Flying to a PPC

wondering? · Post by **wondering?** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:54 pm

According to 703.88 ..."no air operator shall permit a person to act and no person shall act as a flight crew member in an aircraft unless the person...in the case of the pilot-in-command of a multi-engined aircraft or of a single-engined aeroplane that is operated in accordance with subsection 703.22(2), a pilot proficiency check for that type of aircraft..."

My question is, are you acting as a crew member if you fly a twin engine aircraft to your first PPC ride? To me it seems like you would be as you are taking your ride for the company.

Maybe this is a simple answer but I can see how a person could claim they were flying recreationally and happened to land at the airport where their PPC ride was to take place?

Thoughts?

PilotDAR · Post by **PilotDAR** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:16 pm

I believe there is wording which exempts this if it is for the applicant's training, and passengers are not carried. For my multi ride, I flew the 310 to the appointed airport to pick up the examiner. All legal, and the insurer was fine, as long as I was alone.

Saxub · Post by **Saxub** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:04 am

No passengers, non revenue and could be considered a ferry flight for the purpose of doing your ride at "X" airport. Perfectly legal provided you hold the basic license for that category of aircraft.

Zaibatsu · Post by **Zaibatsu** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:39 am

If it's non-revenue without passengers, you are operating under Part 6 or the training provisions of Part 7.

I did hear of a guy who flew his twin to the location of his multi-ride. THAT was illegal.

PilotDAR · Post by **PilotDAR** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:29 am

I did hear of a guy who flew his twin to the location of his multi-ride. THAT was illegal.

Well not according to TC when I asked, and they quoted me the regulation which permits it (my bold):

Division VI — Private Pilot Licence
Aeroplanes — Privileges

401.26 The holder of a private pilot licence — aeroplane may act as

(a) pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aeroplane of a class and type in respect of which the licence is endorsed with ratings;

(b) pilot-in-command of an ultra-light aeroplane; and

(c) pilot-in-command or co-pilot of any aircraft for the sole purpose of the holder’s flight training or flight test where

(i) in the case of flight training,

(A) it is conducted under the direction and supervision of a flight instructor qualified in accordance with section 425.21 of the Personnel Licensing and Training Standards respecting Flight Training, and

(B) no passenger is carried on board, and

(ii) in the case of a flight test,

(A) it is conducted in accordance with section 401.15, and

(B) no passenger is carried on board.

wondering? · Post by **wondering?** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:52 am

Thanks for the replies.
So often I find the CARS have many grey areas and can be interpretted in different ways.

Cheers

Panama Jack · Post by **Panama Jack** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:54 am

PilotDAR wrote:
I did hear of a guy who flew his twin to the location of his multi-ride. THAT was illegal.

As PilotDAR states, I can't see why. As long as there is no other occupant onboard, is that any different than a Student Pilot when doing solo flights?

Zaibatsu · Post by **Zaibatsu** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:05 am

Perhaps you're right. It is based on interpretation, though. The TC DFTE was livid because this guy had flown by himself nearly 200 miles to his flight test. Maybe it was that the instructor hadn't communicated this to the DFTE or it wasn't part of a formal training syllabus or the DFTE was not used to students flying twin engined aircraft by themselves since most have no solo rental at all, certainly not to non-rated pilots. Insurance requirements might be another thing, too. I'm not sure how many companies would insure a non-rated pilot on a light twin.

ragbagflyer · Post by **ragbagflyer** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:58 am

Consider that you're reading the 703 regs. Ferry flights, and 702 flights don't fall specifically under 703.

photofly · Post by **photofly** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:13 pm

Zaibatsu wrote:Perhaps you're right. It is based on interpretation, though. The TC DFTE was livid because this guy had flown by himself nearly 200 miles to his flight test. Maybe it was that the instructor hadn't communicated this to the DFTE or it wasn't part of a formal training syllabus or the DFTE was not used to students flying twin engined aircraft by themselves since most have no solo rental at all, certainly not to non-rated pilots. Insurance requirements might be another thing, too. I'm not sure how many companies would insure a non-rated pilot on a light twin.

Hard to see how it's any of the Pilot Examiner's business, to be honest. He or she doesn't work for TC enforcement, and, unless a CASI, doesn't work for TC at all. If they thought there was some kind of infraction they should just report it to the relevant TC office and let it go at that.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:23 pm

The real question here is what rules are you operating under? Which Part of the CARs? If it's non revenue, a 747 can be flown around without paying attention to any Part VII regulations. If there aren't any passengers, 604 need not apply either.

As for insurance, I've never seen them specify anything extra for commercial operators. If you're legal, they're happy.

Zaibatsu · Post by **Zaibatsu** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:26 pm

photofly wrote:
Zaibatsu wrote:Perhaps you're right. It is based on interpretation, though. The TC DFTE was livid because this guy had flown by himself nearly 200 miles to his flight test. Maybe it was that the instructor hadn't communicated this to the DFTE or it wasn't part of a formal training syllabus or the DFTE was not used to students flying twin engined aircraft by themselves since most have no solo rental at all, certainly not to non-rated pilots. Insurance requirements might be another thing, too. I'm not sure how many companies would insure a non-rated pilot on a light twin.
Hard to see how it's any of the Pilot Examiner's business, to be honest. He or she doesn't work for TC enforcement, and, unless a CASI, doesn't work for TC at all. If they thought there was some kind of infraction they should just report it to the relevant TC office and let it go at that.

There are many things in aviation that aren't anyone's business. Yet I'm sure you've been at both the receiving and giving end of criticism or advice when something isn't perceived to be quite right.. without going to enforcement or receiving a registered letter from them. But pilots are an ornery lot, aren't they?

Big Pistons Forever · Post by **Big Pistons Forever** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:46 pm

For my multi ride, I flew the 310 to the appointed airport to pick up the examiner. All legal, and the insurer was fine, as long as I was alone

From a CAR's perspective the only requirement to make this legal is that Pilot DAR's instructor must authorize the flight and he can't carry any passengers.

Flying to a PPC

Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC

Re: Flying to a PPC