Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:02 am Posts: 3307 Location: Group W bench
Lots of talk these days about block times, training, freelancing and such. I keep kicking the ball around about getting something different going, so here's a question. According to CAR 406.03 (2) would it be reasonable to start a charter /aerial work/ flight training service with just a 702/703 OC? Would it be easier than aquiring a FTU OC? Supposing that one didn't want to do training towards any of the RPP, PPL, CPL or Instructor ratings? The three main areas I would see would be Seaplane ratings, Multi ratings and (my main interest) tailwheel training.
Now there's probably something obvious I've overlooked, so if there is feel free to point it out and tell me I'm crazy.
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:02 am Posts: 3307 Location: Group W bench
Not even if you want to use your own airplane and charge customer/students for its use? When I spoke with TC, they insist I need a FTUOC to do that, which to me seems like overkill.
406.02 This Subpart applies in respect of the operation of an aeroplane, helicopter, glider, balloon, gyroplane or ultra-light aeroplane in a flight training service toward obtaining any of the following: (a) for aeroplanes, (i) a private pilot licence, (ii) a commercial pilot licence, (iii) a landplane or seaplane rating, (iv) a flight instructor rating, (v) a flight instructor rating - aerobatic, (vi) an instrument rating, (vii) a multi-engine class rating, (viii) a night rating, (ix) a VFR over-the-top rating, (x) a pilot permit - recreational, or (xi) experience in aerobatic manoeuvres;
I do not see type famil or tailwheel in that laundry list. Do you?
Quote:
When I spoke with TC, they insist I need a FTUOC
It's important to realize that people will lie to you. For example, when you buy a used car. Heck, you should see me talk in a bar to women. RayBans, white shirt, four gold bars and non-stop BS.
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:02 am Posts: 3307 Location: Group W bench
Quote:
Too bad nobody reads the regulations....
It's important to realize that people will lie to you.
I do read them, that's the thing. I couldn't find anywhere that specified what I was after either. Since it involves the investment of a chunk of my own capital, I'm trying to make sure ducks are in a row to make a go of it.
Part of the issue had to do with the idea that they couldn't concieve of the training not being used towards something, in this case specifically for the CPL. In their mind there was no possibility that someone would take such training without that being the purpose. Which of course then begged the question, "What if they already had their CPL?" Bit (xi) was also an issue for them. That one may posess a Citabria, for instance, and not do aerobatic manuever experience with people also seemed unpossible.
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am Posts: 3943 Location: Over Macho Grande
Quote:
they couldn't concieve of the training not being used towards something
uh ... not crashing? Is that a good enough reason to provide tailwheel training?
It boggles the mind that TC does everything they can to stop legal tailwheel training, presumably in order to maximize the number of these kinds of accidents.
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:02 am Posts: 3307 Location: Group W bench
Quote:
uh ... not crashing? Is that a good enough reason to provide tailwheel training?
Work with me Colonel, you got to think like them to know how to head them off. The idea that someone might in the future try to log an hour of dual training that wasn't gained under their system towards one of their issued licenses, well might make the whole system collapse entirely. World ending stuff you know.
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:40 pm Posts: 108 Location: Manitoba
Shiny Side Up wrote:
Part of the issue had to do with the idea that they couldn't concieve of the training not being used towards something, in this case specifically for the CPL. In their mind there was no possibility that someone would take such training without that being the purpose. Which of course then begged the question, "What if they already had their CPL?" Bit (xi) was also an issue for them. That one may posess a Citabria, for instance, and not do aerobatic manuever experience with people also seemed unpossible.
Either way, didn't hurt anyone to ask for advice.
Something caught my eye here so I just thought I'd throw this in. When "instructors" did conversion training on aircraft at the local flying museum it wasn't allowed to be counted as training in the normal sense. First, most of the conversion pilots didn't have current instructor ratings and second the aircraft wasn't under a FTU. I don't know the details of how the insurance worked but since legally speaking the harvard is a single seat non-high performance aircraft, your first flight you were up front and PIC. The "instructor" in the back was technically more like a safety pilot (though all were ex instructors, ex military or both as far as I know).
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am Posts: 3943 Location: Over Macho Grande
Quote:
When "instructors" did conversion training on aircraft at the local flying museum it wasn't allowed to be counted as training in the normal sense.
That doesn't make any sense - "counted a training in the normal sense". When they were in the aircraft, receiving flight training, I hope they logged dual, which would correctly reflect the activity.
Quote:
First, most of the conversion pilots didn't have current instructor ratings
That is completely irrelevant, when licenced pilots are getting "type famil" (eg tailwheel) training. The applicable CAR is 425.21(2):
A person who conducts flight training in any category of aircraft, where the trainee does not hold a pilot permit or pilot licence for that category, or conducts a flight review, shall:
(a) have a flight instructor rating for the category of aircraft used for the training; and
Since the pilot receiving the training already has a PPL (or higher) therefore the CARs explicitly state that no flight instructor rating is required.
If anyone ever goes on to read CAR 425.21(3) through CAR 425.21(19) - qualifications of flight instructors - nowhere in there does it state additional qualifications required to give conversion/type famil training. This clearly means that none is required.
tl;dr
If you have a CPL (or ATPL) you can legally give dual flight instruction to a PPL/CPL/ATPL for type famil (e.g. tailwheel). The AIM RAC used to explicity state this was the case, but had a weird limit unsupported by any CAR limiting the number of dual hours that could be counted towards a higher licence, which TC removed after being embarrassed about it on this site.
Quote:
second the aircraft wasn't under a FTU
Good Lord man, that's got absolutely nothing to do with anything, because only licenced pilots are receiving dual in your scenario. You only need an CAR 406 FTU OC when you are teaching ab initio to non-owners.
Quote:
your first flight you were up front and PIC
Ok, this is getting even weirder. First of all it doesn't matter what seat you are sitting with respect to who is PIC and whom is receiving dual flight instuction.
Also, I must wonder about CAR 606.02(8) - did you actually have valid liability insurance, subscribed to by the owner, with a zero-time PIC?!
Honestly, I don't know where you guys get this stuff.
As punishment for your complete incomprehension of the CARs, here's another Top Gun clip for you to watch:
Not even if you want to use your own airplane and charge customer/students for its use? When I spoke with TC, they insist I need a FTUOC to do that, which to me seems like overkill.
There was a gentleman in YBW that did this for years, sorry but for the life of me I can't remember his name, it drove TC crazy but they couldn't do anything to stop him.
He passed away years ago from cancer or else I'm sure he'd still be doing it.
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am Posts: 3943 Location: Over Macho Grande
Sometimes I get the feeling that TC wants every aircraft in Canada to be commercially registered and operated IAW an OC and thus be maintained only by an AMO IAW the corresponding MCM and MPM.
This compulsive, bureaucratic need to be involved with every flight of every aircraft is truly bizarre.
My reply is aimed at the original post, not some of the subsequent stuff. In my opinion, and I hold 406, 702 and 703 OC's, and also train private owners on their own aircraft, the rules are pretty clear. For those items listed on 406.02 you need a 406 FTU. Aerobatics, although it's vaguely worded, is on the list. Tailwheel, type famil. and recurrent flying with licence holders are not, so could be done under 703. Flying a private aircraft for commercial purposes, which is what has been suggested here, is not allowed and would also invalidate the insurance. I think that of the two the FTU is the simpler to get, the maintenance and insurance requirements are the same, and then a person would not be restricted to most activities, other than air taxi and charter. Regarding insurance for privately owned aircraft training, including the solo flying, I have found it to be no problem. The owner needs to shop around a bit for the best deal and make absolutely sure that the proposed use of the aircraft is clearly stated for both liabilty and hull perposes. The premium naturally is higher than for a licensed pilot flying a private aircraft.
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 am Posts: 3943 Location: Over Macho Grande
Quote:
Flying a private aircraft for commercial purposes, which is what has been suggested here, is not allowed
Sure it is. Please point me at the specific CAR which prohibits it (hint - there isn't one).
Because there is no CAR which specifically prohibits it, therefore it is permitted, modulo CAR 602.01 (my favorite regulation).
I have had this discussion with TC many times over the years.
People sell block time on private aircraft all the time. That's a commercial activity, and is NOT prohibited by the CARs either.
Heck, how do you think I got my night rating, decades ago?! From a TC inspector who was building hours - she rented block time on a privately-registered 172 (to build hours for her ATPL) and we flew it at night for my night rating. If you want, I can go back through my old logbooks and give you the registration.
Quote:
Tailwheel, type famil. and recurrent flying with licence holders are not, so could be done under 703.
Well, you're half right. CAR 406 doesn't apply, and neither does CAR 703. Or 702. Or 704. Or 705.
Sorry, I'm still not convinced on this one. What about the "hire and reward" clause. ? So are you saying that if a chap walks in to the flying club and asks for a ride in my privately registered Stearman and I say OK, it's 300 bucks and we go, and he pays me, that's OK. ?
Any owner of a private airplane can rent the airplane to any licensed pilot as long as the aircraft is legally airworthy and meets the insurance requirements in the CAR's.
Any owner of said airplane can then ride with the renter and give advice on how it should be flown.....the owner is merely acting as a consultant therefore the owner does not even need a pilots license.
The owner can charge whatever amount the renter is willing to pay to rent it.
The owner can charge whatever amount the renter wants to pay for the consulting services.
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:02 am Posts: 3307 Location: Group W bench
Rhys Perraton wrote:
Sorry, I'm still not convinced on this one. What about the "hire and reward" clause. ? So are you saying that if a chap walks in to the flying club and asks for a ride in my privately registered Stearman and I say OK, it's 300 bucks and we go, and he pays me, that's OK. ?
If the fellow had a PPL or higher then yes. If not that would either be considered ab initio training and you would need the aforementioned FTUOC. Either that or it would be considered carriage of passengers which if its sight seeing you could again do under a FTU OC, or a 70x OC. Something which I have considered, hence the question whether it would be easier to get a 70x OC or a FTU OC to additonally make use of said aircraft.
Either way doing strictly type famil training falls outside of all the requirements to be commercially registered as per CAR 202.17 (4)
Grantmac wrote:
Shiney,
Where do you plan on basing this little enterprise?
-Grant
It would be in the Calgary area, exact location not sure as of yet, currently is depending on some haggling over tie down/hangarage costs.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
While the administrators and moderators of this
forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as
quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a
topic or post is inappropriate email us at
support@avcanada.ca . By reading these forums you acknowledge that
all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and
not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these
people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site.
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
AvCanada's Home Page
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
