35 dual for CPL: with whom?

[photofly]

Which rule is being violated doing it like that ?

The experience requirement for 35 hours dual instruction with the holder of a Flight Instructor Rating - Aeroplanes.

[Colonel Sanders]

I see no difference

We are through the looking glass. According to you,
there is no difference between someone that holds a
CPL, and someone that does not.

[digits_]

Which rule is being violated doing it like that ?

The experience requirement for 35 hours dual instruction with the holder of a Flight Instructor Rating - Aeroplanes.

I guess we made another circle then, since they do accept that for a foreign CPL holder, while he has to fullfill that requirement as well.

[digits_]

I see no difference

We are through the looking glass. According to you,
there is no difference between someone that holds a
CPL, and someone that does not.

I've stated that numerous times, that according to cars 421.30 there is no difference for the experience requirement.

Maybe the following will help to understand my point: can you write me a list of the dual training hours a canadian ppl holder needs to fly to get a canadian CPL ? Can you also write me a list of the dual training hours a foreign CPL needs to have to get a canadian CPL ?

According to cars 421.30, both lists should be identical. There is no rule that says that one of those people should fly the hours in Canada, and the other doesn't have to. It says that both have to have them.

[photofly]

Which rule is being violated doing it like that ?

The experience requirement for 35 hours dual instruction with the holder of a Flight Instructor Rating - Aeroplanes.

I guess we made another circle then, since they do accept that for a foreign CPL holder, while he has to fullfill that requirement as well.

Yes. It appears they're consistent, but consistently contrary to CAR421.

[Colonel Sanders]

PF: Around here at least, the cops don't pay much attention
to the speed limit, or any other rules of the road. Any surprise,
no one gives them a ticket.

And in the other corner, you will not find a single Authorized
Person whom is willing to sign off an initial TC CPL contrary
to the Authorized Person's Manual, which requires a completed
TC PTR and a CERTIFIED logbook. Doesn't say anything about
flight records from Belgium or Venezula.

Where in CAR 421.30 does it mention a CERTIFIED logbook.

Digits: why don't you show us all how's it's done, and start
signing off initial CPL's "your way"? According to you, CAR
421.30 doesn't mention a PTR, so none of your students
need one. Certified logbook? Your students don't need one
of those, either, because CAR 421.30 doesn't mention it.

I have only been an Authorized Person for 17 years now, so I
really don't know much about Canadian Aviation Personnel
Licensing compared to you.

[digits_]

Digits: why don't you show us all how's it's done, and start
signing off initial CPL's "your way"? According to you, CAR
421.30 doesn't mention a PTR, so none of your students
need one.

I specifically stated in reply to one of your questions, that if you do training in Canada, you need a PTR.

I have only been an Authorized Person for 17 years now, so I
really don't know much about Canadian Aviation Personnel
Licensing compared to you.

Then why is it so hard for you to answer my simple question: show me in the CARs where there is a difference for the experience requirement between a foreign CPL holder and a Canadian ppl going for his CPL ?

Everything I have said, I have backed-up with the CARs. Everybody reading this thread can look it up and draw their own conclusions. And on a side note, looks like photofly at least partially agrees with my point of view regarding "there is no difference".

Now, apparently TC doesn't care too much about that, in that case every discussion is quite useless.


Another thing I noticed. In the start of the thread you wrote

Like I said, this is going to vary from region to region.
If one accepts it, the other will laugh you out of the building.

And now you write:

And in the other corner, you will not find a single Authorized
Person whom is willing to sign off an initial TC CPL contrary
to the Authorized Person's Manual, which requires a completed
TC PTR. Doesn't say anything about flight records from Belgium
or Venezula.

What made you change your mind ?

[Colonel Sanders]

I didn't change my mind. TC can do whatever
it wants. The rest of us have to follow the rules.

On the subject of initial CPL issuance, find me the
regulatory requirement in the CARs for the candidate's
logbook to be certified.

I don't understand why you care what anyone else
thinks. You're an Authorized Person, so you can sign
off anything you want to. Our opinions as Authorized
Persons don't matter - only yours does.

[digits_]

I didn't change my mind. TC can do whatever
it wants. The rest of us have to follow the rules.

On the subject of initial CPL issuance, find me the
regulatory requirement in the CARs for the candidate's
logbook to be certified.

Now this is funny . I asked the exact same question to my FI examiner (TC appointed). He actually told me they don't care about certified logbooks anymore, but somehow the old way with the certified logbooks is still stuck in the mind of a lot of people.

Did not make this up !

I don't understand why you care what anyone else
thinks. You're an Authorized Person, so you can sign
off anything you want to. Our opinions as Authorized
Persons don't matter - only yours does.

Ah, belittling and ridiculing the person you are discussing with, a guaranteed win in internet discussions !

Note that I never said your opinions don't matter, on the contrary, I want to believe them and use them. But to convince people, or before I am able to use them, I need to know where they come from, on what source (rule, document, ...) they are based. Which is what I have been asking you for many posts now. If you just keep ignoring all my points, is it really that strange that I have trouble accepting your opinion without any questions ? Note that again you ignored my previous question.

One more thing: as an Authorized Person, you (hopefully ?) sign off / do your work based on your interpretation of the rules, right ? So wouldn't it be helpfull to cite the rules you base your opinion on ?

[Colonel Sanders]

as an Authorized Person, you DO your work based on your interpretation of the rules, right?

More trolling? No I do NOT. I sign off licences and
ratings IAW the Authorized Person's Manual, which
leaves no doubt as to what exactly is required. There
is NO interpretation there whatsoever - including
the requirement for CERTIFIED logbooks.

Following is an excerpt from the CPL section of
the Authorized Person's Manual:



Note that the requirement for a CERTIFIED logbook
is both BOLD and ITALICIZED. IT IS NOT OPTIONAL.

I have an idea. You understand the rules better
than anyone else. Nowhere in CAR 421.30 does it
say that you must be an appointed Authorized Person
to sign off CPL's, so have at 'er! Start signing off
people's PPL licence booklets with CPL privileges!!

Let me know how that works out for you

[trampbike]

CS, it seems to me that digits_ brought a good point and asked valid questions, so I'm also curious about this:

show me in the CARs where there is a difference for the experience requirement between a foreign CPL holder and a Canadian ppl going for his CPL ?

Cheers
Olivier

[Colonel Sanders]

I need to know where they come from

You must be awfully young, and you haven't dealt with
TC very much, so I will try to explain this to you:

TC tells you what to do, and you do it. If TC tells you
not to do something, you don't do something. No
discussion.

If TC calls you up and tells you not to fly green airplanes
on Wednesday east of the 80th longitude, well, that's
now the rule.

You can fight them if you want, and spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars and years of your life fighting them
in court at the Tribunal, Tribunal Review, Federal Court
and Federal Court of Appeals, but you are wasting your
time and effort. Trust me on this. All you will do is p1ss
TC off - especially if you are right.

For example:

1) I have had a TC inspector call me up cold, from Atlantic
Region. She told me if I ever flew in Atlantic Region, she
would charge me. Ok. I will never, ever fly in Atlantic Region.

2) TC once tried to outlaw all aerobatics below 18,000
feet. I am not making this up. Fortunately I had that
overturned.

3) I argued the applicability of Double Jeopardy to Administrative
Law in Federal Court of Appeals, and incredibly (to me), I
lost. What does that mean? Well, TC can charge and
sanction you for the same offense, over and over and
over and over again, every day for the rest of your life.
That is a very bad precedent. Sorry about that, guys.

[Colonel Sanders]

show me in the CARs

You don't "get it". Where in the CARs does it
say that logbooks have to be certified?

[trampbike]

TC once tried to outlaw all aerobatics below 18,000
feet. I am not making this up. Fortunately I had that
overturned.

Is this when they tried to argue that you needed at least 3 miles of vis horizontally AND vertically?
Hilarious stuff!

[Colonel Sanders]

I don't like to mention this stuff too often -
it's just so weird.

[CpnCrunch]

Colonel, why don't you move to the USA? Not that I'm trying to get rid of you or anything, but at least you wouldn't have to deal with TC any more. Or is the FAA the same?

[Colonel Sanders]

Bureaucrats are the same everywhere. They get
a hate on for you, they're going to make the rest
of your life miserable. Really just another government
tax.

Both Bob Hoover and Melissa Pemberton have had
to spend years flying in Australia, the FAA hated them
so much.

Both of them are so much better pilots than me (and
99.999% of the pilot population). There's a lesson in
there.

A good example: there is a desperate shortage of
ICAS ACE examiners in Canada. I think there are 4
in all of Canada, which is ludicrous. I have been told
that because I pissed off TC many years ago, TC
will never permit me to be an ICAS ACE. Sure enough,
friends of mine in the USA that are many years junior
to me are now ICAS ACE's. Heck, one is even on the
committee.

No such thing as Double Jeopardy with TC. The punishment
never, ever stops.

I also have been told that because I once pissed off TC, I
can never be a Designated Pilot Examiner. Similarly, there
is a desperate shortage of examiners for Aerobatic Instructors,
and regardless of how many decades go by, I will never,
ever be eligible regardless of my qualifications and experience.

Piss off TC at your own risk. They tell you to do something,
do it. They tell you not to do something, don't do it. It doesn't
matter what the rules say. I can only apologize when I start
to laugh uncontrollably when I see youngsters puzzled that
all the answers aren't in the CARs.

[Shiny Side Up]

More trolling? No I do NOT. I sign off licences and
ratings IAW the Authorized Person's Manual, which
leaves no doubt as to what exactly is required. There
is NO interpretation there whatsoever - including
the requirement for CERTIFIED logbooks.

The best way to deal with people who don't have certified logbooks and the whole bit is just to send them directly to a TC inspector. They will then pass their judgement, and unlike us lowly authorized persons, aren't shackled by the restrictions that the AP's Manual lays out for us to issue temporary privilidges for licenses and ratings.

People, keep your paper in order, otherwise if you want anything done you're at the mercy of the bureaucrats. Personally I have long since stopped feeling bad for people who didn't keep their paper in order (ie got their log book certified, kept their PTRs, kept some neat records, etc...), you should have paid attention to that old woman in grade three: spelling counts, so does neat printing, and above all math and keeping things inside the lines. If you were too busy expressing yourself by eating your glue, well then, those were the seeds you sewed.

[photofly]

I have it direct from an officer in TC licensing just now, on the phone:

Yes, foreign training is given full credit towards the 35 hours if the training is done by a foreign-licensed pilot in an ICAO country.

No, APs do not have the authority to authorize this (except two who have special permission from TC) - it has to be done by TC licensing.

[digits_]

I have it direct from an officer in TC licensing just now, on the phone:

Lol, funny nobody else thought of this

Thanks for sharing!

[Colonel Sanders]

You must be awfully young, and you haven't dealt with
TC very much, so I will try to explain this to you:

TC tells you what to do, and you do it. If TC tells you
not to do something, you don't do something. No
discussion.

[photofly]

I didn't actually call them; but by chance I fielded a call from the desk officer who was processing another foreign student's licence application and needed to ask about some paperwork - so I asked her. The officer told me the answer and said I could quote her.

[missed-approach]

Going back to the original post. Fulfilling the dual 35 hour requirement with a foreign instructor. I hope thats not the case, wasting 4 grand in extra dual flights, holding only a UK PPL to start with. TC told me only solo time counted towards the CPL. Anyway have the CPL now so chuffed to bits, now the easy bit, IR Rating!?

[digits_]

You must be awfully young, and you haven't dealt with
TC very much, so I will try to explain this to you:

TC tells you what to do, and you do it. If TC tells you
not to do something, you don't do something. No
discussion.

Could be, but look what they told photofly: exactly the information you could find in the CARs.

No, I haven't dealt with TC very much. You most certainly have way more experience with them than I have -and maybe this is naieve-, but TC is still a (quite big ?) goverment organisation, bound by the law. I am perfectly willing to admit that they might have a weird way of interpreting the rules, but I refuse to believe that any decision made in a court room is just random. Maybe they dug up an old rule, or overruled you by some other rule, but in a -maybe twisted- way it will be based on some rule or loophole and make some sense. Because of that, I find your examples very intriguing, and I am very curious and eager to learn on what they based their decision for your examples 1 and 3. Who knows, maybe I'll lose total faith in them as well

[Colonel Sanders]

a goverment organisation, bound by the law

Probably as much as the Senate is.