The CARs

[flap16]

Is it just me or are the CARs unusually difficult to navigate and interpret?

What is the definition of a flight crew member on reserve? Can't seem to find it anywhere. I can find the definition for crews on standby, and on-call, but not on reserve.

Or, to fly VFR, all I can find is that all "necessary" charts must be carried on board, and must be current.
What is "necessary"? Can I take an IFR LO chart with me, or do I need VNCs?

This isn't meant as a bash-TC post, I am actually curious about these questions.

[Hedley]

It's just you

Sorry.

P.S. For day VFR, don't need any charts or pubs at all

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#602_60

602.60 (1) No person shall conduct a take-off in a power-driven aircraft, other than an ultra-light aeroplane, unless the following operational and emergency equipment is carried on board:

(b) all of the necessary current aeronautical charts and publications covering the route of the proposed flight and any probable diversionary route, if the aircraft is operated in VFR OTT, night VFR flight or IFR flight;

[Mach1]

The CAR’s are exceedingly ugly… they are purposely written to be vague and open to interpretation so that it makes it difficult to sue TC while at the same time allowing inspectors the freedom to interpret rules one way for people they like and another way for people they don’t like. Brought to you by lawyers for lawyers.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#700_21
Flight Crew Members on Reserve

700.21 (1) An air operator shall provide flight crew members on reserve, within each 24-hour period, with a rest period that meets the requirements of the Commercial Air Service Standards.
(amended 1999/06/01; previous version)

(2) Every air operator shall outline in its company operations manual a method for ensuring compliance with this Section and the Commercial Air Service Standards.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#720_21
720.21 Flight Crew Members on Reserve

The standards for compliance with this section are:

(1) An air operator shall provide each flight crew member with an opportunity to obtain at least 8 consecutive hours sleep in any 24 consecutive hours while on reserve by one of the following methods:

(a) the air operator shall provide the flight crew member with 24 hours notice of the time of commencement and duration of the rest period. The designated rest period cannot shift more than 3 hours earlier or later than the preceding rest period, nor more than a total of 8 hours in any 7 consecutive days;

(b) the flight crew member shall be given a minimum of 10 hours notice of the assignment and shall not be assigned any duty for these 10 hours; or

(c) the air operator shall not assign the flight crew member to flight duty time and shall not interrupt the flight crew member's rest period between 22:00 and 06:00 local time.

(2) Where an air operator is unable to provide a flight crew member with a rest period required by subsection (1) and the flight crew member is notified to report for flight duty or the reporting time occurs between 22:00 and 06:00 local time:

(a) the maximum flight duty time shall be 10 consecutive hours; and

(b) the subsequent minimum rest period shall be increased by at least one-half the length of the preceding flight duty time.

[skywardbound]

I really wish they would publish a book like this one for the CARs.



Easy to use and navigate.

[Hedley]

but it would be eight feet thick.

[Louis]

Judging by the cover this looks more like that "CARs for the Private Pilot" document I've seen bound together with the AIM.

[iflyforpie]

I couldn't find it online so I wrote what I could remember...

1) No pilot or pilots shall understand, or attempt to understand, or begin to attempt to understand, or comprehend, in whole or in part the following Air Regulations.

2) If a pilot or pilots becomes aware that he or she or they understand, or attempted to understand, or began to attempt to understand, or comprehended any part or parts of the aforementioned Air Regulations, they must notify the Minister within five days of the pertaining section or sections.

3) Upon receipt of the notification, the Minister will re-write the Air Regulations to prevent further understanding or comprehension by the offending pilot or pilots.

4) For second and subsequent offences under 1), the pilot or pilots will be sent to a Recurrent Training Seminar where upon completion the pilot or pilots will be too confused to be capable of understanding anything.

[beaverbob]

iflyforpie
Yup, you have a good memory

[foxmoth]

iflyforpie

thanks for that
i actually asked for that on Avcanada a while ago but nobody responded
what you siad is not the whole thing, which is really very good.
Does anyone have the full document?
foxmoth

[Widow]

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (NPRM)

Part 0, Section 000 (a) 1(c)

Section I - No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of a pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make, or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned Aviation Regulations, except as authorized by the Administrator or an agent appointed by, or inspected by, the Administrator.

Section II - If a pilot, or group of associate pilots becomes aware of, or realizes, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Aviation Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify, in writing, the Administrator.

Section III - Upon receipt of the above-mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Administrator shall immediately rewrite the Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.

Section IV - The Administrator may, at his or her discretion, require the offending pilot or pilots to attend remedial instruction in Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.

Is that it?

[iflyforpie]

Yeah, that's better than mine, but I thought there was a whole list.

[ipilot54]

What is the definition of a flight crew member on reserve? Can't seem to find it anywhere. I can find the definition for crews on standby, and on-call, but not on reserve.

The definitions that you found are in CAR 101.01 but the “on reserve” definition is found in CAR 700.01 since it refers to Commercial Air Service.

700.01 In this Part,
"flight crew member on reserve" - means a flight crew member who has been designated by an air operator to be available to report for flight duty on notice of more than one hour;

[2milefinal]

skywardbound
Try this book.
http://www.electrocution.com/aviation/#CARS

[foxmoth]

thanks Widow, you such a resource!

still think the original was longer too, but that is great.

[Flybaby]

"flight crew member on reserve" - means a flight crew member who has been designated by an air operator to be available to report for flight duty on notice of more than one hour;

This is the most useless expansive definition ever. Basically all pilots in Canada on reserve, except for emergency standby pilots. So if my boss asks me to work next week I'm on reserve?

[Prairie Chicken]

Hedley, flap16 had the right reg ...

602.71 The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, before commencing a flight, be familiar with the available information that is appropriate to the intended flight.

It’s up to the (reasonable & prudent) PIC to decide what info he needs.

[Hedley]

602.71 is marvellously vague, isn't it? Lots of
ammunition there for Transport.

Here's a suggestion for another marvellously
vague regulation:

CAR 602.666: Every pilot shall conduct each flight in a manner which is afterwards approved by Transport

Hilariously and ridiculously vague, isn't it? But notice the
amazing similarity to CAR 602.01 - the "one-size-fits-all"
regulation, which prohibits "reckless and/or negligent" actions.

Basically, the regulations are so completely vague,
you can't possibly ever win. Even if you knew what
they all were - and no one does - for any flight, you
can always be hung up to dry on CAR 602.01, if
someone doesn't like you

Back in 2001, I had the Regional Director of Enforcement
on the stand at the Tribunal, and I politely asked him
why he went 90 days on a CAR 602.01 charge, which
was three times the maximum in Chapter 11 of the
aviation enforcement policy manual, and completely
disproportionate with the precedents given that no
one was hurt, no property was damaged, there was no
tangible evidence of any regulation being violated,
and some people approved, and some people didn't.

His answer? "I don't like you"

Aviation is very much like a high school popularity
contest. Some people can do no wrong, others
can do no right.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hedley they don't even need vague regulations to hammer you if they want to.

When they were doing me over they decided to ignore a clearly written CAR...one they had already agreed with me on in a letter signed by the head of the Regional M&M.

And to make it more incredible Dave Nowzek assured me in a phone conversation two days before a meeting with me and my lawyer that he would stand by the letter from M&M.

At the meeting they did a 180 degree turn and told me that the CAR in question was superseded by their decision to ignore it.

I was so taken back by what the M&M guy said I called him a fuckin liar and Dave jumped up and told me I could not call the head of M&M a liar in that meeting.

So I turned to my lawyer and asked him his opinion.

He placed the letter in front of Dave and also said it is my understandng you told . that you would stand by this letter so I see no reason why he can not call you both fucking liars.

The big problem Hedley is most people in this group here on Avcanada just have not had the misfortune to actually see TC in action.

What is really amazing is there are still some people that can not grasp the simple fact that if what I am saying is not true I would be charged with libel in a heartbeat because I name those who I am discussing.

And of course use my real name so they can find me.

[ettw]

Firstly, I find the CARs to be laid out in a reasonable manner. You do have to get into them and become familliar with their layout to be able to quickly find stuff. And yes there is ambiguity in some of them.

I actually had a M&M inspector tell me that if there was room for interpretation, he would interpret on my behalf. I did have a good relationship with him and did my darndest to be proactive in keeping my operations in regulatory compliance. I think it showed.

With respect to Hedley and ., it sounds like they got burned bad. With that being said, not all of TC is evil. I think you should approach aviation in a proactive manner and do the best job you can to stay within the rules. I'm not saying that if someone at TC takes a hate on for you you're not going to have a hell of a job defending yourself but the longer you operate within the rules, the better off you are.

For the newbies out there, TC is not evil, or out to get you. TC is there to write the rules and to monitor regulatory compliance (sorry, SMS now dictates that we do that ourselves )

Cheers,

ETTW

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm not saying that if someone at TC takes a hate on for you you're not going to have a hell of a job defending yourself but the longer you operate within the rules, the better off you are.

That does not hold true because if that were the case I would be one of the last persons in Canada to ever have trouble with TC because my record is exemplary not to mention TC had me work with them to ensure compliance with the rules.

Where I have my problem is it was TC who were operating outside of their own rules and policies and I followed the CAR's trying to get the problem rectified.....had the people in charge at TCCA followed the rules and dealt with their own offenders I would still have a company and my career in aviation in Canada would not have been ended eight years ago.

As long as the industry is satisfied to allow the top management of TCCA to operate outside of the law you are a fool to think that TCCA can be trusted.

Then again there is always the argument that some of you can make that what happened to me is of no importance, after all it does not directly affect you.

Oh, by the way having TCCA end my career in aviation in Canada was the best thing that ever happened to me as my career improved beyond anything I could have ever imagined once I left Canada.

[flap16]

Thanks for the responses (to my original question, as well as the other replies)