CARs that you think should be changed

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

CanadianEh
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: YYZ

CARs that you think should be changed

Post by CanadianEh »

If you could add/change/abolish to/from a part of the CARs, what would you do and why?
---------- ADS -----------
 
co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4726
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by co-joe »

Only one duty day within a 24 hour period starting at 0000 and ending at 2359 local time in the time zone you started your duty day from. None of this 8 hours and you're G2G bullshit.

Mandatory rules on how long "and time for personal duties" is.

ie no "our ops manual says 1 hour is enough time for you to drive home, make dinner, have a shower, and get to sleep, plus drive back to the airport tomorrow even though it takes you half an hour each way to drive home."... 9 hour turnaround bullshit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rudy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:00 am
Location: N. Ont

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by Rudy »

Having a good chunk of co-pilot IFR time should be mandatory before being allowed to fly single-pilot IFR commercially.

Under the current system it's entirely possible that the first time you fly into actual IMC you will be single-pilot with innocent people in the back. The current "50 hours of simulated or real IMC" requirement is a joke.

Most safe operators do this already but there will always be those that will try to save a buck by sending out inexperienced guys on their own.

Seeing how to handle winter weather and icing conditions is very important in Canada too.
---------- ADS -----------
 
boogs82
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:55 am
Contact:

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by boogs82 »

Being unable to learn to fly on an aircraft unless you're the owner. If a freelance owns an aircraft and wants to teach on his/her aircraft, this should be ok.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
fingersmac
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:17 pm

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by fingersmac »

Add 500hrs multi-crew time to the requirements for an ATPL (like the JAA).
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
185_guy
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:30 pm
Location: Where my skidoo broke down

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by 185_guy »

703.25
Float planes have been carrying external loads since the beginning of float flying. A canoe or boat tied on the side of an airplane should not require an STC/LSTC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Skymark
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:43 am

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by Skymark »

Complex or RG and CS time to get a CPL. Crazy you can get a CPL with only having C150, or other small simple single time.

More then a fresh CPL to be an instructor. You should need some real flying experience before you can teach. 400 total time, 200 PIC should be min for instructor.
---------- ADS -----------
 
wallypilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:59 pm
Location: The Best Coast

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by wallypilot »

co-joe wrote:Only one duty day within a 24 hour period starting at 0000 and ending at 2359 local time in the time zone you started your duty day from. None of this 8 hours and you're G2G bullshit.

Mandatory rules on how long "and time for personal duties" is.

ie no "our ops manual says 1 hour is enough time for you to drive home, make dinner, have a shower, and get to sleep, plus drive back to the airport tomorrow even though it takes you half an hour each way to drive home."... 9 hour turnaround bullshit.
The entire duty time section needs to be revamped. I know that there are discussions currently under way exploring new ideas to coincide with the FAA. However, there needs to be changes to the way night time flight duty is weighted, among other things. There needs to be wholesale change, and the enforcement to ensure it is being done. you can change the CARS all you want, but without enforcement, it will always be "loosely" followed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
flyinthebug
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
Location: CYPA

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by flyinthebug »

Lets go back to the ANO`s and start the whole CARs thing over. Revamp the entire thing so it is in english (CARs were all written by lawyers) and not up for each seperate inspector`s interpretation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MrWings
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by MrWings »

Skymark wrote:Complex or RG and CS time to get a CPL. Crazy you can get a CPL with only having C150, or other small simple single time.

More then a fresh CPL to be an instructor. You should need some real flying experience before you can teach. 400 total time, 200 PIC should be min for instructor.
Why is it crazy? What if all you ever fly commercially is a fixed gear single engine?

What kind of "real" flying experience do you suggest? Are new CPL instructors teaching something dangerous? If only those with many hours of commercial experience are allowed to instruct, most instructors will be retirees and there will not be enough of them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MrWings
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by MrWings »

Rudy wrote:Having a good chunk of co-pilot IFR time should be mandatory before being allowed to fly single-pilot IFR commercially.

Under the current system it's entirely possible that the first time you fly into actual IMC you will be single-pilot with innocent people in the back. The current "50 hours of simulated or real IMC" requirement is a joke.

Most safe operators do this already but there will always be those that will try to save a buck by sending out inexperienced guys on their own.

Seeing how to handle winter weather and icing conditions is very important in Canada too.
What is wrong with going out the first time into actual IMC single-pilot? Are you saying there is something inherently dangerous in doing this? Is there something lacking in the IFR training and testing that those that pass an IFR ride are not actually prepared for actual IFR conditions?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by trampbike »

Skymark wrote:Complex or RG and CS time to get a CPL. Crazy you can get a CPL with only having C150, or other small simple single time.
I'd like to add: more than one 300nm XC flight. Maybe one 500nm...

I know of people who flew almost all of their 200h on local flights, then wondered where the hell they should be going for that damn 300nm... :roll:
I hope these guys never found a flying job, but it pisses me that they still managed to get their CPL by flying CYHU-CZBM-CYHU dozens of times.

I'd love to see some basic upset recovery training included in a CPL training. I don't think it's ever going to happen thought...
---------- ADS -----------
 
MrWings
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by MrWings »

trampbike wrote:I hope these guys never found a flying job, but it pisses me that they still managed to get their CPL by flying CYHU-CZBM-CYHU dozens of times.
Why does that piss you off?

It is interesting that many of the changes listed in this thread are to make more hoops for people to jump through. They seem to think there are people out there that hold a licence or a rating which they don't somehow deserve.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

Flying cross country does not Seem to give you any skills that would help you get a CPL. I flew a piper warrior II from CYBW to KDCA where I did a short field landing just because I felt like it. Then spent a few days checking out The national Air and Space Museum and a few other thing like Sox the cat. Then flew back. A couple years after that when I was taking "CPL training" my flight instructor did not know if that flight would qualify for the 300 nautical mile trip or not. Seriously.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MrWings
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by MrWings »

co-joe wrote:ie no "our ops manual says 1 hour is enough time for you to drive home, make dinner, have a shower, and get to sleep, plus drive back to the airport tomorrow even though it takes you half an hour each way to drive home."... 9 hour turnaround bullshit.
If they are only giving you an hour for personal duties and it takes you an hour of driving time, then you are not being given the legally required time.

I can't see that passing any kind of scrutiny by Transport.
---------- ADS -----------
 
teacher
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2450
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:25 pm

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by teacher »

As mentioned above the duty day and especially the crew rest sections. It is open to too much interpretation. Trying to enforce set "turn times" when it's clearly not enough time to get what you need to get done and then achieve the required rest.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by Shiny Side Up »

A lot of the training issues that people percieve above would be remedied if there was changes made to 406.03, the requirements to hold a FTUOC. Currently the system has stagnated in that there are very limited options for running a FTU or conducting training operations. Given the framework that currently exists there is little leeway for competitive operations, and starting a new flight training operation is an almost prohibitively time consuming process. All of the suggestions above (regarding flight training) are things that could be individually implemented on an as demand basis for flight training. There would be more types out there available for people to trainin on, more experienced people could offer training and there would be greater differences between flight training operations to cater to customer wants and needs, which will be directly influenced by industry wants and needs when it comes to commercial working pilot training.

Right now any new blood or ideas to be introduced into the flight training world are stopped at the start, since if you have a good idea and want to bring something new to the table, you have to go through this obscene process to do so. While I don't think the requirement to hold a FTUOC should be scapped entirely, there currently are no provisions for smaller specialty training operations.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MrWings
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by MrWings »

Shiny Side Up wrote:Right now any new blood or ideas to be introduced into the flight training world are stopped at the start, since if you have a good idea and want to bring something new to the table, you have to go through this obscene process to do so. While I don't think the requirement to hold a FTUOC should be scapped entirely, there currently are no provisions for smaller specialty training operations.
What kind of new ideas?

If Joe Schmoe wants to learn how to fly, an approved operation should have instructors and aircraft meeting a a certain standard. Isn't that the purpose of a FTUOC?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by Cat Driver »

The Canadian FTUOC is beyond any doubt the most restrictive, unorthodox obscene abortion ever to have been foisted on any civilized society.

The training industry is doomed to fail under the present management in T.C.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MrWings
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by MrWings »

Cat Driver wrote:The Canadian FTUOC is beyond any doubt the most restrictive, unorthodox obscene abortion ever to have been foisted on any civilized society.
I'd argue that Jersey Shore is but that is for another debate.

Specifically what is so wrong with it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
MrWings
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:35 am

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by MrWings »

boogs82 wrote:Being unable to learn to fly on an aircraft unless you're the owner. If a freelance owns an aircraft and wants to teach on his/her aircraft, this should be ok.
As a customer, how am I ensured that the aircraft is maintained to a commercial standard?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by Shiny Side Up »

MrWings wrote:
Shiny Side Up wrote:Right now any new blood or ideas to be introduced into the flight training world are stopped at the start, since if you have a good idea and want to bring something new to the table, you have to go through this obscene process to do so. While I don't think the requirement to hold a FTUOC should be scapped entirely, there currently are no provisions for smaller specialty training operations.
What kind of new ideas?

If Joe Schmoe wants to learn how to fly, an approved operation should have instructors and aircraft meeting a a certain standard. Isn't that the purpose of a FTUOC?
That indeed is its purpose, the problem being that it is extrordinarily limited in its scope and is incredibly outdated. It works fine to the what it was designed for if one is going to put together a large flight training unit where you're going to mass produce pilots a la BCATP style works. Even then though it is incredibly restrictive. Even if you operate under the assumption that there are no new ideas to be made under flight training, it does make it so there can be virtually no new operations in this coutry, unless you start with several million dollars and intend to lose half of it in the process. Flight training in some ways has stagnated because essentially, there will almost never be any new competition.

Here's an example of the problem. Take an experienced pilot like Cat Driver. For him to take a single airplane to train people on, he's looking at an approval time currently of roughly six months to a year to get his FTUOC. That's if he wants to own his plane and make money off of it. On the other hand, he can freelance without a FTUOC, but only if his customer buys the airplane and operates it. So where does a FTUOC help ensure the customer's safety in this regard? The only thing not having it is preventing Cat from making money with his own plane. If Cat was bound and determined to try and make money off of his own plane, the current regulations in regards to FTUOC approval means that he has to have the airplane before the process starts - this is part of the unwieldly part of this process. He's got to lay out capital, then not be able to make money off of that for the operating approval time. That's a tough pill to swallow - and unique in business. If I buy myself a bobcat or a truck, I can be working making money with that thing probably within a week. I wouldn't have to wait for someone to approve of my letter appoining myself chief bobcat operator.

Here's the thing. There's already a process (the instructor rating) to ensure that flight instructors meet a certain standard, as well as its journeyman like program for new instructors. There's already a process for ensuring that an aircraft used for hire meets a certain standard as well. Why do we need another stack of paper for when we put those two things together? At he very least, provision needs to be made to make the process run smoother so we can cut down that approval time, and provisions made for smaller, especially one man, operations. You don't need a FTUOC south of the border, why does here have to be so much more difficult?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by Colonel Sanders »

how am I ensured that the aircraft is maintained to a commercial standard?
In the USA, the very first day that a flight instructor gets his rating, he can teach unsupervised on his own aircraft. All that is required is 100hr inspections on the privately-registered aircraft.

I have seen people in the USA put nicely-printed labels near their tach, saying,

"Next 100hr insp due 1820.3TT"

And that's it. All you have to do, is look at the recording tachometer, to see how much air time is left until the next legally required 100hr inspection.

There is less government involvement in everyone's life, south of the border. A different attitude. For example, American aircraft don't have journey logs - only little airframe and engine logs. Americans simply wouldn't stand for the "big brother" aspect of journey logs.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

Well, if it's so great why don't you just move there? Take me too, I'll wash the airplanes and drive the company truck.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: CARs that you think should be changed

Post by Colonel Sanders »

PS I am not pulling this "100hr inspection" for flight training
aircraft in the USA out of my hat, or any other place.

FAR part 91.409(2)(b) applies:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... 3.10.5.7.5
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service.
Incredibly simple! The CARs and the requisite MCM take hundreds of pages to do the same thing.

Next time someone asks why flight training is so much cheaper in the USA, you can tell them why.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”