The only safe thing is not to let anybody see you do aerobatics
True. Completely, totally bizarre, but very true.
It all comes down to CAR 602.01, which is the "one size fits
all" regulation. See, there are an awful lot of regulations, but
if you fly an airplane, and somebody doesn't like how you
did it (or simply doesn't like you), well, time to trot out the
very subjective CAR 602.01 which says that you shouldn't
be reckless or negligent when flying an airplane.
Now, you don't need to damage property or injure anyone
to be labelled reckless or negligent - that would be too simple,
and too objective.
By case law, something negligent is something that a
"prudent" person wouldn't do, which certainly leaves
lots and lots of room for individual interpretation.
Pretty well everyone knows that anytime you are 100
feet in the air, or going 100 mph, if something goes
wrong (and it surely can), it's gonna hurt.
So, would a "prudent" person even step foot in an
airplane? Subjectively, you could quite reasonably
argue "no".
But let's say you disagree with the above. Ok,
fair enough. Is it prudent to go the next step
and fly aerobatics? Some people would argue
no, a prudent person would not fly aerobatics.
Some people would disagree, and think that
a prudent person can still fly aerobatics. Ok,
what about doing it at low altitude? Would
a prudent person do that? Some people
would argue no.
But other people would argue yes. So let's
take it a step further. Would a prudent
person fly aerobatics at low altitude in
formation? Some people would argue no.
Other people would argue yes. Ok, so let's
take it a step further. Would a prudent person
fly aerobatics at low altitude in formation
inverted? Some people would argue no.
And some people would argue yes.
As, you can see, the wonderfully subjective
602.01 "reckless and/or negligent" can be
a bit tricky to sort out.
As far as my insane experience went ... at
various times, Transport argued flight visibility,
but their own witnesses said it was over 3
miles at the time, when they departed VFR
cross-country. Transport then argued that
6 people on the ramp was an "open air assembly
of persons" which I thought was a tad silly.
But where it got really ridiculous was when
Transport argued that I had less than 3 miles
flight visibility when I was in a vertical downline,
say after a hammerhead, because flight visibility
is defined in CAR 101.01(1) as forward vis out
the front cockpit. Amazing, the Tribunal agreed
with that bizarre interpretation of the regs, and
briefly outlawed by case law, all aerobatics in
Canada below 18,000 feet, until I could get that
silliness overturned in a higher court.
It got even weirder when I argued the applicability
of double jeopardy at the Federal Court of Appeals.
Transport argued that double jeopardy - multiple
punishments for the same offense - only applied
to criminal law, not administrative law. Transport
argued that they could punish me as much as they
wanted, for as long as they wanted, for whatever
offense I might or might not have committed at
Hanover that day.
I argued to the 3 judges in Federal Court that double
jeopardy certainly does apply to administrative law,
otherwise a policeman that didn't like black men could
give a black guy 100 speeding tickets for the same
offense, which I didn't think was reasonable.
Unfortunately the Federal Court of Appeals bought
Transport's reasoning, and once again, I have
unwillingly created a very very bad precedent
in Canadian law, which you all have to suffer
under. Sorry about that. You really don't want
to know about the other precedent in Canadian
law that I unwillingly participated in.
At the previous level (Federal Court) the judge
wasn't quite such a fan of Transport's shenanigans
in this case, and issued a court order, "enjoining"
the Minister from any further punishment in this
case, which Transport simply ignores. Transport
considers itself above a measly Federal Court
order, much like a policeman considers traffic
law - it doesn't apply to him.
I am no angel, but compared to some of the
characters at Transport, I'm surely a choir boy!
Excellent question! ... 
