Private Operating Certificate. When is one needed?

[Bobby868]

I've searched TC website and AVCanada and can't find any notation as to which aircraft are required to have a POC.

I did find this notation below on the CBAA website but it is vague and it is my understanding that TC has now taken POC away from the CBAA and placed it directly back in TC hands / control.

The private operator certification applies to the operation of a Canadian aircraft used for the
transport of passengers if
a. the aircraft is a turbine-powered pressurized airplane;
b. the aircraft is a large aircraft; What does large mean?
c. the aircraft is not an aircraft referred to in para (a) or (b), the operator of that aircraft
holds a certificate in respect of an aeroplane referred to in para (a) or (b) and the
Association has amended the certificate to include that aircraft; or
d. the aircraft is authorized by the Minister to be operated under this regulation.

If someone can point me to the TC specific requirements to hold a POC it would be much appreciated. looking into this for a fellow who wants to purchase a single engine, turbine, 9+ pax machine.

[who me ?]

I believe, a TPOC , is required, if you operate, a turbo jet AC, or an over 12,500lb AC
Which is turbine, and or pressurised.

[x-wind]

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2012/ ... .html#d103

Application
604.02 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of a Canadian aircraft that is not operated in a commercial air service.

(2) This Subpart does not apply to an air operator that operates an aircraft in compliance with the requirements of Part VII if the aircraft is not operated as a commercial air service.

Prohibition
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.

"large aircraft" - means an aeroplane having a maximum permissible take-off weight in excess of 5 700 kg (12,566 pounds) or a rotorcraft having a maximum permissible take-off weight in excess of 2 730 kg (6,018 pounds); (gros aéronef)

Cheers,

[Schooner69A]

Bobby868:

When I was associated with CBAA, there were some individuals who were captured under CAR 604 who shouldn't have been; those individuals who bought turbo-prop aircraft that were just used to transport family. Just before TC unwisely acted, there was some talk of "fixing" this problem by excluding them. The interim regulation indicates "turbo-jet" aircraft" and "large aircraft"; gone is the "pressurized" catch-all. So, if the aircraft is a single-engine turbo-prop, your friend may be OK. I would call CBAA and explain the situation. I would do it for you but I've been away for too long and they've changed all the players!

Good Luck

John

[kevinsky18]

We have looked into this at length and the answer is both No and Yes.

At this time under the interim order only jets and 12500 or greater aircraft require a POC.

However, it is strongly believed that once the permanent regulations are put into place, which could happen within the next 12 months, several turbo prop aircraft will fall under the POC requirements. Especially if the seating capacity is over X number of seats. X is being debated but I'm speculating over 6 seats.

In short if you're asking about a Caravan then at this time No but next year very possibly Yes.

[x-wind]

Hey, Kevin where are you getting the info about the future of POCs from? Thanks.

[skymarc]

I would like to know also were you got this info as now only jets and over 12500 ibs aircraft needs a POC. Its screwed up as there is no provision to get RVSM without a POC.
I doubt TC wants more planes under a POC.

[it'sme]

The last draft I was briefed on about 7 months ago included turbine pressurized, 6 or more passenger seats. TC at the time seemed pretty set on that model. Previous to that (shortly after the announcement of repatriation to TC) they had been going with turbo jet, greater than 12,500 and/or 9 passenger seats but had broadened the scope by late 2012.

Whether that is still the current thinking...............don't know and now I am retired so not getting updates anymore but was current as of March 30.

[Bushav8er]

If someone can point me to the TC specific requirements to hold a POC it would be much appreciated. looking into this for a fellow who wants to purchase a single engine, turbine, 9+ pax machine.

In that case 'turbine-pressurized' is the key word....Caravan, T Otter ok....PC12, TBM (not 9 pax), King Air not ok without POC. So, how fast or how high does he want to travel? Get a pressurized piston twin and you're good.

[skymarc]

So just keep your friend PC12 under 8 seats total or is that 7 ? and your good, I hope they allow us to get RVSM without a POC.
In this case then a small jet like a Mustang or Eclipse would be exempt?

The last draft I was briefed on about 7 months ago included turbine pressurized, 6 or more passenger seats. TC at the time seemed pretty set on that model. Previous to that (shortly after the announcement of repatriation to TC) they had been going with turbo jet, greater than 12,500 and/or 9 passenger seats but had broadened the scope by late 2012.

Whether that is still the current thinking...............don't know and now I am retired so not getting updates anymore but was current as of March 30.

[Independence]

So if a POC is required for the "transport of passengers" does it follow that if 6 buddies buy a jet then they don't need a POC if only the owners are aboard...no passengers?

[Colonel Sanders]

Canadians are such sheep.

What is the justification for all this 604/POC nonsense?!

I know one of the two guys who were responsible for
the creation of this monster, and all they wanted people
to do, was to keep track of pilot training records.

It has since ballooned into this huge, expensive, bizarre
monster, where anything that burns kerosene has to
be operated with an OC

No one in Canada ever has the balls to ask the government
to justify the burden of additional taxation like this on a
cost/benefit ratio analysis, because all you Good Canadians (tm)
like higher taxes and more government.

This has nothing to do with safety. In the USA, you can
buy a King Air just like you buy a twin cessna, and off you
go. This has to do with bureaucratic growth and the obsessive
need for micromanagement and overcontrol. The same
culture of overwhelming government and complete lack of
respect for the citizens and taxpayers led to the seizure of
all the firearms by the RCMP during the calgary floods.

This is f__king nuts. Why does the Canadian government
have to be involved in every flight of any aircraft that burns
kerosene?!

Stop being a sheep.

[Heliian]

What a mess that is now, but it clearly says just a turbo-jet or a large aeroplane. Clearly, helicopters of any type, small turbo props (pressurized or not) and anything else that's not a turbo-jet or large aeroplane doesn't need one. IMO if you are a business, using any a/c for business purposes you should have a POC. The POC was originally put in place to monitor and educate the business community of safe practices and rules regarding use of their a/c. Liability being the bigge$t part.

[skymarc]

I agree CS, there is no need for a POC for non commercial aircraft. If its just the training, the insurance industry will tell you what kind of training they require for insurance coverage on the aircraft.
I suspect there is more like trying to justify or keep their jobs.

[Colonel Sanders]

IMO if you are a business, using any a/c for business purposes you should have a POC

Don't agree. Don't see the justification for it.

604 POC is as insane as 406 FTU OC. Does
not pass a simple cost/benefit analysis. Merely
bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy and
increased centralized control. Reminiscent of
the Soviet Union.

[skymarc]

I dont agree.
A TBM or PC12 is safer and easier to fly than a twin piston, whats the justification?

TC is already asking turbine pressurized aircraft owners to comply with a TC approved maintenance program thats pushing operating cost, we dont need more cost.

AC / WJ can run its turbine jet engines overhauls on condition regardless of hours but a private operator as to overhaul a PT6 in a TBM at 3500 hrs just because he dosnt have past history and cannot use Pratt PT6 industry history and engines cannot be put on a MORE type of program as in the US.

Cost and more cost, lets not start on landing and ramp fees which is just about at every airport in Canada if you operate a turbine aircraft. Also Nav Canada wants more fees if your over 3000 kgs.

[Colonel Sanders]

Yes, the anti-business attitude in Canada is hard
to fathom. Yes, I know you hate companies, but
that's where the jobs come from.

This punitive attitude towards success might feel
good from a class anger standpoint, but ends up
hurting you badly in the long run.

Nobody builds anything in Canada any more.

Ever wonder why?

[Schooner69A]

Dr Phil opines that “The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour”.
CAR 604 grew out of the Private Aeroplanes Passenger Transportation Order, Air Navigation Order Series 1, Number 2. That order was introduced in March of ’82 to address findings following several corporate aviation accidents involving turbine powered, pressurized aeroplanes that showed evidence of a lack of crew training, standardization, and coordination. Since the introduction of the order, I don’t think there’s been any passenger fatalities and very few accidents with this group of operators. So much so, that prior to the introduction of SMS, there was talk of rescinding CAR 604 entirely.
The original order was aimed at corporate aviation and did not foresee the proliferation of high performance aircraft being operated for personal use only. When ANO 1, No 2 morphed into CAR 604 in Oct of ‘96, it was obvious that this possibility had still not been foreseen.
Do corporate flight departments need regulation? Unfortunately, yes. Someone has to guarantee passengers that all the “i’s” have been dotted and the “t’s” crossed so that their safety is not compromised. Indeed, more and more, it is the insurance companies who are calling the shots and demanding training for the aircrew, ground crew, etc., especially since the introduction of SMS. Following an incident or accident, if your insurance company finds that you have violated any section of your Ops manual, you may find that “your friend and your coverage” have evaporated like the morning mist on a mountain lake.
Ten years ago, I would have said that an operator flying friends and family only should be exempt from CAR 604; however, given the number of high performance aircraft available fitted with the latest in glass cockpits, I am now of the opinion that some regulation is required, if only to ensure that they've been trained on the aircraft and its systems and know how to use all the “magic” in front of them. However, as noted above, the insurance companies seem to be doing a good job of that…

John

[Colonel Sanders]

Someone has to guarantee passengers that all the “i’s” have been dotted and the “t’s” crossed so that their safety is not compromised

News flash ... that's why pilots have licenses
and type ratings. Your statement implies that
none of this personnel licensing exists, or if it
does, it is inadequate without yet more government
intervention

Your statement is equally applicable to a PPL taking
his family flying in a 172. Should he get a POC? Hell,
why not! We should have every aircraft in Canada
operated IAW an OC! For the safety of the passengers!

What male bovine excrement.

Ever heard of the "United States of America"? They
don't have any of this stupid POC or FTU crap, and
they do just fine.

You love high taxes and big government. This is what
this is all about. Nothing to do with safety.

[Cat Driver]

When I was in business flying and maintaining private aircraft I would not have been able to justify the business under the Peoples Socialistic Republic of Canada.

FAA part 91 allowed us to earn a living and Canada lost another tax paying company because of over regulation.

[Bushav8er]

It doesn't matter how many seats installed, its what the "certified" seating capacity is that matters.

[Heliian]

I agree with Schooner, it IS about safety. Look to your beloved USA and see the kind of carnage this class of operation has incurred over the last few years. What would you think about being shuttled around for your company work by someone with a ppl and an a/c not on any real maintenance schedule, i'll pass thanks. Why be cheap? If you can afford a turbo-jet or a large aeroplane for your business, then you can afford to keep records and train staff and do maintenance.

[Colonel Sanders]

Ok, but what is this OCD-level of obsession with kerosene?

A C421B has a FAR higher workload than any of a PC-12,
TBM-700 or King Air, for that matter.

The L39 jets I fly have a MUCH lower workload (during
departure and arrival) than the 421, and are so much
simpler to maintain. In the 421, you have to carefully
plan your descent profile and baby those geared, turbo
charged engines. In the L39, just yank the throttle all
the way back, thumb the boards out, stuff the nose down
and tell ATC that you're indicating 250 knots.

What is this uniquely Canadian fear of kerosene? Just
because you have a lot of moving parts, flailing around,
burning 100LL is not exactly a guarantee of safety.

someone with a ppl

Waving the BS flag here. Good luck getting insurance.

[Cat Driver]

If you Canadians are happy with your Government regulating you into the poor house good on you it is your right as a Canadian.

Me I'll take the free enterprise way of doing things under FAA part 91.

I was the one who made sure safety was paramount in my business not some drone sitting in a cubicle at TC.

[Schooner69A]

Col Sanders wrote: "News flash ... that's why pilots have licenses and type ratings. Your statement implies that none of this personnel licensing exists, or if it does, it is inadequate without yet more government intervention"

CS: I imply nothing of the sort. CAR 604 is about much more than licences and type ratings. Go to: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... n-3934.htm and review the interim order. None of what's in there is new, but it places all the requirements to operate a corporate flight department in one spot.

Type ratings are a recent thing... back in the Good Old Days, when one of the Citation pilots at Pratt and Whitney in St Hubert went on holidays, I got to go along as the co-pilot based on nothing more than a commercial licence with no instrument rating. I'd never been in a Citation in my life but that was all that was required back then in the GODs...

CS wrote "I know one of the two guys who were responsible for the creation of this monster, and all they wanted people to do, was to keep track of pilot training records."

Sanders: are you speaking of ANO 1, No 2 or its successor, CAR 604? Even the original asked for a "bit" more than tracking PTRs... If one of your friends was responsible for it, he must have also written the regulation; therefore, this pile of "male bovine excrement" (as you so elegantly put it) must be his doing. I'd ask him...

Further, the requirement to have a POC is not anti-business: for every CAT Driver who might be counted on to run a tight ship, there exists a few who would cut so many corners that their operation would look like a spinning dodecahedron. And they are the ones for whom they write "thou shalt nots". I don't need a regulation to tell me not to fly over Calgary at fifty feet; I don't need a regulation to tell me not do unauthorized aerobatics over an open air gathering of people; I don't need regulations to tell me not to do a myriad of things. However... There are people who do and we all suffer because of them.

So... Don't blame the POC program; blame the folks who necessitated it.

Can it stand some tinkering? Of course. But, it's not going away.


John