Class 3 Upgrade Application

[Riggie]

For anyone who has recently applied for their class 3 instructor rating, what paperwork did you submit to TC with the application? I know I have to send in the signed instructor training record under supervision and pay the rating fee online. Did you also fill out the rating endorsement application form (the one with about 20 different ratings on it)? Did you have to provide proof (logbook entries?) of having 100hrs dual or copies of students' PTR to prove you did 50% of the training before the recommendation? Given how long it's been taking TC to process applications, I want to ensure everything is in order before it's sent. Thanks!!

[Bede]

Great questions as there's no clear guidance in the AP manual on what is required.

Yes to instructor under supervision form, fee & application for endorsement of a rating.

What get's tricky is "proof of last 5/10 hours of dual". I had someone recently try to upgrade to 3 and went to a TC AP. (The AP is employed by TC, but isn't in licensing or have any background in GA.) He wanted copies of the students PTR showing that the instructor did 5 of the last 10 hours. I argued that a) that's not required anywhere, b) TC has that information in their files since the PTR's were submitted, c) the proof of 5/10 hours is the under supervision form which requires a signature from the CFI. Compounding this problem was that some of the solo's were over 20 years ago and it was impossible to get a hold of the people to track down a logbook (one since died I think.) Anyways, the TC AP said he couldn't sign off and suggest we discuss with a licensing officer. In the end we found an AP with flight instructor rating priviledges who was willing to sign off the class 3.

So, in short, if you have copies of the PTR, submit them, if not, find someone who will sign off.

[780Pilot]

Go to the rating application form and fill out the instructor section with what’s relevant to the upgrade. Make sure to write class 3 at the top of those boxes. Pay the fee online, attach evidence of your 3 solos (preferably the section signed in the PTR by you and the CFI). Copies of 3 student FTRs showing you have had 3 successful recommends. Attach either your logbook or a spreadsheet showing at least 100 hrs dual instruction time. Last but not least the instructor supervision form. You can email this all to TC. When I upgraded we dealt directly with the schools TC contact who verified the paperwork and it went smoothly. PM if you have questions.

[photofly]

Quick note to say - the flight test passes have to be complete flight tests. Partial flight tests don't count, if you were wondering.

[Riggie]

Thank you everyone for the responses! I will attach copies of the PTR's for the first solos and the flight test reports with the application, we still have those in our files so it will be easy to do. Can an authorized person endorse my ADB for the class 3 or do I need to wait for a response from TC?

[780Pilot]

Thank you everyone for the responses! I will attach copies of the PTR's for the first solos and the flight test reports with the application, we still have those in our files so it will be easy to do. Can an authorized person endorse my ADB for the class 3 or do I need to wait for a response from TC?

Usually it’s an AP from TC directly. You’d have to ask. I just waited for my sticker which came within 30 days. My friend got an AP from TC in Edmonton to sign his. I would get in contact with the person who did your class 4 ride and see if they can authorize a class 3.

[Riggie]

Thank you everyone for the responses! I will attach copies of the PTR's for the first solos and the flight test reports with the application, we still have those in our files so it will be easy to do. Can an authorized person endorse my ADB for the class 3 or do I need to wait for a response from TC?

Usually it’s an AP from TC directly. You’d have to ask. I just waited for my sticker which came within 30 days. My friend got an AP from TC in Edmonton to sign his. I would get in contact with the person who did your class 4 ride and see if they can authorize a class 3.

Got it. Thank you! It's been several years since anyone at my small FTU has upgraded, so we're a bit iffy on the procedure.

[praveen4143]

Quick note to say - the flight test passes have to be complete flight tests. Partial flight tests don't count, if you were wondering.

What if you recommended both tests? I keep hearing people say this but I couldn't seem to find it in the CARs. Is there some kind of circular about this?

[photofly]

Quick note to say - the flight test passes have to be complete flight tests. Partial flight tests don't count, if you were wondering.

What if you recommended both tests? I keep hearing people say this but I couldn't seem to find it in the CARs. Is there some kind of circular about this?

Yes. It was mailed out out in printed form to all FTUs around here directly from the licensing office, as a statement of national policy. I don't know if it's available online. The reasoning is that the "three passes" rule is to confirm that a class 4 instructor is correctly able to determine when a student reaches the standard required to pass their flight test (first time). If only a partial pass is achieved the instructor has not demonstrated they have that ability, and (regardless of what the student achieves at the re-test) the recommendation will not be accepted towards the required total.

[digits_]

Quick note to say - the flight test passes have to be complete flight tests. Partial flight tests don't count, if you were wondering.

What if you recommended both tests? I keep hearing people say this but I couldn't seem to find it in the CARs. Is there some kind of circular about this?

Yes. It was mailed out out in printed form to all FTUs around here directly from the licensing office, as a statement of national policy. I don't know if it's available online. The reasoning is that the "three passes" rule is to confirm that a class 4 instructor is correctly able to determine when a student reaches the standard required to pass their flight test (first time). If only a partial pass is achieved the instructor has not demonstrated they have that ability, and (regardless of what the student achieves at the re-test) the recommendation will not be accepted towards the required total.

What if they fail completely and then pass on their second try in a full test?

[photofly]

What if you recommended both tests? I keep hearing people say this but I couldn't seem to find it in the CARs. Is there some kind of circular about this?

Yes. It was mailed out out in printed form to all FTUs around here directly from the licensing office, as a statement of national policy. I don't know if it's available online. The reasoning is that the "three passes" rule is to confirm that a class 4 instructor is correctly able to determine when a student reaches the standard required to pass their flight test (first time). If only a partial pass is achieved the instructor has not demonstrated they have that ability, and (regardless of what the student achieves at the re-test) the recommendation will not be accepted towards the required total.

What if they fail completely and then pass on their second try in a full test?

The circular doesn't stipulate, but there is no reason for that not to count. It doesn't have to be a student's first go at the flight test; it simply has to be a complete pass all in one go.

[digits_]

Yes. It was mailed out out in printed form to all FTUs around here directly from the licensing office, as a statement of national policy. I don't know if it's available online. The reasoning is that the "three passes" rule is to confirm that a class 4 instructor is correctly able to determine when a student reaches the standard required to pass their flight test (first time). If only a partial pass is achieved the instructor has not demonstrated they have that ability, and (regardless of what the student achieves at the re-test) the recommendation will not be accepted towards the required total.

What if they fail completely and then pass on their second try in a full test?

The circular doesn't stipulate, but there is no reason for that not to count. It doesn't have to be a student's first go at the flight test; it simply has to be a complete pass all in one go.

Interesting.

So basically, if you're incompetent as a class 4 instructor, make sure you are *really* incompetent, otherwise your recommend doesn't count

[praveen4143]

I find it highly irritating that some random inspector decides it is a certain way and then it suddenly becomes an unwritten rule. What happened to due process where they put out a circular or amend the CARs just so that it is known to everyone? I mean a proper AC, not just a paper circular sent out to "some" FTUs in "some" area or one region... Like make rules that are the same everywhere. Having dealt with PNR and PAC regions over the last 15 years in Aviation, it is always irritating when things are different between each region and even within the region where PNR in YWG had one take while PNR in YYC/YEG had another take. Like seriously?

/End of rant.

[photofly]

double post

[photofly]

I find it highly irritating that some random inspector decides it is a certain way and then it suddenly becomes an unwritten rule. What happened to due process where they put out a circular or amend the CARs just so that it is known to everyone? I mean a proper AC, not just a paper circular sent out to "some" FTUs in "some" area or one region... Like make rules that are the same everywhere. Having dealt with PNR and PAC regions over the last 15 years in Aviation, it is always irritating when things are different between each region and even within the region where PNR in YWG had one take while PNR in YYC/YEG had another take. Like seriously?

/End of rant.

It's actually not a random inspector's decision or an unwritten rule; it's a national decision, in place since 2017, and publicly upheld by the TATC in Michel Ouellet v. Canada (Minister of Transport), 2018 TATCE 31 (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tatc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=1)

[27] Mr. Samson explained that, before confirming that a successful partial test on an item failed in the complete flight test was not eligible under Standard 471.70(4)(a)(ii), he consulted 26 technical team leaders (TTLs) across the country and emailed 36 colleagues who are senior instructors with Transport Canada. He asked them what they thought and what the story was behind the flight test required by the standard, since the regions needed clarification. Mr. Samson said most of his colleagues replied, and all of those who did confirmed that only the flight test with 31 skill items for a private pilot and 33 skill items for a commercial pilot, passed on the first try, was accepted. Mr. Samson added that the same logic and decision applied to Class 3 instructors applying for a Class 2 rating, who need to recommend 10 students who have passed the flight test on the first try and for whom partial tests are not accepted.

[28] Mr. Samson filed as Exhibit M-10 the series of emails he sent and received in consulting his colleagues, resulting in him issuing an interpretation to all regions of the country on July 5, 2017. Mr. Samson therefore concluded that when the applicant applied for a Class 3 flight instructor rating on August 11, 2017, the national directive for Standard 421.70 had already been confirmed, and it mirrored the interpretation that had been applied historically before certain regions strayed from it.

.
.
.

[80] Part 5 of schedule 3 of Standard 428, entitled “Content of the Flight Test for the Issuance of a Private Pilot Licence—Aeroplane” confirms this interpretation and lists all the items that the examiner must assess: section 1 (pre-flight operations), section 2 (airwork), section 3 (navigation), section 4 (abnormal and emergency procedures) and section 5 (arrival and landing). Each section is subdivided into different skills to be assessed. All of these skills are assessed on the “flight test for the issuance of a private pilot licence—aeroplane”, which is comparable to the expression used in Standard 421.70(4)(a)(ii). Since Parliament does not speak in vain, it is a justified conclusion that a partial re-test of any one given failed skill does not include all of the required skills and knowledge on the “flight test for issue of a permit or licence” under Standard 421.70(4)(a)(ii) and therefore that all of these skills and knowledge required for the complete flight test must be acquired in a single try under the meaning of the standard.

[81] Through the testimony of Pierre-Laurent Samson from Transport Canada headquarters, the Minister demonstrated that the national directive confirmed in July 2017 required that these skills and knowledge be successfully demonstrated on a complete flight test passed on the first try. Ms. Drouin confirmed that this was the directive she applied and was asked to apply.

[82] The evidence also showed that when the applicant submitted his Class 3 instructor licence application, the national directive had confirmed the interpretation of Standard 421.70(4)(a)(ii). This directive, which was confirmed following a national consultation of senior management at Transport Canada, shows that the Minister applied the standard in good faith and in a generalized, impersonal way, and that there is no evidence of the Minister acting unreasonably in the applicant’s file.

[83] The applicant also acknowledged that when he submitted his Class 3 flight instructor application for endorsement, he did not do so on the basis of his colleagues’ licence applications submitted to the Quebec regional office and accepted with successful partial tests on failed items. In any case, the applicant’s evidence on his colleagues’ dealings with the Quebec office was not reliable, since it was based on hearsay and not corroborated by any other evidence.

...

[86] Lastly, the Minister’s interpretation of the application of Standard 421.70(4)(a)(ii) requiring the complete flight test to be passed on the first try is in line with its objective of safety in the public interest. Specifically, it ensures that instructors recommending three students have the skill to assess them and recommend them for the flight test for issue of a licence for which the skills are listed in schedule 3 of Standard 428, i.e. the complete flight test. This interpretation is reasonable and aligns with the Minister’s jurisdiction in issuing Canadian aviation documents. Furthermore, it is recognized in administrative law that subjecting an activity to authorization from the Minister implies that lawmakers deemed it necessary, in the public interest, to restrict constituents’ freedom in this activity and that this intention must be respected.

I hope you sleep a bit easier tonight, knowing that.

[praveen4143]

Maybe my anger on that post wasn’t justified but I stand by the opinion that there’s just way too many places to look for things and too many people to ask and get way too many varied opinions when dealing with TC. If such a precedent exists, then realistically there needs to be a circular made available for everyone to access easily than to go read up on tribunals. I definitely don’t read tribunal decisions as a hobby and I doubt there’s people out there going through niche areas of regulatory framework to find out gotchas.

[digits_]

Maybe my anger on that post wasn’t justified but I stand by the opinion that there’s just way too many places to look for things and too many people to ask and get way too many varied opinions when dealing with TC.

The alternative can actually be much worse. With the current set up you can contact a different region if the answer of one region is incorrect.

In smaller countries, you often have one guy deciding pretty much everything, often straying away from what's legally required and interpreting it the way he thinks it should be.

[photofly]

Maybe my anger on that post wasn’t justified but I stand by the opinion that there’s just way too many places to look for things and too many people to ask and get way too many varied opinions when dealing with TC. If such a precedent exists, then realistically there needs to be a circular made available for everyone to access easily than to go read up on tribunals. I definitely don’t read tribunal decisions as a hobby and I doubt there’s people out there going through niche areas of regulatory framework to find out gotchas.

Honestly I'm not seeing the problem. All regions give the same advice and follow the same standard since 2017 when a problem with different interpretations was identified and fixed. (That they took notice of the issue and took action on it is creditable.) The upgrade standards for class IV instructors is a really niche corner of a regulation and affects a tiny tiny proportion of pilots and all the other people TC deals with on a daily basis.

If you're getting too many different opinions on this one then you're asking the wrong people. An email to the licensing officer at your regional office is the way to go.

[praveen4143]

Maybe my anger on that post wasn’t justified but I stand by the opinion that there’s just way too many places to look for things and too many people to ask and get way too many varied opinions when dealing with TC. If such a precedent exists, then realistically there needs to be a circular made available for everyone to access easily than to go read up on tribunals. I definitely don’t read tribunal decisions as a hobby and I doubt there’s people out there going through niche areas of regulatory framework to find out gotchas.

Honestly I'm not seeing the problem. All regions give the same advice and follow the same standard since 2017 when a problem with different interpretations was identified and fixed. (That they took notice of the issue and took action on it is creditable.) The upgrade standards for class IV instructors is a really niche corner of a regulation and affects a tiny tiny proportion of pilots and all the other people TC deals with on a daily basis.

If you're getting too many different opinions on this one then you're asking the wrong people. An email to the licensing officer at your regional office is the way to go.

My rant wasn’t specific to this issue. I just keep hearing different things from different TC personnel. There are just way too many things open to interpretation that when someone say a CFI or an AP consults for one, they need to put it down somewhere for easy access to other CFIs or APs. I use the example of these two roles as these are roles I am currently and have previously held in more than one region and have heard polar opposite opinions on similar issues on more than one occasion. I’m sure I’m not the only one getting clarifications on regulations. If there is a question, then find some way of making it a policy across the country rather than have each region handle things differently. Again this isn’t specific to the Class 4 instructor rating question.

[praveen4143]

Maybe my anger on that post wasn’t justified but I stand by the opinion that there’s just way too many places to look for things and too many people to ask and get way too many varied opinions when dealing with TC. If such a precedent exists, then realistically there needs to be a circular made available for everyone to access easily than to go read up on tribunals. I definitely don’t read tribunal decisions as a hobby and I doubt there’s people out there going through niche areas of regulatory framework to find out gotchas.

Honestly I'm not seeing the problem. All regions give the same advice and follow the same standard since 2017 when a problem with different interpretations was identified and fixed. (That they took notice of the issue and took action on it is creditable.) The upgrade standards for class IV instructors is a really niche corner of a regulation and affects a tiny tiny proportion of pilots and all the other people TC deals with on a daily basis.

If you're getting too many different opinions on this one then you're asking the wrong people. An email to the licensing officer at your regional office is the way to go.

My rant wasn’t specific to this issue. I just keep hearing different things from different TC personnel. There are just way too many things open to interpretation that when someone say a CFI or an AP consults for one, they need to put it down somewhere for easy access to other CFIs or APs. I use the example of these two roles as these are roles I am currently and have previously held in more than one region and have heard polar opposite opinions on similar issues on more than one occasion. I’m sure I’m not the only one getting clarifications on regulations. If there is a question, then find some way of making it a policy across the country rather than have each region handle things differently. Again this isn’t specific to the Class 4 instructor rating question.