Warbird and historic aircraft rides....Exemption from CARS

[Rhys Perraton]

Exemption from CARS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally Transport Canada has followed the USA and UK in allowing paying flights in warbirds and historically significant aircraft, including jets, without the operator holding a 700 series operating certificate. It's for a 5 year period from last May and hopefully will become permanent if there are no problems.

[DanJ]

That's good to hear. I know the Harvard Association in Tillsonburg had suspended member flights for the time being.

[CD]

Is this the one?
Exemption NCR-021-2016

[goingnowherefast]

Seems like a good way for museums to profit from their flying aircraft. Hopefully we'll see more aircraft brought up to flying status.

[cgzro]

The PIC requirements for non standard C of A are somewhat onerous and rule out many good highly qualified non professional pilots and most professional pilots with the hours dont have the tail dragger time. One of our planes has not done a single ride all summer. Hopfully it can be tweaked so that 2500hrs is not necessary to fly a trainer!

[JasonE]

2500 hours is a bit ridiculous. Hopefully some of the associations step up to the plate to argue that one.

[fleet16b]

2500 hours is a bit ridiculous. Hopefully some of the associations step up to the plate to argue that one.

Yup total bullshit
A CPL should have nothing to do with it and certainly does not make you any safer than an PPL that is current on the same type.
Many vintage aircraft are privately owned by non PPL Pilots who may not have 2500+ hrs but are way more current and experienced on type that some CPL holder
Who would you want you family member flying with , a 2500+ CPL pilot with less than 100hrs tail dragger time or a -2500 hr PPL Pilot with lots of tail dragger time plus 100+ hrs on type ?

[goingnowherefast]

Keep reading guys, 2500hrs is only required for jets. With the Special CofA, this is what it says immediately below as an alternative for 2500hrs

"or
1,000 hours TT, including 200 hours Multi-engine or Single­engine as appropriate, and 100 hours with 50 takeoffs and landings in the specific aircraft;"

Also, an aircraft with a normal CofA and non-jet requires only 500hrs.

I have no problems requiring a CPL when the flying is done for "reward or hire". That's the whole point of a commercial pilot license. If you want to give away the flights for free, then none of this applies and you only need a RPP or PPL.

[fleet16b]

There is 0 reason why a PPL or a RPP with the required hours cannot charge for rides in an historic aircraft
The CPL is just a piece of paper that really means nothing.
In this case, its just a license to collect money.

[Spokes]

There is 0 reason why a PPL or a RPP with the required hours cannot charge for rides in an historic aircraft
The CPL is just a piece of paper that really means nothing.
In this case, its just a license to collect money.

By that measure you could charge for a ride in a Beaver, or even an older 172. Both aircraft could be arguably be considered 'historic'. CPL is the benchmark for flying for reward.

if you own an old aircraft, and want to take a friend or acquaintance for a joy ride- all fine. Monetary gain still requires the CPL

[fleet16b]

There is 0 reason why a PPL or a RPP with the required hours cannot charge for rides in an historic aircraft
The CPL is just a piece of paper that really means nothing.
In this case, its just a license to collect money.

if you own an old aircraft, and want to take a friend or acquaintance for a joy ride- all fine. Monetary gain still requires the CPL

Yes , I understand that at present the CPL is required for monetary gain but my point is that it should not be the benchmark. There are many many non CPL pilots that are more than qualified to safely fly people in historic aircraft as any CPL
My point again , the CPL in these cases is just a piece of paper to allow one to charge and has nothing to do with safety like TC would have you believe.

[fleet16b]

There is 0 reason why a PPL or a RPP with the required hours cannot charge for rides in an historic aircraft
The CPL is just a piece of paper that really means nothing.
In this case, its just a license to collect money.

By that measure you could charge for a ride in a Beaver, or even an older 172. Both aircraft could be arguably be considered 'historic'. CPL is the benchmark for flying for reward.

Yes that appears to be wide open to various interpretations according to the exemption:

INTERPRETATION

In this exemption,

"A “warbird” is an aircraft of a type formerly operated in military service.

An “historical aircraft” is one of a type of historical importance or related to important events.

Many of these aircraft, but not necessarily all, have as the required flight authority a Special Certificate of Airworthiness – Limited "

Looking further , I cannot find a Canadian definition of what qualifies as an "Historic aircraft" however the largest Vintage Aircraft organization in the world offers these definitions.
This has been the criteria for many many years.
If we were to follow this criteria, it eliminates the C172 , as well as late model Harvards , Chipmunks etc . Again the definition appears to be wide open in Canada

"By definition, an Antique aircraft is defined as constructed by the original manufacturer (or licensee) on or prior to August 31, 1945. Classic aircraft were constructed from September 1, 1945 through 1955, while Contemporary aircraft now include those built from 1956 through 1970. "

[cgzro]

The 1000 hrs requires 100 hrs in the specific aircraft. So if you own an identical aircraft have 1000hrs on it you cannot fly another of the same type and we need to put somebody with 25hrs in something similar. Seems dangerous to me.

[goingnowherefast]

There is 0 reason why a PPL or a RPP with the required hours cannot charge for rides in an historic aircraft
The CPL is just a piece of paper that really means nothing.
In this case, its just a license to collect money.

I'm slightly insulted by your naive attitude. A CPL is a piece of paper that means the holder has passed a higher level of training, skill and knowledge.
A CPL has always been a license to collect money. You want to make money by flying? Get a commercial license. It's really not that difficult to attain. A PPL holder with 2500 hours should have the required skill, so if they want to make money with flying, finish off the requirements for the CPL and get the license. It probably doesn't make the pilot any safer, but how do you assure that to the passenger(s)? Or the regulatory authority?

I know how to do a brake job on a car, but I can't charge money because I'm not a licensed mechanic. Would an auto mechanic license make my brake job any safer? Probably not.

Want to drive a car? You get the license.
Want to own a gun? You get the license.
Want to fly for hire? You get the license.

[JasonE]

I think a big difference here, most flying museums are relying on volunteers to fly. They are not getting paid for their services. (i.e. Canadian Harvards)

[plhought]

I suspect the requirement for a CPL has more to do with ensuring the PIC has a Cat. 1 medical.

[Cat Driver]

I don't hold any type of pilot license anymore.

Would that make me dangerous to fly with?

[fleet16b]

There is 0 reason why a PPL or a RPP with the required hours cannot charge for rides in an historic aircraft
The CPL is just a piece of paper that really means nothing.
In this case, its just a license to collect money.

I'm slightly insulted by your naive attitude. A CPL is a piece of paper that means the holder has passed a higher level of training, skill and knowledge.
A CPL has always been a license to collect money. You want to make money by flying? Get a commercial license. It's really not that difficult to attain. A PPL holder with 2500 hours should have the required skill, so if they want to make money with flying, finish off the requirements for the CPL and get the license. It probably doesn't make the pilot any safer, but how do you assure that to the passenger(s)? Or the regulatory authority?

I know how to do a brake job on a car, but I can't charge money because I'm not a licensed mechanic. Would an auto mechanic license make my brake job any safer? Probably not.

Want to drive a car? You get the license.
Want to own a gun? You get the license.
Want to fly for hire? You get the license.

Didnt mean to insult
Remember this is about flying vintage and historic aircraft (something I have been doing all my life) and I pretty sure that there are way more PPL pilots flying those aircraft than CPL pilots. I am not being naive but realistic . Your comment that the CPL Pilot is safer doesn't always hold credence , I personally know many PPL and RPP pilots that are way more skilled at operating vintage aircraft that many CPL Pilots . I am not trying to insult anyone with a CPL, its just that many of them don't have the skill level in those aircraft anymore that I do in an airliner
What I am trying to say is that a PPL with 2500 hrs is more that qualified to give paid passenger rides but cant. However a freshly minted CPL can and that is nuts

I am not saying that a 2500-4000 hr PPL should be allowed to fly at an Airline but I am saying that a PPL with over 500 hrs on type should be exempted for sure in certain cases
Guess I will use myself as an example . I own a vintage biplane , there are only 4-5 flying in Canada so there are plenty of people that would love to go for a ride .
The problem is I am a PPL with 4000 + hrs ( 3500 which are taildragger) so cannot charge for a ride
That means every ride has to come out of my pocket. Well as the person with the highest amount of current hours on this type, I am more than safe and qualified to fly passengers and my insurance company agrees.
So if my insurance company feels Im safe enough. why isn't it ok with TC ?

[goingnowherefast]

You can still charge for giving rides, just can't make a profit. It can't exceed the operating cost of the aircraft. Basically fuel and realistic maintenance costs (engine/prop reserve and annual cost broken down by yearly flying hours)

The Exemption is allowing people and organizations to make a profit from giving rides. Pilots and/or the organization that is offering the for-profit airplane rides. Intent appears to be another revenue stream for aviation museums.

401.28 (1) The holder of a private pilot licence shall not act as the pilot-in-command of an aeroplane or helicopter for hire or reward unless the conditions set out in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5), as applicable, are met.

(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder
(a) is the owner or operator of the aircraft;
(b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;
(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight; and
(d) receives a reimbursement that
(i) is provided only by the passengers referred to in paragraph (c), and
(ii) is for the purpose of sharing the costs of fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

(3) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement from the holder’s employer for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder
(a) is employed on a full-time basis by the employer for purposes other than flying;
(b) conducts the flight on the employer’s business and the flight is incidental to the execution of the holder’s duties; and
(c) receives a reimbursement that
(i) in the case of an aircraft owned by the holder, is paid at a rate based on distance travelled or number of hours flown and that does not exceed the total of the holder’s direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, or
(ii) in the case of a rental aircraft, does not exceed the total of the holder’s rental costs, direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight.

(4) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement from a charitable, not-for-profit or public security organization in respect of a flight conducted by the holder as a volunteer for that organization if the reimbursement
(a) in the case of an aircraft owned by the holder, is paid at a rate based on distance travelled or number of hours flown and does not exceed the total of the holder’s direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight; or
(b) in the case of a rental aircraft, does not exceed the total of the holder’s rental costs, direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight.

*edited to add CARs quote

[fleet16b]

You can still charge for giving rides, just can't make a profit. It can't exceed the operating cost of the aircraft. Basically fuel and realistic maintenance costs (engine/prop reserve and annual cost broken down by yearly flying hours)

The Exemption is allowing people and organizations to make a profit from giving rides. Pilots and/or the organization that is offering the for-profit airplane rides. Intent appears to be another revenue stream for aviation museums.

401.28 (1) The holder of a private pilot licence shall not act as the pilot-in-command of an aeroplane or helicopter for hire or reward unless the conditions set out in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5), as applicable, are met.

(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder
(a) is the owner or operator of the aircraft;
(b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;
(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight; and
(d) receives a reimbursement that
(i) is provided only by the passengers referred to in paragraph (c), and
(ii) is for the purpose of sharing the costs of fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

(3) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement from the holder’s employer for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder
(a) is employed on a full-time basis by the employer for purposes other than flying;
(b) conducts the flight on the employer’s business and the flight is incidental to the execution of the holder’s duties; and
(c) receives a reimbursement that
(i) in the case of an aircraft owned by the holder, is paid at a rate based on distance travelled or number of hours flown and that does not exceed the total of the holder’s direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, or
(ii) in the case of a rental aircraft, does not exceed the total of the holder’s rental costs, direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight.

(4) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement from a charitable, not-for-profit or public security organization in respect of a flight conducted by the holder as a volunteer for that organization if the reimbursement
(a) in the case of an aircraft owned by the holder, is paid at a rate based on distance travelled or number of hours flown and does not exceed the total of the holder’s direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight; or
(b) in the case of a rental aircraft, does not exceed the total of the holder’s rental costs, direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight.

*edited to add CARs quote

Yes , Thanks I am well aware of the regulations but that still does not answer my last question