Instructing on my own aircraft

[dave_091]

sociopaths invariably rise to the top.

This is unfortunately true.

[Indanao]

TC chased a friend of mine out of Canada - made his life miserable enough that he either had to leave aviation, or leave Canada. He flies in the USA, now. Superb pilot and mechanic. Represented Canada at the World Aerobatic Championship a few years back. I can't imagine why,

The same thing happened to me and it all started over an application for an FTU OC.

Being forced to leave the Peoples Socialist Republic of Canada was the best thing that ever happened to me.

I now am back in the P.S.R of C. and flying privately I know the importance of protecting myself from the thugs who work for TCCA.

In fact I am once again thinking about doing some training in the Cub that I am rebuilding and if I do you can bet I will not be asking permission from TCCA.

Cat Driver is quite accurate about Civil Aviation Inspectors dealing with Flying Instructors in the Pacific Region. I just say this as a warning to FreeLancers. They will shoot you in the back, they go me. In about 1983 I took my last Instructor Renewal Ride at Pit Meadows. I already had 1200 hours Instructing Time then. I had just come into town, and the first thing he did was razz me about not being appropriately dressed. We went into the briefing room, opened the books and he started an argument about something unrelated. I told him I thought what he said was wrong, and he said if that's what you got to say and the way in which you meant to say it we will end this now. I said, that's what I have to say and the way in which I meant to say it. He said exams over and you will need 10 more hours with a Class 1 Instructor before any retest.

What angered me most was being failed by an arrogant little fool. He had never been out of the circuit. AND, I had to fork over ten hours dual for failing a ride I never got. The expense of 10 hours dual, and the possibility of making a subsistence wage from it, made it impractical and I went Flying up North.

Pacific Region, over the past generation - as the guy I had a non-ride with is still living in Richmomd and now on a pension ( I have to bite my tongue every time I see him in SuperStore.) - has been famous for their sneaky ways. I don't know why they wage war with FreeLancers, but I believe it is because we are not viewed as being bent over that badly at the waste.

[Cat Driver]

Cat Driver is quite accurate about Civil Aviation Inspectors dealing with Flying Instructors in the Pacific Region.

There are hours and hours of reading about how TCCA can and do deny due process to anyone who does not show complete unquestioning subservience to their thugs here on Avcanada written by me and proven with documentation.

Your story is common, the manner in which they are allowed to treat the industry would not be condoned in any third world country I have worked in.

Canada is sub third world when it comes to rule of law in the upper levels of TCCA.

. ..

AA38841 / CH38841

[Old Dog Flying]

Indanao: Almost the same thing happened with me during the same time frame...Cl2 rating 1200+hours instructing then they brought out the "Instrument teaching Endorsement". Got the necessary dual from a Cl 1 and on the appointed day met the TC guru who set the scenareo and aske me to give a BRIEFING based on his story line.

Ten minutes into the "briefing" he informed me that I was doing it all wrong, we discussed his mis-quote and I walked out cancelling the ride. He went home(it was Friday morning) and on Monday he terminated my instructors rating.

I got it back 6 months later but only as a Cl 3 and was told that "we don't give Cl 2 ratings to Freelancers". I finally retired from the BS world of pleasing TC inspectors in 2003.

[JAHinYYC]

All "flight training" in the co-owned aircraft is done as a donation of time. Completely non-profit, and completely honest about it too.

I agree with Trey Kule...the test set out in the regulations not based on profit (or lack thereof), but rather whether the student receiving instruction is an "owner" as the word is specifically defined within the CARs. (Incidentaly "Owner" is defined "in respect of an aircraft, means the person who has legal custody and control of the aircraft;")

I would suggest that owing 5% equity in an aircraft where the majority owner and, coincidentally the instructor, continued to own 95% would not pass the smell test in the event that matter ever went to court. Substance over form was an often heard phrase when I listened to the law professors.

Moreover, 406.03 (3) sets out the requirement that anyone conducting training under the owner exemption notify the Minister (via Transport Canada) of various details that the training is occuring including the name rank and serial number of the instructor giving the instruction (so much for flying under the radar.

Interestingly it occurs to me that one could legitmately accomplish the desired end goal by simply leasing the aircraft to the student. A formal written lease agreement, and the registration of the C of R with Transport would make the student "the owner" within the definition contemplated above. Later, at the end of the relationship - the equity owner of the aircraft would be more than capable of informing that the lease arrangement had terminated and that registered ownership had passed back to the equity owner.

[Colonel Sanders]

I would suggest that owing 5% equity in an aircraft where the majority owner and, coincidentally the instructor, continued to own 95% would not pass the smell test in the event that matter ever went to court

Are you a judge in Federal Court, or preferably Federal Court of Appeals?

[JAHinYYC]

Are you a judge in Federal Court, or preferably Federal Court of Appeals?

No, not yet.

But I've read enough written judgements to have more than a passing acquaintance with how the judiciary thinks.

Lastly, when I write "I would suggest" that it legal double talk for "I am not 100% certain, nor stating this as a fact".

[Indanao]

The thing is there is no, " Smell " Test. If your owner you can train on the Aircraft. If your names on the C. of R., you are an owner of the Aircraft. Problem is each region head tries to interpret the CARs differently to suit their empire building agenda.

When you talk about leasing an Aircraft out - that sounds like skirting the law to me. That is what we are complaining about with Transport Canada, they are skirting the law by being sneaky. You have to tell them there is a flying school going on, obviously, and they will say ok. But, watch out on future Instructor Rating renewal rides.

[gaamin]

Edit

[dave_091]

The rule of "406.03(2)(b)(iii)" seems to put all freelancer instructing on the instructors aircraft - even if he sells a share of the aircraft to a friend - to an end (unless the student is direct family).

Or I am interpreting it wrong.

[Colonel Sanders]

If the freelance training is ab initio, the student MUST
be an owner (or owner's family) of the aircraft.

If the freelance training is NOT ab initio, then the
"arm's length" requirement kicks in.

This really isn't very complicated, despite people's
repeated attempts to make it so. I sometimes
wonder if they do it intentionally, to try to muddy
the waters for some unknown purpose.

[Indanao]

If the Student's name appears on the C. of R., then the Instructor didn't obtain the Aircraft. The Student did. An owner, as stated in CARs, can take instruction on his own Aircraft for any license.