fractional ownership

[watermeth]

hello
I was looking for info about fractional ownership in the TC website and didn't find much in what seems to be a grey zone.
what I'm trying to figure out is the relation between TC and fractional ownership program/operators and fleet management in regards to AC type/equipment and OC.
if I understand correctly an Oc isn't required because you operate a said aircraft privately (?)
Is there restrictions concerning the aircraft type and engine (multi/mono/piston/turbine) other than what good common sense dictates ?
all info and links appreciated.
thanks

[Wacko]

It's been a while since I looked it up but you don't need anything up to a single turbine.. I can't remember if the PC12 falls into that or not... but anything bigger than a PC12 including King Air etc all fall under 604

[ahramin]

King Air no longer requires a POC. See Interim Order 9.

604.03 No person shall, without a temporary private operator certificate issued under section 604.05, operate any of the following Canadian aircraft for the purpose of transporting passengers or goods:

(a) a turbo-jet aeroplane; or

(b) a large aeroplane.

If you aren't flying one of the above, no POC required.

To answer the original question, fractional ownership has no bearing whatsoever on whether an OC is required.

[AirSprint HR]

The question to ask is if you plan on making money using fractional ownership of aircraft?

This person may be able to assist in answering your questions:

James Elian - jae@airsprint.com

AirSprint HR

edited for sentence structure...

[it'sme]

King Air no longer requires a POC. See Interim Order 9

The problem with that statement is with no POC, no Op Specs. No Op Specs, there will be some things you can't do with the aircraft and a number of airports you can't access in IMC.

[ahramin]

True, but most of the ops specs give exemptions from rules that only apply to 604 or 7xx aircraft anyway. I see what you mean about RCAP approaches, but is it really worth the price?

[Hornblower]

In Canada a fractional ownership program would fall under the operation of an "air transport service" (CAR 101.01) due to the broad definition of "hire and reward" in the Aeronautics Act when combined with the definition of "commercial air service" in same.

Yes you should talk to Airsprint if you are thinking of starting down that path. I believe they have some kind of oddly crafted exemption from TC to do the "fractional ownership" management thing without an AOC.

That being said, I doubt they would want to help you out much, as you would be competition in a market they have pretty well to themselves; that is, unless there are others out there with a similar exemption ... maybe Execair ...? I'm not sure.

[Colonel Sanders]

How depressing.

Let's say one guy owns a 172, and hires a commercial pilot to fly it for him. Is that a "fractional ownership" according to TC, requiring an OC?

Let's say two guys each own half of 172, and hire a commercial pilot to fly it for them. Is that a "fractional ownership" according to TC, requiring an OC?

I know I'm the lone voice in the wilderness, but sometimes - only sometimes - I wonder if we have just about enough government in Canada. Do we need more?

[watermeth]

Sanders is the one who understood my point as a matter of fact.
I'm not trying to launch a fractional biz, not that stupid... I won't contact Airsprint, and I didn't talk about making money either.
I'm trying to understand what that "concept" really implies and I'm pretty surprised to see that any cpl owning a single piston engine could transport people for reward in conditions that are not even approved in the 703 galaxy.

[Hornblower]

Ok then, that's not a fractional by definition, it's just a partnership in a single aircraft; that's perfectly acceptable. Any number of people can own an aircraft and hire anyone they want to fly it for them. That is not an "air transport service".

A fractional is where there are many owners of multiple aircraft (usually sold in shares of a group of aircraft) and a management company charges the "owners" fees for use of their own aircraft.

Maybe someone from Airsprint can explain it better; we don't actually have a legal definition of it in Canada.

In Canada, if you charge a fee (or "meet the definition of hire and reward" in some other way) for the use of an aircraft, it's a commercial air service, and when you charge that fee for transporting someone (or cargo) between two points, it's an "air transport service" and you need an AOC.

[Colonel Sanders]

A fractional is where there are many owners of multiple aircraft (usually sold in shares of a group of aircraft) and a management company charges the "owners" fees for use of their own aircraft.

Not sure I understand the difference between the above and this:

Let's say two guys each own half of 172, and hire a commercial pilot to fly it for them

The commercial pilot - whom is being paid by the owners - is obviously charging the owners fees for use of their own aircraft.

Is "two" not semantically equivalent to "many"?

I guess I'm just not bright enough to live in a country with so much bureaucracy, which insists on being involved in every aspect of your daily life for no good reason other than to justify the jobs of the bureaucrats.

[Hornblower]

The commercial pilot is not charging for the use of the aircraft, only for his services as a pilot; he receives nothing for the use of the aircraft. In the fractional, the management company charges for the use of the aircraft.

I don't necessarily agree that the fractional is a true commercial air service, but since the definition of "hire and reward" is so broad, TC can get you if they want you.

[Canadian Skyhawk]

The previous posters are correct, TC has no legal definition or distinction for fractional ownership, unlike the FAA in the USA. This of course has no bearing on whether an operator's certificate (OC) is required.

There are numerous groups of owners who have pooled together to buy and operate an aircraft in Canada, and who hire a CPL or ATPL to fly for them (I am one of those). If the aircraft in question flies privately (i.e. no paying passengers, cargo, aerial work ,etc.) and is used strictly for the benefit of the owners, its operation requires absolutely no OC (604 or 7xx), unless the aircraft is a jet or a "large aircraft" (as per TC Interim Order no.9 dated July, 2011). Thus, any non-jet aircraft (piston or turboprop) under 12,566 lbs MTOW can be operated privately (regardless of the number of owners). This includes everything from Navajos on up to PC12s, some of the older King Airs, MU2s, Metros, etc.

Before July 2011, any aircraft that was both pressurized AND turboprop powered required a 604 POC. So a Cessna P210 that had been converted to a turbine engine (yes, they do exist!) necessitated a POC. That was ridiculous. The new rules certainly provide a greater measure of freedom. Of course, without an OC, there are no ops specs, so basic CAP GEN limitations apply. In my view, that's a fair tradeoff.

[it'sme]

I see what you mean about RCAP approaches

It's not just RCAP approaches. Here is just one example, CYSL. NOTAMS have been existance for a few years now and are periodically renewed. Not trying to sound like I'm nitpicking but just wanting to point out, regardless of the interim order, a private aircraft operator needs to carefully review their scope of operations because they may still need a POC.

120041 CYCL ST.LEONARD
CYSL NDB RWY 18 APCH IS RESTRICTED. OPS SPEC 099 OR 410 REQUIRED.
AD VISUAL SURFACES NOT ASSESSED CREWS MUST BE FAMILIAR WITH AD
ENVIRONMENT.
NDB MINIMA TO READ 1300 (515) 1 1/2
1112151330 TIL APRX 1206151800

120042 CYCL ST.LEONARD
CYSL RNAV(GNSS) RWY 18 APCH IS RESTRICTED. OPS SPEC 099 OR 410
REQUIRED. AD VISUAL SURFACES NOT ASSESSED CREWS MUST BE FAMILIAR
WITH AD ENVIRONMENT.
LNAV MINIMA TO READ 1300 (515) 1 1/2
1112151404 TIL APRX 1206151800

120043 CYCL ST.LEONARD
CYSL RNAV (GNSS) RWY 36 APCH IS RESTRICTED OPS SPEC 099 OR 410
REQUIRED. AD VISUAL SURFACES NOT ASSESSED CREWS MUST BE FAMILIAR
WITH AD ENVIRONMENT.
LNAV MINIMA TO READ 1300 (507) 1 1/2
1112151344 TIL APRX 1206151800

120044 CYCL ST.LEONARD
CYSL NDB/VOR RWY 36 APCH IS RESTRICTED OPS SPEC 099 OR 410
REQUIRED. AD VISUAL SURFACES NOT ASSESSED. CREWS MUST BE
FAMILIAR WITH AD ENVIRONMENT
1112151358 TIL APRX 1206151800

[ahramin]

Interesting. I didn't realize it was possible to NOTAM CAP approaches with they don't meet TP308.

In any case, if you use these airports regularly then it might make sense to maintain a POC already in place. I can't see anyone thinking it would be worth it to obtain a POC for this reason though. Maybe if you were based at an airport with only an RCAP approach.