FTU - OC

[tractor747]

Can a flight training school do other aviation related commercial business like aerial advertising/patrol/ that another company paid them to do on a long term deal? Or are they just tied to flight training and I believe sightseeing. Also do they get their FTU OC only from Transport Canada and/or the Canadian Transport Agency (CTA).

thanks

[624]

An FTU can only do flight training and sight seeing. Aerial advertising/patrol, (not sure what you mean by patrol, but as long as there are no passengers), requires a 702 operating certificate. This is issued by Transport Canada. CTA has nothing to do with FTU's or 702 operators.

[tractor747]

what if the ftu has an air traffic reporting contract and the only passenger other than the pilot is the employee of the company that owns the traffic reporting contract can I still do this with the ftu oc or do I need an 702 oc?

[Colonel Sanders]

Sounds to me like you are being paid to take sightseeing pax.

That's covered by the 406 FTU OC. Of course, YMMV depending
upon what region you are in.

[Lurch]

Sounds to me like you are being paid to take sightseeing pax.

That's covered by the 406 FTU OC. Of course, YMMV depending
upon what region you are in.

I'm no expert but I think you'll have trouble depending on what region you're in.

If I was doing smoke patrol could I not say the same? I'd think you'd need a 702.

But why ask here? we're not TC and if we're wrong stating you got your legal advice from AvCanada sure isn't going to help you during the tribunal.

Lurch

[Colonel Sanders]

A "traffic reporting" pax is pretty clearly sightseeing.

In fact, he can't do his job without looking out the
window, which is pretty much the definition of
"sight" and "seeing".

You could argue that because he flies more than
once with you, he is no longer "sightseeing", but
I don't understand that logic. I'm sure many people
have gone for more than one sightseeing flight
without charges being laid.

Anyways, we all know that logic doesn't matter.
Phone TC and ask them what they want you to
do. Their interpretation is the only one that matters
because if they disagree, they will lay charges against
you, and you probably don't want that.

[Lurch]

A "traffic reporting" pax is pretty clearly sightseeing.

Maybe it's clear to you but as I stated before I have to disagree, or else smoke patrol and wild life survey could also be preformed by flight schools.

Anyways, we all know that logic doesn't matter.
Phone TC and ask them what they want you to
do. Their interpretation is the only one that matters
because if they disagree, they will lay charges against
you, and you probably don't want that.

This I fully agree with.

Lurch

[Colonel Sanders]

smoke patrol and wild life survey could also be preformed by flight schools

I don't see why not - how are they not "seeing sights"?
As long as they don't land at a different airport, they're
"sightseeing".

But we all know the futility of urinating into a strong breeze.

[floatplanepilot]

Are you landing at another point other than your departure? By definition sightseeing is aerial work where pax must disembark at your departure point. I once fired an instructor for disembarking pax at another airport while calling it sightseeing, among other violations.

Other things to consider is that a 702 OC typically gives you exemptions to fly below various minimum altitude requirements.

[shitdisturber]

Doing traffic patrol is aerial work just like banner tows, survey, you name it and a 702 OC is required. Can you get away without one? Probably; but if you get caught, TC could fine you for EVERY flight done as individual violations. Is it worth the risk?

[Colonel Sanders]

Doing traffic patrol is aerial work

I believe you where thousands wouldn't, but where
is this specified in CAR 702? If it isn't, why isn't it?

[tractor747]

how about this scenario,

There is a school that just got their flight training operating certificate and this school might end up with a signed contract to provide a radio station with traffic reporting using one of the school's airplanes. Is this considered sight seeing or do you also need a 702 operating certificate to do the air traffic reporting? The compensation is a nice amount.

My reason for the question is I might be working for this flight school in a non flying position to help out with this potential air traffic contract and from what I have read in the cars under starting an air service is that aerial patrol which I think fits into air traffic reporting needs an operating certificate from the Canadian Transportation Agency.

any thoughts? I'll call TC.

[Shiny Side Up]

Doing traffic patrol is aerial work

I believe you where thousands wouldn't, but where
is this specified in CAR 702? If it isn't, why isn't it?

I'll have to find it somewhere, but it has something to do with aerial work over built up areas, which traffic patrol is usually conducted over where I believe one has to apply for under one's 702 certificate. I suppose one could do traffic patrol outside the city, but I doubt there's much call for that. I could be wrong, but I know there's something buried in there about what constitutes sightseeing as well, and its not under the 406 or 702 pages.

[alexdenham]

"aerial work" - means a commercial air service other than an air transport service or a flight training service;

"sightseeing operation" - means aerial work in the course of which passengers are disembarked at the point of departure;

Given how loose the definitions are, I think you could make a case for this being sightseeing. However, what you'll probably hear from TC is that you should be holding a 702 cert for this. Just give em a call though, they don't bite.

[624]

You need to call tc. They will tell you that it is aerial work. Aerial work requires a 702 oc. The fines for doing aerial work without a 702 oc can be very expensive. It's pretty easy to justify doing just about anything but the bottom line is if your wrong and you get caught doing 702 work with a ftu-oc it can make the lucrative contract not so lucrative.

If tc does say it's ok to do this make sure you get it in writing, or an email from them saying so.

Also, the CTA has nothing to do with 702 operators. Unless your a 702 operator doing 703 work. Then they care.

[Cat Driver]

.

[Cat Driver]

The best way to find out if you need a certificate to do traffic patrol on contract is to just go ahead and do it on a FTU OC without the 702 certificate.

Then have an accident where someone is injured or killed.

Get back to me and let me know how it turns out for you.

***********************************************************************

Just give em a call though, they don't bite.

***********************************************************************

Depends on who you are and their own agenda, so don't make the mistake believing they are there to help you.

[SRV]

Moreover, everyone else is conducting traffic patrols with a 702 AOC so to try and circumvent the standard only will cause grief with fellow pilots and operators.

[Colonel Sanders]

to try and circumvent the standard

But CAR 722 (the applicable Standard) doesn't say
anything about traffic patrol, at least not that I can find.

How can you circumvent something that isn't there?!

I think what you guys are trying to say is that a person
can only go sightseeing once. That doesn't make any
sense, either.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 1-1104.htm

"aerial work" - means a commercial air service other than an air transport service or a flight training service;

"sightseeing operation" - means aerial work in the course of which passengers are disembarked at the point of departure;

That seems to perfectly describe traffic patrol.

And see CAR 700.02(4):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#700_02

(4) A person who does not hold an air operator certificate may conduct aerial work involving the carriage of persons other than flight crew members on board a single-engined aircraft if

(a) the person holds a flight training unit operator certificate;
(b) the pilot-in-command is the holder of a valid flight instructor rating in the appropriate category of aircraft;
(c) the aircraft is operated in day VFR flight;
(d) there are no more than nine passengers on board; and
(e) the flight is conducted for the purpose of sightseeing operations.

You guys really like over-regulation, don't you?

[dahspeers]

Why not just spend the money and the 702 OC on top of the FTU OC? Whats $2500 when you get caught playing in the wrong parts of the gray area?

[Colonel Sanders]

702 OC ... Whats $2500

You got a 702 PC for $2500?!

I figured it would be more like $25,000
and at least a couple of years. Maybe
three or four.

I spent SIX F__KING YEARS of my life
trying to get an MCM (no AMO) approved for
an FTU, and that is an experience so incredibly
unpleasant that I never, ever want to repeat
again. I would rather have all my teeth removed
without the benefit of anaesthesia, than go
through the Hell required to get a 70x AOC.

Maybe I just don't know the regulations very
well, compared to most pilots.

A flying club which operates an airport near
here just had it's annual general meeting,
and the members simply couldn't believe
the incredible cost of implenting SMS and
other TC overhead paperwork which was
requiring the club to jack up all of it's rates,
which may or may not be the death knell
for the airport.

[Colonel Sanders]

As a counterpoint to the FTU MCM monstrosity,
let's look at what the FAA requires.

See FAA FAR part 91.409(b):

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service.

That's it. That's all. Anyone see any difference?

Wonder why flight training in Canada is so hideously
expensive? Because like so many other taxes and
fees, the insane, unnecessary overhead is viewed
as having no cost to the public.

Canadians just don't "get it". Ever wonder where
all the factories have gone? Do you care that there
are no more jobs any more? Are we all going to get
government jobs and live the European sovereign
debt dream?

[Cat Driver]

As a counterpoint to the FTU MCM monstrosity,
let's look at what the FAA requires.

Canada is a socialistic dictatorship that despises anyone who wants to start up a private business.

The mind boggling fuc.ing around you get during the application process for approval to operate a flying business in Canada is a disgrace to any country, including the most primitive third world countries..

[Shiny Side Up]

Wonder why flight training in Canada is so hideously
expensive? Because like so many other taxes and
fees, the insane, unnecessary overhead is viewed
as having no cost to the public.

Which of course begs the question why people come here to train. Not disagreeing on your assessment, but clearly its still cheaper to do it here than a lot of the rest of the world. And its not that much cheaper to go south of the border in most cases. Easier and friendlier yes, but dollars at the end of the day, not much.

Canada is a socialistic dictatorship that despises anyone who wants to start up a private business.

The mind boggling fuc.ing around you get during the application process for approval to operate a flying business in Canada is a disgrace to any country, including the most primitive third world countries..

Something of an exaggeration, yes our system needs to be fixed, but Canada is hardly the most socialist place on the planet, and there's a lot of guys who seem to have no trouble starting up businesses. After all isn't there that one guy who seems to be able to keep starting up airlines all the time here? Doesn't sound like he has any trouble. What about bluebird? They don't seem to be having any trouble keeping in business either. Secondly, I was recently speaking with a friend of mine who is busy trying to start a flying business in one of those third world countries... I think he had to end up marrying someone from there to start. He gave up on the flying school idea, too much paperwork and bribery involved to do that. Cool idea though, he was going to base it out of an old Japanese airfield he bought.

[Colonel Sanders]

What about bluebird?

Rather fascinatingly, TC considers that person to
be a great guy, at least compared to me and ..

One has to wonder why. And who he knows.