Except for specifically identified cases as indicated in the CARs:watermeth wrote: i.e. 4.4.1.14Except for specifically identified cases as indicated in the CARs, foreign licences are not validated etc...
CARs says you can operate a canadian registered aircraft provided you meet 401.4, and 401.07.
421.07 i) and j) are 2 open statements allowing anything. i know you talked about it before, but it's here.
You consider "Other" that is listed in 421.07 (2) (j) to be a "specifically listed case as indicated in the CAR" ? That rule has several conditions attached to it.
1) It must be authorized by the Minister
2) It must be in the public interest (not have any effect on public safety)
3) It can only be used in exceptional cases (the French version say that).
So I wouldn't consider that (j) can be considered one of the "specifically listed case as indicated in the CARs", and when used, the conditions allowing its use must be met.
You misinterpret 421.07 (2) (i). This could be used for example if Air Canada was to temporarily dry-lease one of its Boeing 777 to British Airways and the aircraft kept on a the Canadian registry because the lease was only for a short period. A FLVC would be issued to the BA pilots to fly the Canadian registered 777 for BA.
The specifically identified cases that are referred to here are listed elsewhere in CARs and are confirmed by 421.07 (2). For example 705.106 that says that pilots not qualified under Part IV can do ferry, positioning and training flights. Each one of those cases that are specifically allowed under CAR 706.106 is confirmed by identical matches under 421.07 (2). Gee what a coincidence!
Then if you move on the to CASS 725.106 (6), the pilots not qualified under Part IV can further do line checks if a Canadian pilot is not available. That is a specifically allowed case. This authorization is again matched and confirmed by 421.07 (2). Wow! Another huge coincidence!
Yes, there are cases when a FLVC can be used as stated to fly Canadian registered aircraft. When the CARs say they can in the specifically listed cases. Everyone is under the impression that 421.07 (2) (j) is an open licence to do anything one wants. If it was, there would be no need to have (a) to (i) since 421.07 (2) (j) would covers all of of the items already listed in (a) through (j).watermeth wrote: in SI400-005, in 3.0 - 1), 2), and 3), conditions to issue a FLVC are clearly stated, knowing that 1 doesn't invalidate 2 or 3:
3.0 BACKGROUND
1) 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.
2) Flight crew licences issued by a contracting state of ICAO may be validated for use in Canadian registered aircraft by obtaining a Canadian FLVC in accordance with sections 401.07 of the CARs and 421.07 of the STD.
3) It is recommended that prior to acting as a flight crew member in a Canadian registered aircraft outside of Canadian airspace, the foreign licence holder should verify with the local Civil Aviation Authority on whether a Canadian FLVC is required for the flight in their country’s airspace.
This article is not an open licence to use FLVC for any damn reason Transport wants.
You may have missed a little detail.watermeth wrote: I read 8.5 in TP4711 and it hasn't been deleted in the french version, here it is translated by google :The use of foreign crew members of a qualified crew of a Canadian aircraft, except as a pilot training when introducing a new aircraft type is referred to in subsection 723.88 (3) 724.108 (3) and 725.106 (6) of the CASS.those articles say that it's not allowed for a foreign training pilot to act as a crew member during a revenue flight. but for as long as you have a FLVC you're good to go. As I understand it, a FLVC is by itself a waiver to those restrictions sated in 8.5 of TP4711.None of them is "Commercial".
Why ? Because 703.88, 704.108 and 705.106 say it's not allowed.
726.106 (6) (b) states that an additional condition and restriction is that the pilot have his licence validated. This would again match of the specific case listed in 421.07 (2) (d). The CARs are full of un-intended coincidences aren't they ?725.106 (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)
The pilot shall:
(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.
If the foreign pilots with FLVC were qualified under Part IV, why would they even be mentioned in 725.106 (6) since they would not be concerned with this ? ..........
False. If you need to know what a CAR article concerns, you don't read inside the article, you must read its TITLE. And the title to 725.106 (6) is:watermeth wrote: 725.106-6) is specifically concerning foreign training or check pilots as stated at the very beginning of the articleAuthority 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.
(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)
Against a good lawyer, 421.07 (2) (j) will not find a foot to stand on. Evrything supports my position. 421.07 (2) (j) by itself and taken out of context will not stand a chance.watermeth wrote: against a good lawyer you can't do much against 421.07 i-j, IS400-005 3.0
421.07 (2) (j) was meant to be used by a Ukrainian stunt pilot wishing to fly a Canadian registered Antonov 2 used for hire to film stunts in a Canadian action movie filmed in Inuvik.
That case would fill all the conditions, not be listed in (a) to (I) and not be contrary to part 703, 704 and 705.
It is being abused by TC this must stop NOW.