Specialty flight training and CAR 406.03

[Rhys Perraton]

E.mail me if you like, I can give you my experiences of 406 vs 703 as I have both.
I don't think you are going to but I would not advise doing any sort of "hire or reward" flying on a privately registered aircraft.
Too many "experts" on here.
moonbeam3@shaw.ca

[Cat Driver]

Too many "experts" on here.

I am not sure what exactly you mean by the above, but, what I posted can be done and there is nothing illegal about it.

Unless of course they have changed the laws and regulations since I had my last discussion about it with the Director General Transport Canada and his legal adviser about exactly what I posted here.

There was nothing illegal about it then....around 2003 or so.

[Colonel Sanders]

I would not advise doing any sort of "hire or reward" flying on a privately registered aircraft.

Then you shouldn't do it.

I understand that you're pissed off that you pushed a mountain
of paper and other people don't have to, but that still doesn't
change the regulations.

Once more, I ask you: When TC Enforcement sends you a
registered letter - I have received many of them - specifically
which Canadian Aviation Regulation are they going to assert
that you have contravened today?

Still waiting for the answer on that very simple, crucial question.

Correct me if I am wrong: if you are NOT contravening
any specific Canadian Aviation Regulation, it is therefore legal,
unless TC can somehow once again contort CAR 602.01 to
make it fit the circumstances.

Please tell me where above I have made a mistake. This is
very, very simple.

[Instructor_Mike]

That doesn't make any sense - "counted a training in the normal sense". When they were in the aircraft, receiving flight training, I hope they logged dual, which would correctly reflect the activity.

No, when I inquired about it you logged pic time on your first flight. Some of the conversion pilots might not have had commercial or higher licences possibly. Some of the pilots were retired high time pilots (airline, instructor etc) but they may have also not kept up their class 1 medicals and just hold class 3. Again I don't know the details on some of this, just that you could log PIC on your first flight. Conversion pilots also didn't care about logging hours I assume.

These are non-high performance single engine aircraft so legally anyone with a PPL could jump in and go. The checkouts were more for SOP and insurance and not required by CARS which is probably why they didn't consider it training. Of course having a fresh PPL in a 172 then jumping into a 5000lbs warbird without a checkout makes a lot of sense anyway.

Our insurance required certain minimums of experience before you could get the conversion training and then you need to approval before you could go solo and a second opinion ride before passengers and being fully signed off and that was part of our SOPs.

I'll admit I wasn't prepared to get in to the very technical part of this but my point was that you don't need a FTU, instructor rated pilots or commercial aircraft to do conversion training (in this case a harvard at a non-profit museum). I was also only ground crew with a PPL at the time.

[Rhys Perraton]

That is true, if the aircraft that the conversion training or type experience is being done on belongs to the pilot being trained, but if he rents the aircraft from the training pilot then it surely must be " hire or reward ".
TC definition, from the website, of a commercial flight is any flight in an aircraft for hire or reward.
The Harvard Association for example, and museums offering rides to members are examples of exemptions.

[Colonel Sanders]

When TC Enforcement sends you a registered letter, specifically
which Canadian Aviation Regulation are they going to assert that you have
contravened today?

[Masters Off]

Colonel is pretty clear; get a tail-wheel, find some students, teach. Yes it can be private, yes it's type conversion and yes it's dual time for the student. Yes you can charge for the aircraft and "consulting" fee. Finally, you only need be a CPL/ATPL to teach it, no AOC, FTUOC.

Here's another question.
Ferry-flying; Revenue generating, but if there was an AOC, how would you have training and a PCC/PPC for each type? It's a bit absured. Is there a chance that it's another missing part of the CARs? I can't find anything. But I do know this. It would be the positon of a commercially paid pilot, flying for money. You can't cover this on 'consultation'. So how does that work? 702 Aerial Work almost sounds fitting, to me...

[Beefitarian]

Colonel is pretty clear; get a tail-wheel, find some students, teach. Yes it can be private, yes it's type conversion and yes it's dual time for the student. Yes you can charge for the aircraft and "consulting" fee. Finally, you only need be a CPL/ATPL to teach it, no AOC, FTUOC.

Follow up question just for fun. Does that slash indicate, CPL and Atpl?

[Colonel Sanders]

In Canada, you cannot hold both a CPL and an ATPL for
the same category of aircraft.

This is not the case in the USA, weirdly enough, where
I have an FAA ATP-MEL and CPL-SEL.

[Beefitarian]

Interesting and informative. Thanks.

[Rhys Perraton]

Aeronautics Act

“commercial air service” means any use of aircraft for hire or reward;

“hire or reward” means any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft;

[Colonel Sanders]

When TC Enforcement sends you a registered letter, specifically
which Canadian Aviation Regulation are they going to assert that you have
contravened today?

[Masters Off]

Well this is digging up a little bit, but I have questions.

I get a class 4 instructor rating, work my butt off, then become a class 3. It's said I'm allowed to freelance, but by whats said above, I need some sort of "Commercial Air Service" to have, in order to do that freelance. Doesn't really make that "free" at all.

-Im a cpl or atpl holder or instructor class 3. On my licence, and according to CAR 425 Im allowed to teach Instrument, Multi, Float, (ski and tail training don't exist, in that sense, but still bring in money) however, CAR 406 (I believe?) says I need an FTUOC to do the instrument, multi, etc. So, arguably I could be an ATPL with no instructor rating, sitting at somewhere like ProIFR, Cornwall, Perimeter or something like that doing multi's and M-IFRs all day long with no instructor rating, but I cannot do such things independently. Or am I reading into these CARs wrong?

[photofly]

“commercial air service” means any use of aircraft for hire or reward;

But you don't need an AOC for operating a Commercial Air Service. You need an AOC to operate an Air Transport Service. (700.02(1)).
An Air Transport Service (101.01) "means a commercial air service that is operated for the purpose of transporting persons, personal belongings, baggage, goods or cargo in an aircraft between two points.". Flight Training (and aircraft hire) is clearly not an Air Transport Service so you don't need an AOC for it.

700.05(1) says that to be used in a Commercial Air Service, the (Canadian) aircraft must have a CofA. That's about the only requirement linked to a Commercial Air Service. That I can find.

Flight training is excluded from Aerial Work (101.01) so 702 ("Aerial Work") doesn't apply. Similarly no other part of VII applies (1, 3, 4, 5, 6 (you are not an Air Operator as you hold no AOC). Just subpart 0.

[Colonel Sanders]

photofly: see CAR 406/426 for info on FTU OC.

To do ab initio training, you either need an FTU OC
or the pilot needs to be the owner of the aircraft.

To do any other kind of flight training listed in CAR
406.02, you as the instructor must be at "arm's
length" from the owner of the aircraft. See CAR
406.03(2)(b)(iii)

For flight training not listed in CAR 406.02 (eg type
famil, tailwheel) nothing in CAR 406 applies, hence
there is no "arm's length" requirement between
the instructor and the aircraft owner.

This is so simple, and people just don't get it.

Sigh.

[photofly]

This is so simple, and people just don't get it.
Sigh.

Nope ... you have to wade through CAR IV and CAR VII. Anything that requires looking in two parts of the CARs is by definition "complex".

[Beefitarian]

I know I don't get it. The way I see it the student has to either own, or at least own a part share of the plane, or be related to the owner, to take training towards a private pilot's license. Otherwise the plane needs to be under some sort of Flight training unit operating certificate.

Then it gets broken down further into wether or not the training is going toward transport Canuckistan's issuing paper work.

[Masters Off]

My apologies Colonel. I've always appreciated your patience on here. As well as your guidance in understanding some of the more intricate parts of the CARs as well as the different components to basic and advanced training and flying. I guess you're not feeling patient and rather feel insulting tonight.

Sigh.

[Beefitarian]

So, arguably I could be an ATPL with no instructor rating, sitting at somewhere like ProIFR, Cornwall, Perimeter or something like that doing multi's and M-IFRs all day long with no instructor rating, but I cannot do such things independently. Or am I reading into these CARs wrong?

I think the guys you mention are only checking to make sure the holders of a rating have current skills to keep said rating.

If I'm following you would be teaching the skills to students in order to obtain a new rating.

[Masters Off]

No, in CAR 425 it says a CPL or ATPL holder, following certain provisions can teach (and as far as I know, renew) IFR, or the Multi, or the Float rating.

[Beefitarian]

certain provisions

The fun is trying to understand the provisions. There was some discussion about pilots teaching themselves IFR with a suitable check pilot.

Anyway, I'm not being helpful and basically loitering in the thread. Sorry, I'll go away for a while.

[Cat Driver]

It would seem that paranoia is part of being a Canadian.

Fear of your government is all part of living in a third world country.

[Colonel Sanders]

Canada is a government owned and operated enterprise.

Once you understand that, everything else falls into place.

In the case of Transport Canada, less aviation is always
better. This is especially the case in flight training - the
less there is, the better. In the context of this, you can
start to understand CAR 406.

One commits the sin of aviation under constant threat
of it being extinguished at any time, because it only occurs
at the pleasure of the Minister.

[Cat Driver]

Colonel, when I owned a flight school I could not believe the raw fear of T.C. the flight instructors all had.

[Colonel Sanders]

People with no fear are hence extremely dangerous,
and must be dealt with severely.