Questions for certain freelance instructors

[clairvoyant]

For those freelance instructors who own their own aircrafts and use them to train students (aside from personal usages), how do you deal with CRA such as what to write off, how much to write off, etc.?
Since information can be very sensitive, please feel free to PM.
Thank you for the insightful information in advance.

[lownslow]

Didn’t think you could do that without selling a share in the airplane to the student. Even then TC reserves the right to be dicks about it, I’m told.

[clairvoyant]

Without naming names, I met several freelance instructors who owned and trained with their multi engines.
The premises are better experiences and cheaper.
I must say their multi engine aircrafts look very clean and well maintained.
Off course I wouldn't ask the aforementioned question in person.
Hence, I asked questions here.

[photofly]

I"m not sure that anyone who is prepared to violate CAR406.03 quite so blatantly is a good person from whom to accept tax advice.

[PlanePaully]

My instructor told me that once I obtained my PPL, that we could do instrument and multi training in his private aircraft. He said that only Ab Initio PPL training and CPL training had to go through the FTU. Is that not correct?

[Squaretail]

No that is not correct. The only training that can be done is that which falls outside of CAR 406.02. Essentially if you’re training for any sort of piece of paper, it will fall under the provisions of 406.03.

[CpnCrunch]

If you read 406.03 you'll see you don't need an FTUOC for floatplane, multi, instrument, CPL, etc. But you still can't do training in the freelance instructor's aircraft ("using an aircraft that has been obtained from a person who is at arm’s length from the flight instructor").

[Squaretail]

Indeed, but 406.03 applies only to what is considered a “flight training service” under 406.02. What falls outside, consists primarily of type familiarization. For example, there is no paper or rating to fly a ski plane, a flying boat, or for that matter mountain flying or tail wheel. Primarily though, I suspect that omission is there otherwise one could argue that every training bond would be considered illegal.

[CpnCrunch]

Indeed, but 406.03 applies only to what is considered a “flight training service” under 406.02. What falls outside, consists primarily of type familiarization. For example, there is no paper or rating to fly a ski plane, a flying boat, or for that matter mountain flying or tail wheel. Primarily though, I suspect that omission is there otherwise one could argue that every training bond would be considered illegal.

Isn't the issue that if you supply both the plane and pilot then you're operating an air service?

[Squaretail]

Well since flight training is specifically not either aerial work, nor an air transport service (as defined under 100.01) it would be a hard time making that case. But think of it this way, if ALL flight training were governed under 406 (which it is not as per 406.02) then it would require either all 70x operators to use either aircraft acquired at “arms length” for in house training, or poses their own 406 OCs, of which obviously neither is the case. Or if it is, TC has been turning a blind eye to it for a long time.

One should note that in your example, there are separate issues as to delivering training and being enumerated for said training.

[CpnCrunch]

Well since flight training is specifically not either aerial work, nor an air transport service (as defined under 100.01) it would be a hard time making that case. But think of it this way, if ALL flight training were governed under 406 (which it is not as per 406.02) then it would require either all 70x operators to use either aircraft acquired at “arms length” for in house training, or poses their own 406 OCs, of which obviously neither is the case. Or if it is, TC has been turning a blind eye to it for a long time.

One should note that in your example, there are separate issues as to delivering training and being enumerated for said training.

From looking at the CARs I see you're right, and there's a previous thread about this:

http://avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=51933

You just need to make sure that your aircraft has its maintenance done at an AMO.

Of course none of this applies to the OP, as multi training is covered by CAR 406.

[B208]

My instructor told me that once I obtained my PPL, that we could do instrument and multi training in his private aircraft. He said that only Ab Initio PPL training and CPL training had to go through the FTU. Is that not correct?

That is wrong. According to the CARs aircraft used for flight instruction must be on a Flight Training Units Operating Certificate unless:
The aircraft is owned by the student or a member of the student's family; or
The aircraft is provided by a person at arm's length to both the instructor and the student and the training is not towards a RPP or PPL; or
The aircraft is owned by a corporation of which the student is a director.

Any instructor that is using their own private aircraft to provide instructing is breaking the CARs.

Now, having said that, these particular CARs are foolish, so some might consider ignoring them to be a righteous act of civil disobedience. <- I'll just leave this here to spark a little debate

[clairvoyant]

I am still curious though how they can afford the maintenance of those multi engine IFR aircrafts.
They must have written off things or two deductions with CRA.
Most FTUs are barely able to keep up their PA34/PA44 maintenance. Yet, these people can offer descent MEIFR trainings with well maintained aircrafts.
There must be something fishy somewhere. I also heard rumors that these freelance instructors would "prioritize" international students.

I asked the question because I was looking for alternative economical yet excellent quality MEIFR trainings (I know it sounds unrealistic).
However, I am very apprehensive to ask them directly on how/why/when/who/what.
I work odd hours and try to line up my schedule, weather, the FTU availability (aircraft/instructor), etc.
I can't afford to quit my job and train full time.
I also heard many FTUs even had waiting lists for flight trainings.

[photofly]

I don’t think “these people” exist.

You want something for nothing; it’s not out there.

[rookiepilot]

I also heard many FTUs even had waiting lists for flight trainings.

This period -- I know this sounds strange -- sounds a little like last year's panicked bidding wars in Toronto real estate. Gotta get in the game now!

Enjoy it while it lasts.

While ----- almost unnoticed-------

Crude oil is on a relentless march higher.

Take this for all for what it's worth, worth what you paid for it --

I would not go into heavy debts in the rush to flight train now, chasing the current hot period.

I'm curious what $100 crude will do to aviation pricing -- and demand. No one thinks that will ever happen again. That's what I hear, anyway. We will see. Maybe it won't matter.

I continue to worry about the debt load in Canada, too.

Slow and steady, in life planning wins the race. Just a thought.

If I was a young person planning my avation career, I'd strongly consider going outside of Canada.

Good luck ---

[B208]

Crude oil is on a relentless march higher.

True, but gas prices really didn't come down when crude fell.....just sayin'

[photofly]

Um.... yes they did!

[rookiepilot]

Crude oil is on a relentless march higher.

True, but gas prices really didn't come down when crude fell.....just sayin'

Nope. Wait till Crude hits 100 + again, and carbon taxes fully kick in in our wonderful land.

Suspect these "shortages" will be less of a problem; cause no one will be able to afford to fly.

[B208]

Um.... yes they did!

Not significantly in my part of the country.