for 9 pax could be operated like a private aircraft.

Any confirmation on this?

[atpl53]

"Transport Removing turbine A/C below 5700 kgs from POC"

Not certain how to link this but it has been discussed on the above thread.

[YOWFLYER]

Let me get this right: Transport will not require a POC for any operator below 12566lbs? EG. Companies could use one or two King Air 100 type aircraft, operating corporately - they could in fact operate as GA private?

[ScudRunner]

Sure sounds like it!

[Therewewere]

That's what it sound like. Anything from a King Air 200 down can be operated like any General Aviation aircraft so long as its not a Turbo Jet and has less than 9 PAX sets.

But the issue is that no one, not CBAA, not Transport can verify if this will be the case. CBAA has tried to get an answer, but Transport won't say, or don't know. It would probably do wonders for Corporate aviation since it wouldn't be so restrictive. This is the way it is in the States and most countries.

[it'sme]

The catch that is not mentioned however is with regard to Op Spec's. I.E reduced visibility take-off Op Spec or Op Spec 99 (needed for many if not all RCAP approaches), etc etc. Op Spec's have to be attached to a POC, therefore............

[rigpiggy]

read you cap gen reduced vis stuff is for 1200 rvr under 602.129 for doctors and lawyer in there bonanza's, barons and now hopefully king air's. That said is there any corporate flight that requires you to launch below 1/2 sm, most corporate guys are risk averse and will be happy to send you back to Tim's.

[it'sme]

um, who's talking about bonanza'a and baron's with doctors and lawyers? I thought this was the Corporate section and the thread was with regard to aircraft ops currently covered by 604 POC's. Yes, there are plenty of corporate flight departments operating King Air's etc who do have a requirement to launch down to 1200 RVR or for that matter need to operate utilizing various other Op Spec's. For those that will need to continue to operate with Op Spec's then they will likely need to put themselves under any new 604 regulatory regime.

[ahramin]

The point is that several ops specs get you around rules that only applied to 604 and Part 7 operations anyways. Takeoff with weather below landing limits and GPS approaches come to mind. Bonanzas and Barons have never had to worry about these.

I find it unlikely that a King Air or Conquest operator would go to the trouble of maintaining a POC (audits, PPCs, ect) to do RCAP approaches or 1200 RVR takeoffs.

I wonder if no alternate IFR will still be allowed under POCs.

[Therewewere]

I, as I am sure a lot of people are, just a little confused by the "Ops Spec". I understand that you do need an ops spec 99 to do most RCAP GPS approaches, but trying to de-cipher the Transport rules it could be interpreted that you need an ops spec to do any GPS approaches including overlays. So every General Aviation aircraft that has a 530W or such GPS that does an approach using their GPS is in contravention of the CARS since they don't have an "OPS SPEC".

Having said that, when you are cleared out of controlled airspace in the vicinity of XXX airport isn't up to you to provide your own terrain clearance ect? Technically you could get over the airport and kick it into a spin there isn't really a necessity to adhere to a specific approach unless you are cleared that way. So if this is the case following an RCAP at an airport outside of controlled airspace you aren't really breaking any rules. At least that is the way I interpret it.

As far as the Ops Spec for 1200 or 600 RVR take offs, like was mentioned most "Corporate" aircraft aren't under the same pressure as either Charter or Sched operations and the number of days that it would be that bad wouldn't impact a single aircraft corporate operation very much.

No alternate IFR............ well to be honest, I don't like operating no alternate IFR even if I do have an ops spec to do so. Stuff happens and its not a real pleasant place to be when it does.

Again for most corporate aircraft it really isn't an issue, its not like operating a Boeing where you actually don't want to tanker fuel because of the added cost of tankering. Obviously there would be some impact, but like say with a King Air 200 its pretty inconsequential and if your flight department is that worried about the additional costs, you better start looking for another job!

That is the trouble with things now, it is turning us all into backyard lawyers trying to interpret the rules that often seem to contradict each other.

The bottom line is that we should not run into the ground LOL.

[Pratt X 3]

I, as I am sure a lot of people are, just a little confused by the "Ops Spec". I understand that you do need an ops spec 99 to do most RCAP GPS approaches, but trying to de-cipher the Transport rules it could be interpreted that you need an ops spec to do any GPS approaches including overlays. So every General Aviation aircraft that has a 530W or such GPS that does an approach using their GPS is in contravention of the CARS since they don't have an "OPS SPEC".

Reference, please.

Having said that, when you are cleared out of controlled airspace in the vicinity of XXX airport isn't up to you to provide your own terrain clearance ect? Technically you could get over the airport and kick it into a spin there isn't really a necessity to adhere to a specific approach unless you are cleared that way. So if this is the case following an RCAP at an airport outside of controlled airspace you aren't really breaking any rules. At least that is the way I interpret it.

Except for this: 602.121 (1) No pilot-in-command shall operate an aircraft in IMC in any class of airspace, except in accordance with IFR. and this: 602.127 (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.

[Therewewere]

Good point, but

"602.127 (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure."

If you are cleared out of controlled airspace in the vincinity of XXX airport does that not consist of "Otherwise Authorized" ? If this is the case the way the reg reads, there is no need to ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.

What if there isn't one? Then what just go home? It is perfectly legal to go to the Minimum vectoring altitude if you are on RADAR, then complete a visual approach, which isn't an instrument approach procedure. What about all the airports in the Arctic that don't have a published approach? You would never be able to get into most of them otherwise at least not legally.

This is precisely my point though. The regs and real life are not so cut and dry.

[it'sme]

As far as the Ops Spec for 1200 or 600 RVR take offs, like was mentioned most "Corporate" aircraft aren't under the same pressure as either Charter or Sched operations and the number of days that it would be that bad wouldn't impact a single aircraft corporate operation very much.

Try basing a flight department in Atlantic Canada and let me know how you make out.

We are talking about Corporate flight departments with professional crews not owner flown aircraft by people with a fat wallet. The thing is that those corporate aircraft (the ones with professional, salaried crews) are business tools of the corporation. If the corporation can't count on using that tool when it wants/needs to, then the rational for having that tool quickly evaporates. It is for that reason that corporations that need to be able to depend on the use of their aircraft will continue to maintain POC's.

As for not having Op Spec's, for the purposes of this discussion lets say Op Spec 99 to conduct some RCAP approaches, what would your conversation be with your insurance company after an incident at one of those airports (keep in mind that there are a number of airports and often the only airport in the area, where an RCAP approach is the only option) and the underwriter points out to you that stated on the approach chart in clear black and white is a note that says OP Spec 99 is REQUIRED. The underwriter asks for you to then provide proof that says you, as the operator, does indeed have said Op Spec? What is your next conversation with the corporation's legal department when advised that the insurance is null and void for not adhering to CAR's.....and oh yes, unfortunately someone was injured in your incident. As was stated by someone previously, corporations do tend to be risk adverse and try not to go out of their way to expose themselves to litigation.

[55+]

RCAP IAPs are a load of shit as 95% if not all, can be migrated into the Canada Air Pilot(CAP) because no deviation to standards are noted( climb gradient in the missed approach)