Why Sunwing's and Canjet's FLVC are illegal

[Gilles Hudicourt]

There are two airlines in Canada that hire seasonal pilots in the winter to augment their pool of pilots to cater to the higher demand that they have in the winter season: Sunwing and Canjet. But instead of hiring Canadian seasonal pilots, they hire foreign pilots. Why ? To save money.

They use two Government of Canada programs to obtain work permits for these foreign pilots. One under Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) called the Reciprocal program, and another under a Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) program called the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP).

However, in both cases because these foreign pilots come to Canada to fly Canadian registered aircraft for Canadian airlines, the regulations call for the foreign pilots to hold a Canadian Airline licence. But they don't have any.

The Canadian Aviation Regulations have certain clauses that allow foreign licensed pilots to fly Canadian Registered aircraft in certain specific cases. That would allow, for example, a tourist, who was in possession of a valid pilot's license from his country to rent a small airplane while visiting Canada. These regulations also allow a foreign pilot who comes to Canada to learn to fly a type of aircraft, take flying lessons in a Canadian registered aircraft with his foreign license.
But whatever the reason the foreign licensed pilot needs to fly a Canadian registered aircraft, he must first obtain from Transport Canada a Foreign License Validation Certificate (FLVC).

CASS 421.07 (2) list the specific cases for which a FLVC may be issued by Transport Canada to a foreign licensed pilot:

421.07 Validation of Foreign Licences

(2) Purposes For Which Foreign Licence Validation Certificates May Be Issued

(a) for the holder to undergo a flight test;

(b) for private recreational flying;

(c) for ferry of an aircraft registered in Canada to or from a foreign country;

(d) for the holder to give type rating training on an aircraft registered in Canada to the registered owner, or to Canadian flight crew employed by the registered owner;
(amended 2003/03/01; previous version)

(e) for the holder to receive training in a Canadian registered aircraft;

(f) for operation of aircraft registered in a foreign state under the operating certificate of a Canadian carrier provided that the privileges are limited to the type of aircraft being operated;

(g) for operation of Canadian aircraft on Canadian commercial air services in urgent circumstances; such as fire suppression operations, emergency agricultural and forestry aerial application, airlift in relief of domestic natural disasters, and search and rescue operations;
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

(h) for commercial air services operated entirely within a foreign country where pilots holding a licence from that country may have their licence validated for operation of Canadian registered aircraft in that country;

(i) for the operation of aircraft registered in Canada on lease to foreign carriers;

(j) for reasons other than those mentioned above where approval may be given if, in the opinion of the Minister, it is in the public interest and not likely to affect aviation safety.

Reading the list of purposes here, it is clear that flying the line for Canadian Commercial Operators is not listed. However, Transport Canada, during the course of the past 2 years, provided close to 500 FLVC to foreign pilots to fly the line for Sunwing and Canjet. They illegally used 421.07 (2) (j) to issue these licenses, which I knew was wrong and illegal. When these regulations were written, they were never intended to allow foreign licensed pilots to roam Canadian skies in Canadian commercial aircraft. I knew that there had to be a regulation that made this illegal, and I was looking for it.

While I was searching the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs)s, looking for proof that the Foreign Licence Validation Certificates (FLVC) that were provided to foreign pilots to fly commercially in Canada were illegal, I initially concentrated on and around CAR 401.07, and its associated standard, CASS 421.07. These clearly indicated that the FLVC were restricted to certain specific reasons but I could not find the clause that really prevented the issue oF FLVC to foreign licensed pilots to fly commercially in Canada.

The real restrictions on using foreign pilots for commercial purposes in Canada lay elsewhere in the CARs and I have now found where.

I was tipped off when I did a Google which landed on this Transport Canada page which begins as follows:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... e-2283.htm

Foreign Applicants

A foreign pilot wishing to fly Canadian registered aircraft for remuneration or reward in Canada must be in possession of a valid Canadian Commercial Pilot Licence or Airline Transport Pilot Licence.

That sentence is very clear and unambiguous. People at Transport Canada don't just make up sentences like this one and post it at the top of a web page unless it is backed up by some legislation. So I began to search for that legislation.

Then I found another Transport Canada document called :

Staff Instruction (SI) No. 400-005
Foreign Licence Validation Certificate

It's here: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... 05-225.htm

This is the instructions manual for TC Inspectors on how to receive and deliver FLVC. One little tiny sentence caught my eye:

In addition to the above, the air operator must include a written statement containing the following information:

A brief explanation why the holder of a Canadian flight crew licence cannot be used.

SI 400-005 would not have a TC Inspector require such an explanation of FLVC applicants unless that demand was based on a specific legislation. In November 2012, in a CAIRS complaint to TC, I even wrote in error to TC that this requirement was not based on any legislation. That's what I thought back then, anyway. Transport Canada didn't find it necessary to show me on what rule that requirement was based. But where was that regulation hidden?

Then one day in the midst of my research, I stumbled upon the following TC Web page.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... nu-901.htm called the

TP 4711 - Air Operator Certification Manual

.

This is the manual that Inspectors use for making sure airlines are in conformance with all regulatory requirements. I noticed that it had a chapter on aircraft leasing. Because there are also aircraft leasing issues in the foreign pilots cause that I am fighting, I looked at it. Surprise!. In the Table of contents on leasing, it had a chapter called:

8.5 Use of Foreign Personnel on Commercial Air Operations in Canada

.

Here is that table of contents:

Chapter 8 - Leasing of Aircraft, Ministerial Authorization and Exemption

Alternate Formats
8.1 Dry Leasing of Canadian Aircraft to Canadian or Foreign Operator
8.2 Leasing of Foreign Aircraft - Ministerial Authorization and Exemption
8.3 Other Types of Ministerial Exemption
8.4 Operation of Foreign Aircraft in Canada by a Foreign Air Operator not Holding a Canadian Foreign Air Operator Certificate
Ministerial Exemption - Aerial Operations
Kit and Letter "Appendix A"
Sample Ministerial Exemption - Special Conditions
8.5 Use of Foreign Personnel on Commercial Air Operations in Canada
8.6 Management Agreement
8.7 Considerations for Management Agreement to Exercise Operational Control
8.8 Foreign Air Operator Operating in Canada on behalf of a Canadian Air Operator
8.9 Ministerial Authorization and Exemption - Charges
8.10 Exemptions and Regulatory Requirements
8.11 Exemption - Particular Lease - Operations under Subpart604 and PartVII of the CARs
8.12 Exemptions for Regulatory Requirements - Directive No.1

That sure was relevant. It was precisely the subject of my research. So I clicked on it to see what TP4711 had to say about the use of foreign pilots on Commercial Air Operations. When I did, the link led me to chapter 8.6. instead of chapter 8.5 I thought I had clicked the wrong line and tried it again, but the same thing occurred again and again. Chapter 8.5 had vanished! It only existed in the table of contents. I was not going to assume that this was an innocent mistake made by a TC web page designer. So I dug, and eventually found the french version of the same page and in it, chapter 8.5 was still there. It was short and sweet. It provided the CAR clauses that I had been looking for all these months.

Manuel d'agrément des exploitants aériens (TP 4711F)

L’utilisation de membres d’un équipage étranger qualifié à bord d’un aéronef canadien, sauf à titre de pilote d’entraînement lors de l’introduction d’un nouveau type d’aéronef, est mentionnée aux paragraphes 723.88(3), 724.108(3) et 725.106(6) de la NSAC.

I later found an English version in a PDF file that had been published before chapter 8.5 had been deleted from the Web version of the document.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/Publications/EN/TP4 ... P4711E.PDF

Here is the English version of 8.5 of the Air Operator Certification Manual

8.5 USE OF FOREIGN PERSONNEL ON COMMERCIAL AIR OPERATIONS IN CANADA
1. The use of foreign qualified air crew on any Canadian aircraft except when
acting as training pilots for the introduction of a new type of aircraft is referred
to in subsections 725.88(3), 724.108(3) and 725.106(6) of the CASS.

You will notice that in the English version, the first CAR article is not the same as in the French version. The French version is correct. The CASS that is listed in the English version, "725.88(3)" does not exists in reality. Another "mistake". The one listed in the French version, "723.88(3)", does.

I had found what I was looking for: clauses 723.88(3), 724.108(3) and 725.106(6) of the Standard. They are the key. They are the ones which forbid the use of foreign licensed pilots on Commercial aircraft in Canada. It looks as though someone at Transport Canada had crudely attempted to hide them.

These three sets of regulations basically state the same thing for the 3 different sets of commercial operations:
723 for air taxi operations
724 for commuters
725 for airlines.

But regulation is the same in all three cases:

"NO FOREIGN LICENSED PILOTS ARE TO FLY COMMERCIALLY IN CANADA".

Now lets look at these clauses that Transport Canada had attempted to hide in such a crude manner, to hide how it has been illegally providing FLVC to foreign pilots for commercial purposes to fly for Sunwing and Canjet.

"725.106 (6)" is a Standard, which means that it belongs to a Regulations, a CAR. We must first look at that Regulation: CAR 705.106

Let us analyse 705.106 and 725.106(6) point by point.

Pilot Qualifications

705.106 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no air operator shall permit a person to act and no person shall act as the pilot-in-command, second-in-command or cruise relief pilot of an aircraft unless the person

(a) holds the licence, ratings and endorsements required by Part IV;

Do foreign licensed pilots hold a licence, rating and endorsement required by PART IV ?

No they do not. So they are are not allowed to fly aircraft under 705. But 705.106 (1) did specify "Subject to subsection (3)" didn't it ? So we must also look at subsection (3).

Here it is:

(3) An air operator may permit a person to act and a person may act as the pilot-in-command or second-in-command of an aircraft where the person does not meet the requirements of subsection (1), if

(a) the aircraft is operated on a training, ferry or positioning flight; or

(b) the air operator

(i) is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate, and

(ii) complies with the Commercial Air Service Standards.

So according to 705.106 (3) (a), a pilot who does not not hold a licence, rating and endorsement required by PART IV, such as a foreign licensed pilot, can be used as a pilot on training flights, or positioning flights or ferry flights,

OR

according to 705.106 (3) (b) these same pilots who do not have licenses, ratings and endorsements under Part IV of the CARs can be further used for other tasks, if the air operator is authorized to do so according to his Aircraft Operators' Certificate (OAC), and according to the conditions specified in the corresponding Commercial Air Service Standard.

And this is where 725.106 (6), the aforementioned Standard comes in.

725.106 Pilot Qualifications
(6) Use of a Person not Qualified in Accordance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations to Act as Pilot-in-Command or Second-in-Command (refers to subparagraph 705.106(3)(b)(ii) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations)

Authority may be given for other than an air operator employee pilot to occupy a flight crew seat when training, conducting line indoctrination training, and while the first air operator flight crews are completing consolidation and crew pairing minimum flight time requirements on a new aeroplane type.

The pilot shall:

(a) provide a resume, proof of background on the type of aeroplane, and recent experience appropriate to the training to be given; and

(b) hold the appropriate licence, ratings and endorsements. Where the pilot holds a foreign pilot licence, the licence and (as applicable) the instrument rating shall be validated by Transport Canada - Civil Aviation.

The pilot may be authorized to conduct pilot checks provided the requirements of the Company Check Pilot Manual (TP6533) are met with the exception of the minimum employment time with the air operator.

A foreign licensed pilot may be granted authority for training and checking only when a Canadian licensed pilot is not available.

During revenue flights foreign licensed pilots shall not replace Canadian licensed pilots. They can act as qualified pilot in replacement of a training pilot where the training pilot is authorized to occupy the jump seat for the purpose of crew pairing requirements (section 725.108) or transition line indoctrination (subsection 725.124(33)).

725.106 (6) is titled: "Use of a Person not Qualified in Accordance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations to Act as Pilot-in-Command or Second-in-Command (refers to subparagraph 705.106(3)(b)(ii) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations)" and that little note inside the parenthesis, specifically indicates that this article of the CASS refers to those pilots not qualified according to Part IV that were mentioned in CAR 705.106(3) that we just covered above. It will inform us of what other use we can make of foreign licenced pilots, in addition to ferry flights, training flights and positioning flights.

725.106 (6) (b) even mentions that a foreign licensed pilot under this subsection must have his license validated by TRansport Canada. This would ne under CASS 421.07 (2) (d)

421.07 Validation of Foreign Licences

(2) Purposes For Which Foreign Licence Validation Certificates May Be Issued

(d) for the holder to give type rating training on an aircraft registered in Canada to the registered owner, or to Canadian flight crew employed by the registered owner;

So the Standard informs us that in addition to ferry, training and positioning flights that pilots not qualified under Part IV can perform according the CAR 705.106 (6), they are further authorized, when a Canadian pilot is not available, to do training and line indoctrination, when introducing a new type to train Canadian pilots on the new type. They can, however, never be used for revenue flights.

There we have it. No foreign licensed pilots are allowed to fly as line pilots for 705 carriers.

The other clauses mentioned above, namely, 723.88(3) and 724.108(3) basically state the same exact thing but for Air Taxi Operators, and Commuters. That covers just about all commercial operations in Canada.

Transport Canada is providing FLVC to the foreign pilots at Sunwing and Canjet in flagrant contravention of the CARs and as a consequence, in contravention of article 7.3 of the Aeronautics Act, which is an indictable offence since all these pilots are in fact flying Canadian registered aircraft for commercial purposes with a FLVC issued illegally by Transport Canada. Those pilots are no more legal than if they had fake medical certificates or were under-age or over-age.

Here is what the Aeronautics Act has to say about this kind of offense:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-27

7.3 (1) No person shall
(a) knowingly make any false representation for the purpose of obtaining a Canadian aviation document or any privilege accorded thereby;
(b) wilfully destroy any document required under this Part to be kept;
(c) make or cause to be made any false entry in a record required under this Part to be kept with intent to mislead or wilfully omit to make any entry in any such record;
(d) wilfully obstruct any person who is performing duties under this Part;
(e) except as authorized under this Part, wilfully operate or otherwise deal with an aircraft that has been detained under this Part;
(f) wilfully do any act or thing in respect of which a Canadian aviation document is required except under and in accordance with the required document; or
(g) wilfully do any act or thing in respect of which a Canadian aviation document is required where
(i) the document that has been issued in respect of that act or thing is suspended, or
(ii) an order referred to in subsection 7.5(1) prohibits the person from doing that act or thing.

Lets see if this grabs anyone's' attention.......

Unless Canada is now some third rate Banana Republic, all operations at Canjet and Sunwing involving pilots with FLVC should be grounded, some bigwigs at Transport should be fired and indicted for fraud, and the insurance companies which insure these aircraft should pull all insurance coverage on said operations.

The Canadian Transportation Agency is responsible for making sure that all Canadian Airlines carry adequate and sufficient insurance coverage to protect the general public in case of major incidents and accidents. Because the FLVC issued to the foreign pilots are issued in contravention of the Canadian Aviation Regulations and of the Aeronautics Act, they are in fact no valid for the purposes for which they are employed. The insurance companies that insure these operations would then have a valid excuse to deny insurance coverage should a large insurance claim ever be brought forward in any incident or accident that involved any of these foreign licensed pilots. So these operations may technically not be insured.

Let's see what actually happens and how they will cover themselves.......

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Gilles you are simply amazing, having spent years and for me a small fortune fighting these clowns at Transport through the legal system I know how difficult it can be.

I admire your tenacity and your ability to get to the root of rule of law.

. E.

[BusDriver]

Gilles,

Thank you for all of your hard work. I continue to email my MP weekly.

Busdriver

[loopy]

Gilles, have you tried getting any of the major press interested in this? MacLean's, Fifth Estate, W5, etc? Nothing like a little pressure from the media.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Nothing like a little pressure from the media.

The media is very reluctant to go against the government at this level.

Canada is not as democratic as some may think.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Gilles you are simply amazing, having spent years and for me a small fortune fighting these clowns at Transport through the legal system I know how difficult it can be.

I admire your tenacity and your ability to get to the root of rule of law.

. E.

Coming from you I am extremely flattered at the compliment.

[ea306]

Interesting read Gilles. And yes you should be flattered to get such a compliment from my long time friend Mr. .. He calls a spade a spade.

I was chatting with one of our European visitors not too long ago and he was telling me that he and a good number of his TOM colleagues have previously or currently hold Canadian ATPLs which they obtained when they were operating B757 for SkyService Airlines. Took them about two weeks to have the group issued a Canadian ATPL.

If indeed you have found one legal ground to suspend the FLVC, I suspect this other avenue will be a legal option.

[unregistered]

When providing regulation and standard references, I think you'll find that exemptions can be issued in most areas quite easily - especially in the world of SMS.

Also, as far as TP docs go, I once submitted a manual revision that contained a diagram, quite literally, cut and pasted from a TP doc. I was pulled up for something in the diagram. I explained that I got the diagram directly from their own guidance material, and I was told: "Just because we publish it, doesn't necessarily mean it's correct".

My point ... when you find a reg/standards reference, or language in guidance material, you only have a small fraction of the whole story. The rest of the story lies within the offices of the airline and their POI, and that part of the story is normally the most significant. Without it, you're taking shots in the dark.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When providing regulation and standard references, I think you'll find that exemptions can be issued in most areas quite easily - especially in the world of SMS.

Exactly, which makes a mockery of the law, regulations and rules.

I have never been pro or anti union because almost enevitably they become self serving.

Even in a dictatorship such as Canada what would bust their balls in Ottawa would be for every airline crew in Canada to just stay home the next time they ram something down your throats like they did with forcing pilots back to work.

And don't go back to work until they understand you will not bend to a dictatorship.

Bullies only understand superior force and you have it in spades if you use it.

See... I told you guys I'm on your side.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

The Transport Canada position: nothing but lies.



From: Montsko, Susan [mailto:susan.montsko@tc.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Guindon, Denis
Sent: 17 janvier 2013 15:46
To: gilles Hudicourt
Cc: CAIRS / SSQAC_National
Subject: CAIRS RR-1637

Dear Mr. Hudicourt,


In response to your e-mail sent to my attention on December 30th, 2012 with regards to CAIRS RR-1637, I would like to provide you the following in order to alleviate any further concern you may have.

You are correct when saying that when operating under a wet lease agreement with a Canadian operator, the foreign pilots operating a foreign registered airplane in Canada, would not be subject to the validation of their foreign licence as per CAR 401.07. The same principals, as you stated, would equally apply to any Canadian pilot operating under the scope of an extended charter (wet lease) on behalf on a Canadian operator anywhere in the world.

However, Canadian operators who wish to increase their fleet on a seasonal basis for example, have two options when wanting to add an airplane to their Air Operating Certificate (AOC). It must be clear that this would be totally conducted outside the scope of a “wetlease” agreement. Thus, the first option would be adding an airplane to the AOC under a Canadian registration where any pilot that will be operating that airplane will need either a Canadian licence or a validation of their foreign licence as per CAR 401.07. The second option being to add an airplane to the AOC under a foreign registration where the pilots shall hold a licence as per the country of registration of that airplane.

Your reference to CASS 725.106 (6) does not apply to the situation you are referring to with either Sunwing or Canjet because this CASS is only applicable when an air operator introduces a new airplane type to their operation. It basically provides the possibility for an air operator to temporary employ a foreign pilot in order to provide training or line in-doc where one training pilot would not be available in Canada because being a new type to the operation and/or in Canada.

As for CASS 421.07(2), the FLVCs are issued as per Staff Instruction (SI 400-05 attached). It is in this document that you will find the information you are looking for that allows a foreign pilot to operate revenue flights on a Canadian aircraft. I have attached a copy for your consideration. Contraire to your statement, an FLVC provides a foreign pilot a right to exercise the privileges as stated on the FLVC which would include as applicable revenue flights on Canadian registered airplanes. In this case, the FLVC is issued based on the fact that the pilot holds a foreign licence that authorizes him or her to exercise the same privileges of operating a B73C as either a Captain or First officer as applicable in their own country of origin. Upon application and as per CAR 401.07, Transport Canada validates and provides for a temporary equivalency in Canada.

I trust this clarifies your concerns.

Once again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your views, as all comments we receive are appreciated.

Sincerely,

Captain Denis Guindon
Director
National Operations
Civil Aviation
==============================




From: Montsko, Susan [mailto:susan.montsko@tc.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Guindon, Denis
Sent: 18 février 2013 11:55
To: Gilles Hudicourt
Cc: CAIRS / SSQAC_National
Subject: FW: CAIRS RR-1637

Dear Mr. Hudicourt,

This is in response to your e-mail received January 29, 2013, and our correspondence sent on January 17, 2013, regarding Foreign Pilots.

I note your extensive correspondence from November 7, 2012 to present expressing your concerns with the utilization of foreign qualified pilots and aircraft by certain Canadian companies.

It should be noted however, that Transport Canada is applying the applicable regulations and standards in the context of broader policies concerning Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC Temporary Foreign Workers Program) and Citizenship and Immigration (CIC Reciprocal Employment Program).

While you may have concerns with the nature of the programs, Transport Canada Civil Aviation’s role is simply to confirm compliance with applicable regulations and standards, thereby contributing to the safety of the aviation system.

With regards to your specific concerns with these regulations and standards, we are unable to provide you with any additional information to what we already have.

Once again, I thank you for your views.

Sincerely,

Captain Denis Guindon
Director
National Operations
Civil Aviation

And even the Minister Himself:

From: Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities / Ministre des Transports, de l'infrastructure et des Collectivités [mailto:MINTC@tc.gc.ca]
Sent: 5 juillet 2012 14:59
To: Gilles Hudicourt
Cc: 'DIANE.FINLEY@PARL.GC.CA'; 'JASON.KENNEY@PARL.GC.CA'
Subject: Foreign pilots working in Canada

Mr. Gilles Hudicourt


Dear Mr. Hudicourt:

Thank you for your correspondence of March 24, 2012, regarding foreign pilots working in Canada. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

I should explain that Transport Canada Civil Aviation’s mandate is to make sure that the appropriate framework and oversight programs are in place for the safe operation of the Canadian aviation system. Transport Canada does not mandate how companies hire as long as chosen applicants meet the requirements and comply with the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Private companies are free to make their own business decisions regarding job requirements.

Since some of the concerns you have raised may be better addressed by the departments of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or Immigration Canada, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of our exchange of correspondence to the Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, and the Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, for their consideration.

I trust that the foregoing has clarified Transport Canada’s position with respect to this matter. Again, thank you for writing.

Yours sincerely,



Denis Lebel, P.C., M.P.


c.c. The Honourable Diane Finley, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

The Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What did both write ?
We trample/ignore/bend/twist the CARs as required to accommodate the foreigners and CIC and HRSDC programs.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

I was chatting with one of our European visitors not too long ago and he was telling me that he and a good number of his TOM colleagues have previously or currently hold Canadian ATPLs which they obtained when they were operating B757 for SkyService Airlines. Took them about two weeks to have the group issued a Canadian ATPL.

If indeed you have found one legal ground to suspend the FLVC, I suspect this other avenue will be a legal option.

There is no doubt in my mind that this Minister, from this Government, will bend backwards to accommodate the Foreign pilots and fast track the issuance of bona fide Canadian Licenses to them so that the likes of Sunwing may continue the rape of the aviation industry of this country, and this, despite the fact that the European Aviation Authority, EASA, has recently passed new legislation making it harder for foreigners to get accredited with foreign license in Europe.

[Old fella]

"Captain" Denis Guindon
Director
National Operations
Civil Aviation

Some bloated CAI 3-4 or 5 with an ego to boot calling himself captain - of what I wonder. Makes me puke as a former TC type to see this shit alive and well. It's embarrassing, but then again these YOW types nothing matters other that their implied self importance and severely bloated ego desks. These f---- are so out of touch they don't realize that 'are" out of touch.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

"Captain" Denis Guindon
Director
National Operations
Civil Aviation

Using a title such as "Captain " when used in this position is not only a symptom of personal insecurity it helps fool the masses in the shell game they are playing with Gilles, the outcome is predictable, in the end they will just keep moving the shells around until the issue goes away on its own.

Gilles, when you go to bed tonight even if you are an atheist pray to God they do not pass you over to Transport Canada's " Quality Assurance " department.

During the three and a half years I fought the nest of cockroaches in Ottawa that was the most hideous department to deal with.

The guy who was in charge of that department during the time I was trying to pin them down to facts of law was ( In my personal opinion ) beyond all doubt the slipperiest vermin I ever tried to deal with.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

the outcome is predictable, in the end they will just keep moving the shells around until the issue goes away on its own.

Thanks for the warning. And let the record show that I am a happy person and am not suicidal

Seriously, Insurance companies are large corporations whose goal is to make a profit. All airlines are insured by such companies. It is the law for all airlines to carry insurance coverage. In Canada, they must all submit proof of insurance to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

When a large insurance claim is submitted to an insurance company for an aircraft accident, the insurance company, being first and foremost a profit seeking corporation with shareholders it must answer to, will look over the claim with a fine comb to make sure that the company it insured and which is making a large claim, was respecting the conditions of the contract. Any reason found to avoid paying a very large claim will be exploited to the fullest.

I have not looked at the contract, but I am quite certain that having all aircraft operated by pilots who are in possession of a valid airman's certificate is one of the requirements of the insurance company.

Now that this cat it out of the bag, will the insurance companies that insure the flights that are operated by foreign licensed pilots who are in possession of a Canadian FLVC issued by TC in violations of the CARs be considered to have a valid pilot's license by these insurance companies when the time comes to disburse several millions dollars ?

Unless they now come out and specifically state that they consider these FLVC valid and legal, I wouldn't count on it. Nor would I count on them making such a statement.

What will the position of the Canadian Transportation Agency be, now that this is out ? Will they still accept the proof of insurance that was provided to them at face value or will they try to confirm with TC that these FLVC are not only legal but accepted as legal by the insurance companies ?

The CTA has a duty to the Canadian flying public in making sure that all aircraft are properly insured.......

Transport Canada has the legal obligation to make sure that all pilots were legally licensed to fly Canadian aircraft. That obligation to the Canadian public seems to have been trumped by other mysterious and suspicious considerations.......that do not concern the "Public Interest".

You see where I am going with this........

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You see where I am going with this........

Gilles I have sat in the inner office of Lloyds of London with several underwriters as they strategized on how to lower their payouts for accidents in the airshow circuit in Europe.

Believe me the underwriters live or die based on how many claims they have to pay.

I can not recall ever being more facinated by the efforts of one person against an entrenched buracuracy that thinks they are untouchable.

You are not only touching them you may be sticking it to the hilt in them.

I love it, keep it up.

[Cloud 9]

Well done Giles,

Your tenacity and thoroughness are to be commended.

Whilst true that TC's efforts to discourage you and your ongoing campaign (with deflection tactics) may simply be a result of their being embarrassed by the truth (that they have acted in contravention of the very regulations for which they exist to uphold), I suspect that this issue runs far higher up the chain than Transport Canada. Don't get me wrong, I fully support your actions and am very impressed by your perseverance - just consider that with TC you are up against a Government Bureaucracy that, short of comprehensive publicity and legal action, has limitless time and resources to keep you 'chasing your tail'. I get the impression that regardless of what evidence you hold to their collective noses proving their incompetence/flagrant disregard for the law, that they are quite happy to keep responding to you with letters, thus limiting the scope of the battle.

Perhaps your efforts would be better served investigating the link(s) between the companies/families in question and the Conservative Party.

Regardless, bloody outstanding work

[whipline]

This entire thread starts off with an incorrect statement from Gilles and then morphed into...flying without insurance?

The section you quoted is for foreign pilots converting to a Canadian licence, not FLVC's. The actual quote is this To act as a flight crew member in a Canadian registered aircraft a foreign licence holder shall be in possession of an appropriate Canadian Pilot Licence, Permit or FLVC.

Transport can hand out FLVC'S for whatever reason they want 421.07 section J

All pilots flying sunwing aircraft have Canadian lic or FLVC'S and have passed an approved training course and a transport Canada ride.

How is this illegal?

[Gilles Hudicourt]

I provided the quote and the link to the webpage. You are quoting a different one. My quote was exact.

The difference between what you are quoting and what I quoted lay in the statement "for remuneration or hire" meaning commercial operations. The prohibition lies in the CARs that have to do with commercial operations, meaning 703, 704 and 705. Part IV where 401.07 is located is general in nature and includes general aviation flying. So yes you can get a FLVC to fly a Cessna for pleasure or to do any of the other flying activities allowed under 421.07 (2) but not to operate an airliner to Cancun.

421.07(2)(j) does not and cannot trump 705.106. So if and when the minister decides to use that clause it still must not be in contravention to part VII, which in this case, it is.

Its all explained in the post.

Because the license is issued illegally the pilots are thus technically flying without a valid license which propably forfeits any insurance coverage they would have.

All these clowns deserve to be grounded as of this morning.....

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Interesting read Gilles. And yes you should be flattered to get such a compliment from my long time friend Mr. .. He calls a spade a spade.

I was chatting with one of our European visitors not too long ago and he was telling me that he and a good number of his TOM colleagues have previously or currently hold Canadian ATPLs which they obtained when they were operating B757 for SkyService Airlines. Took them about two weeks to have the group issued a Canadian ATPL.

If indeed you have found one legal ground to suspend the FLVC, I suspect this other avenue will be a legal option.

This merely shows that there was a time when some people at Transport Canada knew the regulations and abided by them.

[CD]

Gilles...

Just an observation, but you have now edited your initial post in this thread 16 times:

Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt on Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:11 am, edited 16 times in total.

By constantly changing what you had originally written, it makes it difficult to know which of the subsequent responses from other members related to which version of your post. While I recognize that sometimes we all have to go back and modify something that we have written (spelling, grammar, etc.), there is no way for new readers to know what your intial post said or to have confidence that the changes you have subsequently made haven't changed the sense of the original post.

If you do make additional changes, could you please describe what those changes were?

Merci !

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Gilles...

Just an observation, but you have now edited your initial post in this thread 16 times:

Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt on Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:11 am, edited 16 times in total.

By constantly changing what you had originally written, it makes it difficult to know which of the subsequent responses from other members related to which version of your post. While I recognize that sometimes we all have to go back and modify something that we have written (spelling, grammar, etc.), there is no way for new readers to know what your intial post said or to have confidence that the changes you have subsequently made haven't changed the sense of the original post.

If you do make additional changes, could you please describe what those changes were?

Merci !

o

I wrote this on the fly in my hotel room in Toronto before a flight without proofreading. Then I am a francophone and English is a second language. Probably a dozen of the edits were grammar and typo related. The only real edit was the new beginning that explains the foreign pilot issue and that someone suggest I add to explain the general context. The original post began where at the paragraph that begins "While I was researching......"

Other than adding that contextual introduction for the benefit of readers that have not been following this issue from the beginning. Everything below the original beginning is as it was.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

And I suspect that once again the wolf pack is going to invest a lot of effort I to trying to discredit my person rather than try to argue my message based on the interpretation of the CARs. They have no other option. The CARs have no other possible interpretation that I am aware of.

[mbav8r]

All these clowns deserve to be grounded as of this morning.....

Gilles, again thank you, I read the above statement a few times and I interpret it two ways. One a general statement and two, they got what they deserve. Has something happened that hasn't hit the news rooms yet?

[whipline]

Gilles what I am saying is this. Your confusing foreign pilots coming to Canada to stay (licence conversion) and those coming for a short period (licence validation) Your original premise is wrong.

[RogerCheckCopy]

The intent of a rule is worthless. It is the interpretation that would be upheld in court. So with 421.07(j) the door is wide open for whatever excuses they want to use to have FLVCs issued. I am not a lawyer, but the way I read is 705.106 is that it allows pilots with foreign licenses to fly without an FLVC in special cases like training when new types are introduced to Canada and there ade no qualified Canadian pilots available. Once your license is validated, aren't you then effectively in possession of a Canadian CPL or ATPL for the period stipulated on the validation?

Transport Canada's mandate is safety and not how many skilled or unskilled workers come to Canada seasonally or permanently. Have you had an aviation lawyer interpret the regs you are questioning?
Is this an aviation safety issue or an HR/immigration issue? I commend your efforts but don't think taking the approach that what TC is doing is illegal will get you very far. Why? To much grey. Sadly your best hope might to push for changes to the rules if you insist on pursuing TC, and if successful you are looking at 5-7 years.