Multi-engine and Multi-IFR Freelance Training Instructor (with aircraft)

[Diamond Air Charter]

We are new to the multi-IFR training business but not new to aviation.
A new multi-IFR or multi-engine school is starting operation in the Edmonton area in March. Check it out: http://diamondaircharter.ca/flight-training.html

[photofly]

Ed,

Do you hold an FTUOC?

What’s the significance of “freelance” in your thread title?

[Diamond Air Charter]

Freelance, as in not associated with any major flying school.

As DAC will have a 702/703 OC, a Flight Training Unit Operating Certificate is not required for Multi-engine nor Multi-IFR.

[photofly]

406.03(2)(a) - got it. Good luck!

[Bede]

Freelance, as in not associated with any major flying school.

As DAC will have a 702/703 OC, a Flight Training Unit Operating Certificate is not required for Multi-engine nor Multi-IFR.

Sorry, but you still need an FTUOC. See CARS’s reference above. Exact same circumstances led to a hefty fine.
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 6/index.do

[photofly]

That case is distinguishable because the defendant didn’t hold an AOC for the airplane:

37] There was evidence submitted that the applicant holds a flight training unit operator certificate (Exhibit M-3), which is issued under subpart 6 of Part IV and authorizes the holder to operate a flight training service, but no evidence was provided by the parties to the effect that the applicant holds either an air operator certificate or a private operator registration document. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot conclude that the first condition of the exemption under subsection 406.03(2) is met.

In this case they operate the plane under an AOC so they can also offer training in it. It’s not “freelance” at all - I don’t know why they say it is - but it’s not illegal to misdescribe it as such.

Diamond Air Charter is also offering flight instruction toward your Multi-Engine Rating and Group One Instrument Rating in our DA62 Aircraft

That’s a generous plane to train in, somewhat nice than the usual 1957 Aztec for sure.

[digits_]

Diamond Air Charter is also offering flight instruction toward your Multi-Engine Rating and Group One Instrument Rating in our DA62 Aircraft

That’s a generous plane to train in, somewhat nice than the usual 1957 Aztec for sure.

And likely explains why the hourly rate or the cost of the rating isn't mentioned anywhere on the website... Only that it isn't cheap...

[photofly]

There’s a market for expensive restaurant meals and wine at $500 per bottle, and I don’t see why there shouldn’t be a market for multi engine training in a modern aircraft, even though it costs more than rock-bottom operators can advertise training for. I know someone who’s very keen to buy a DA62 for private flying and it would be ideal for them to train in one.

[Bede]

It's kind of a shame that they don't have an FTUOC. It actually looks like a really decent place to train: new aircraft, experienced instructor, promising syllabus.

[digits_]

There’s a market for expensive restaurant meals and wine at $500 per bottle, and I don’t see why there shouldn’t be a market for multi engine training in a modern aircraft, even though it costs more than rock-bottom operators can advertise training for. I know someone who’s very keen to buy a DA62 for private flying and it would be ideal for them to train in one.

Sure, but you'll need a lot of 9 hour multi ratings to get any proper volume. In Edmonton.

Anyway, nice airplane, just a shame they don't advertise the cost. It happens surprisingly often that I come across people looking for a flight school recommendation (online and offline). I like to point people to the 'good' flying schools, but without an idea of the cost, it's unlikely I'd recommend this school. I doubt I'm the only one thinking like this. Or maybe I am.

[digits_]

It's kind of a shame that they don't have an FTUOC. It actually looks like a really decent place to train: new aircraft, experienced instructor, promising syllabus.

Why would they need one? What other training could you do with an FTUOC in a twin that you couldn't do with their current setup?

I guess you could do full PPL and CPL training on a twin, but it seems unlikely people would be interested in that.

[photofly]

It's kind of a shame that they don't have an FTUOC. It actually looks like a really decent place to train: new aircraft, experienced instructor, promising syllabus.

I too am not sure it makes that much difference; by the time the plane is subject to an individual approved maintenance schedule, and operations are subject to audit, most of the benefit of an FTUOC is covered. I’m not sure that the “instructor supervision” requirements are so noteworthy if you’re only teaching multi and multi-IFR.

Sure, but you'll need a lot of 9 hour multi ratings to get any proper volume. In Edmonton.

indeed, but it’s likely just another possible string to the bow of a new charter outfit wondering what the utilization of their shiny new $1m asset on which they’ve paid the deposit but won’t have revenue on for another four months. I’d be throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, too.

[Bede]

.

[photofly]

Right- so this outfit can operate without anyone with an instructor rating, if their instructor(s) have the required experience.

Is that a big loss, for those ratings? I’m really not sure.

[Aviatard]

I guess you could do full PPL and CPL training on a twin, but it seems unlikely people would be interested in that.

You could do almost all of it, except for spins.

[Diamond Air Charter]

Freelance, as in not associated with any major flying school.

As DAC will have a 702/703 OC, a Flight Training Unit Operating Certificate is not required for Multi-engine nor Multi-IFR.

Sorry, but you still need an FTUOC. See CARS’s reference above. Exact same circumstances led to a hefty fine.
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 6/index.do

I never ceased to be amazed with the rhetoric and ill informed opinions rendered on these anonymous forums. This post is a perfect example.
I refer Bede to CARS 406.03 https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/reg ... l#s-406.03, Requirements to Hold a Flight Unit Training Certificate. Specifically (2) which states:
(2) A person who does not hold a flight training unit operator certificate may operate a flight training service if

(a) the person holds a private operator registration document or an air operator certificate, the aircraft used for training — in the case of the holder of an air operator certificate — is specified in the air operator certificate, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit — recreational, a private pilot licence, a commercial pilot licence or a flight instructor rating; or

(b) the trainee is

(i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training,

(ii) a director of a corporation that owns the aircraft used for training, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit — recreational or a private pilot licence, or

(iii) using an aircraft that has been obtained from a person who is at arm’s length from the flight instructor, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit — recreational or a private pilot licence.

You will notice the emphasis on the word "or" (my emphasis). In other words, a person without an FTUOC can offer training in ratings (not permits and licences) if they have an OC (that's para (a)) or the trainee is the aircraft owner...(that's para (b)).

And since DAC will have an OC by the time this program starts in March this multi-engine/IFR program is entirely onside and legal.

Someone tried this stunt with me on FaceBook, was thoroughly embarrassed by his lack of knowledge and deleted his claim. Will Bede do the same?

[Diamond Air Charter]

I too am not sure it makes that much difference; by the time the plane is subject to an individual approved maintenance schedule, and operations are subject to audit, most of the benefit of an FTUOC is covered. I’m not sure that the “instructor supervision” requirements are so noteworthy if you’re only teaching multi and multi-IFR.

You still need a CFI with an instructor rating (class 2 if the owner wants to instruct) which puts a damper on things if you're trying to be a one man show.

Once again , Bede, you are challenged by the facts. May I refer you once again to CASS 425.21 https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-servi ... ars#425_21 Qualifications of Flight Instructors.

With respect to multi-engine training:
(5) A person who conducts flight training in a multi-engine aeroplane where the trainee does not have a multi-engine class rating shall:

(a) be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence;

(b) have multi-engine pilot experience, which if acquired on centre thrust multi-engine aeroplanes may be credited toward qualifying a pilot to provide centre thrust multi-engine flight instruction only; and

(c) have experience of not less than 50 hours flight time on multi-engine aeroplanes with not less than 10 hours on the type of aeroplane used for the training.

With respect to a type rating:
(7) A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of an aircraft type rating shall:

(a) in the case of training for a holder of an aeroplane pilot permit or pilot licence:
(amended 2006/12/14)

(i) be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence - Aeroplane or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence - Aeroplane; and
(amended 2005/12/01)

(ii) have experience of not less than 50 hours flight time on the class of aeroplane used for the training, of which not less than 10 hours must be on the aeroplane type;

With respect instrument training:
(9) A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of an instrument rating shall be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence, have an instrument rating and:
(amended 2006/12/14)

(a) have a flight instructor rating; or
(amended 2006/12/14)

(b) have experience of not less than 500 hours pilot-in-command flight time, of which:
(amended 2006/12/14)

(i) not less than 100 hours shall be on the applicable aircraft group, and
(amended 1998/03/23)

(ii) in the case of Group I aircraft, not less than 10 hours shall be on the type of multi-engine aeroplane used for the training.
(amended 1998/03/23)

I hope that experienced pilots like myself who cannot be bothered to get an instructors rating read these CARS and CASS revelations and realize that they can instruct and pass on their wealth of knowledge and experience. Just as there is a looming pilot shortage, there is a looming instructor shortage. Reducing the bureaucratic headache to instruct for ratings, not licences and permits, will hopefully attract others like myself who are interested in "giving back" to the industry.

[photofly]

Someone tried this stunt with me on FaceBook, was thoroughly embarrassed by his lack of knowledge and deleted his claim. Will Bede do the same?

Bede's usually spot on, and he was trying to save you a bunch of punitive penalty fines and headaches. You could simply enjoy the fact that he's wrong and you are right. Is taking a tone with someone for misreading a sub-sub-sub-clause of a regulation a good advertisement for your teaching?

[Diamond Air Charter]

Sure, but you'll need a lot of 9 hour multi ratings to get any proper volume. In Edmonton.

indeed, but it’s likely just another possible string to the bow of a new charter outfit wondering what the utilization of their shiny new $1m asset on which they’ve paid the deposit but won’t have revenue on for another four months. I’d be throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, too.

FYI, the asset was $1.7 million CDN. And not to worry, the aircraft will be doing 100 to 150 hours annually flight checking instrument flight procedures for the parent company. I decided to do the multi-IFR thing to increase the aircraft utilization but also because I really enjoying flying the aircraft and what a cool way to give back to the industry by passing on years of knowledge and wisdom!

The aircraft does everything really, really well. In fact, I considered the DA62 to be a GA version of the B787. Carbon fibre composite construction, state-of-the art, jet fuel burning diesel engines (with dual FADEC) and an avionics suite which is arguably better than than found on a $250 million B787.

Look for an article in the upcoming Canadian Aviator Magazine about the DA62.

[photofly]

FYI, the asset was $1.7 million CDN. And not to worry, the aircraft will be doing 100 to 150 hours annually flight checking instrument flight procedures for the parent company.

Hopefully with some instruction and air taxi you can bump that up?