Training question

[jakeandelwood]

Hello. My employer (702 operation) wants me to fly a company aircraft (light twin) that I have never flown before and have never had any training on. I regularly fly a different type of light twin for said company. This will be a non revenue VFR flight. While I don't feel uncomfortable doing it I don't feel it's legal. I can't seem to find an answer on the CARs about this. I don't feel my employer is pushing me to do something illegal I just feel that they most likely don't know and they assume it's just fine. Thanks for any input.

[rigpiggy]

Every COM I have seen has an exemption specifically for this. Check your com, I’ll bet you it is in there

[digits_]

Hello. My employer (702 operation) wants me to fly a company aircraft (light twin) that I have never flown before and have never had any training on. I regularly fly a different type of light twin for said company. This will be a non revenue VFR flight. While I don't feel uncomfortable doing it I don't feel it's legal. I can't seem to find an answer on the CARs about this. I don't feel my employer is pushing me to do something illegal I just feel that they most likely don't know and they assume it's just fine. Thanks for any input.

Why do you think it's illegal?

[jakeandelwood]

Hello. My employer (702 operation) wants me to fly a company aircraft (light twin) that I have never flown before and have never had any training on. I regularly fly a different type of light twin for said company. This will be a non revenue VFR flight. While I don't feel uncomfortable doing it I don't feel it's legal. I can't seem to find an answer on the CARs about this. I don't feel my employer is pushing me to do something illegal I just feel that they most likely don't know and they assume it's just fine. Thanks for any input.

Why do you think it's illegal?

Because when I bought my personal plane I was forced by insurance to do training on the plane before I could fly it even though I had experience in other planes that were much more complex. It just seems odd that I can jump in this plane and fly it with zero training.

[jakeandelwood]

Every COM I have seen has an exemption specifically for this. Check your com, I’ll bet you it is in there

Thanks, but I can't find anything in it about an exemption.

[fish4life]

Hello. My employer (702 operation) wants me to fly a company aircraft (light twin) that I have never flown before and have never had any training on. I regularly fly a different type of light twin for said company. This will be a non revenue VFR flight. While I don't feel uncomfortable doing it I don't feel it's legal. I can't seem to find an answer on the CARs about this. I don't feel my employer is pushing me to do something illegal I just feel that they most likely don't know and they assume it's just fine. Thanks for any input.

Why do you think it's illegal?

Because when I bought my personal plane I was forced by insurance to do training on the plane before I could fly it even though I had experience in other planes that were much more complex. It just seems odd that I can jump in this plane and fly it with zero training.

What insurance companies want and what is legal are very different. Insurance companies will always be more restrictive than the CARS, basically if it doesn’t require a type rating you can fly anything legally.

[digits_]

Hello. My employer (702 operation) wants me to fly a company aircraft (light twin) that I have never flown before and have never had any training on. I regularly fly a different type of light twin for said company. This will be a non revenue VFR flight. While I don't feel uncomfortable doing it I don't feel it's legal. I can't seem to find an answer on the CARs about this. I don't feel my employer is pushing me to do something illegal I just feel that they most likely don't know and they assume it's just fine. Thanks for any input.

Why do you think it's illegal?

Because when I bought my personal plane I was forced by insurance to do training on the plane before I could fly it even though I had experience in other planes that were much more complex. It just seems odd that I can jump in this plane and fly it with zero training.

A commercial operation very likely has a clause that they can choose who flies their airplanes. Sometimes subject to certain experience minima, other times not.

I would not be overly concerned about that. You're an employee. If your employer says you can fly the plane and you've verified the insurance document is on board, you're good to go.

Most, if not all, 70x regulations apply to commercial flying. Non revenue flights are not commercial flights in that regard.

[jakeandelwood]

Why do you think it's illegal?

Because when I bought my personal plane I was forced by insurance to do training on the plane before I could fly it even though I had experience in other planes that were much more complex. It just seems odd that I can jump in this plane and fly it with zero training.

What insurance companies want and what is legal are very different. Insurance companies will always be more restrictive than the CARS, basically if it doesn’t require a type rating you can fly anything legally.

True but since liability insurance is a Transport Canada requirement for flight the insurance companies have the final say in whether a pilot can legally fly a plane

[jakeandelwood]

Because when I bought my personal plane I was forced by insurance to do training on the plane before I could fly it even though I had experience in other planes that were much more complex. It just seems odd that I can jump in this plane and fly it with zero training.

What insurance companies want and what is legal are very different. Insurance companies will always be more restrictive than the CARS, basically if it doesn’t require a type rating you can fly anything legally.

True but since liability insurance is a Transport Canada requirement for flight the insurance companies have the final say in whether a pilot can legally fly a plane

Thank you, that makes sense

[digits_]

Because when I bought my personal plane I was forced by insurance to do training on the plane before I could fly it even though I had experience in other planes that were much more complex. It just seems odd that I can jump in this plane and fly it with zero training.

What insurance companies want and what is legal are very different. Insurance companies will always be more restrictive than the CARS, basically if it doesn’t require a type rating you can fly anything legally.

True but since liability insurance is a Transport Canada requirement for flight the insurance companies have the final say in whether a pilot can legally fly a plane

If you're happy with liability only, you'll find that insurance requirements are much much more relaxed than when you want hull coverage.

The silver wings program for example will (or at least used to) cover you on most aircraft types without a checkout. That's liability only though.

[TeePeeCreeper]

To the OP:

Welcome to the Wild West of the 702 world.

You’re not wrong in your decision making process and I for one commend you for reaching out to seek advice.

TPC

[co-joe]

I went through this with a C414 once. I had flown several twin Cessnas, but the Chancellor is a lot of aeroplane, and you really need to be comfortable in it to take it cross country with your own life, as well as other's lives. In the end they let me take it out for some circuits and upper air work on my own time. Doing stalls, slow flight, steep turns and some touch and go's really helped give me confidence. Of course the first trip was max range, and I needed to blow the aux tanks to get full mileage out of it, the pax were slightly alarmed when it happened, I nearly shit myself... Tell them you need to take it up for an hour solo to familiarize yourself with it.

[itsgrosswhatinet]

I hope OP wasn't the one that died in the survey Navajo in Newfoundland yesterday.

[cdnavater]

I hope OP wasn't the one that died in the survey Navajo in Newfoundland yesterday.

That would be quite the coincidence, the company in question does have Aztecs, hopefully not a case of ferrying an aircraft for maintenance when it shouldn’t have been.

[rigpiggy]

Pull up your com search ferry. this is ours


4.11.3 Experience
Except for training, positioning and ferry flights a pilot must have completed
a. If carrying passengers in single-engine aeroplanes, have at least five (5) hours flight time as
PIC on type; and
b. If carrying passengers in multi-engine aeroplane, have at least 15 hours flight time as PIC
on type

[philaviate]

Hello. My employer (702 operation) wants me to fly a company aircraft (light twin) that I have never flown before and have never had any training on. I regularly fly a different type of light twin for said company. This will be a non revenue VFR flight. While I don't feel uncomfortable doing it I don't feel it's legal. I can't seem to find an answer on the CARs about this. I don't feel my employer is pushing me to do something illegal I just feel that they most likely don't know and they assume it's just fine. Thanks for any input.

Why do you think it's illegal?

Because when I bought my personal plane I was forced by insurance to do training on the plane before I could fly it even though I had experience in other planes that were much more complex. It just seems odd that I can jump in this plane and fly it with zero training.

Insurance companies don't get to decide what is legal or not.

[jakeandelwood]

I hope OP wasn't the one that died in the survey Navajo in Newfoundland yesterday.

No, absolutely nothing to do with that unfortunate accident.

[jakeandelwood]

Why do you think it's illegal?

Because when I bought my personal plane I was forced by insurance to do training on the plane before I could fly it even though I had experience in other planes that were much more complex. It just seems odd that I can jump in this plane and fly it with zero training.

Insurance companies don't get to decide what is legal or not.

Well actually in a twisted way they are. You need liability insurance to be legal and they provide it.

[digits_]

I hope OP wasn't the one that died in the survey Navajo in Newfoundland yesterday.

No, absolutely nothing to do with that unfortunate accident.

You had us worried there for a moment!

[itsgrosswhatinet]

I'm glad you're okay Jake.

[philaviate]

Because when I bought my personal plane I was forced by insurance to do training on the plane before I could fly it even though I had experience in other planes that were much more complex. It just seems odd that I can jump in this plane and fly it with zero training.

Insurance companies don't get to decide what is legal or not.

Well actually in a twisted way they are. You need liability insurance to be legal and they provide it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.
But this is the fundamental issue with your question that is causing you confusion.

If you insure a plane, or vehicle, read the terms. It'll say something like nothing in the policy stops a third party from making a claim blah blah blah .....

So, in your aviation example, if you insure a plane and they say you need 10 hours on type prior to flying solo. If you go and fly it solo after 10minutes, then you are still "legally" insured. You are not breaking any aviation laws, because the plane is insured for flight, you are simply not complying with the insurance's own internal policy. Which is not law.
So if you crash, they can refuse to pay you out, but a third party that you crash into could still get an insurance payout, because the plane is insured. The insurance can then sue you for costs.

If you have a valid and subsisting insurance coverage policy, even if you don't follow their rules, it doesn't mean you are flying without insurance in a legal sense, you are just not likely to be covered personally while doing so.
Think a stolen car that gets crashed, the car is still insured, and the insurance will still cover the car even while the driver is driving illegally.
I have dealt with this hundreds of times in my former career.

[jakeandelwood]

Insurance companies don't get to decide what is legal or not.

Well actually in a twisted way they are. You need liability insurance to be legal and they provide it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.
But this is the fundamental issue with your question that is causing you confusion.

If you insure a plane, or vehicle, read the terms. It'll say something like nothing in the policy stops a third party from making a claim blah blah blah .....

So, in your aviation example, if you insure a plane and they say you need 10 hours on type prior to flying solo. If you go and fly it solo after 10minutes, then you are still "legally" insured. You are not breaking any aviation laws, because the plane is insured for flight, you are simply not complying with the insurance's own internal policy. Which is not law.
So if you crash, they can refuse to pay you out, but a third party that you crash into could still get an insurance payout, because the plane is insured. The insurance can then sue you for costs.

If you have a valid and subsisting insurance coverage policy, even if you don't follow their rules, it doesn't mean you are flying without insurance in a legal sense, you are just not likely to be covered personally while doing so.
Think a stolen car that gets crashed, the car is still insured, and the insurance will still cover the car even while the driver is driving illegally.
I have dealt with this hundreds of times in my former career.

I see, that makes sense, I just remember seeing something on my policy saying in motion insurance is null and void until training is complete, but maybe I read it wrong, I would also never insure "liability only" as everyone knows a simple mishap with minor damage on an aircraft can balloon into thousands and thousands of dollars, I'm not rich,

[jakeandelwood]

I'm glad you're okay Jake.

thanks

[philaviate]

Well actually in a twisted way they are. You need liability insurance to be legal and they provide it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.
But this is the fundamental issue with your question that is causing you confusion.

If you insure a plane, or vehicle, read the terms. It'll say something like nothing in the policy stops a third party from making a claim blah blah blah .....

So, in your aviation example, if you insure a plane and they say you need 10 hours on type prior to flying solo. If you go and fly it solo after 10minutes, then you are still "legally" insured. You are not breaking any aviation laws, because the plane is insured for flight, you are simply not complying with the insurance's own internal policy. Which is not law.
So if you crash, they can refuse to pay you out, but a third party that you crash into could still get an insurance payout, because the plane is insured. The insurance can then sue you for costs.

If you have a valid and subsisting insurance coverage policy, even if you don't follow their rules, it doesn't mean you are flying without insurance in a legal sense, you are just not likely to be covered personally while doing so.
Think a stolen car that gets crashed, the car is still insured, and the insurance will still cover the car even while the driver is driving illegally.
I have dealt with this hundreds of times in my former career.

I see, that makes sense, I just remember seeing something on my policy saying in motion insurance is null and void until training is complete, but maybe I read it wrong, I would also never insure "liability only" as everyone knows a simple mishap with minor damage on an aircraft can balloon into thousands and thousands of dollars, I'm not rich,

Sure, but those issues are your company's problems. Not a legal problem.
If the plane is insured, doesn't need a type rating, and you have the correct ratings, if you're given permission to fly it, you can; legally. It might not be the best idea, but it's not illegal. For instance say you fly a seneca. Company says "John, go fly the king air 90". Legally you can. Might not be a good idea, but it is lawful.

[jakeandelwood]

Sorry, but you're wrong.
But this is the fundamental issue with your question that is causing you confusion.

If you insure a plane, or vehicle, read the terms. It'll say something like nothing in the policy stops a third party from making a claim blah blah blah .....

So, in your aviation example, if you insure a plane and they say you need 10 hours on type prior to flying solo. If you go and fly it solo after 10minutes, then you are still "legally" insured. You are not breaking any aviation laws, because the plane is insured for flight, you are simply not complying with the insurance's own internal policy. Which is not law.
So if you crash, they can refuse to pay you out, but a third party that you crash into could still get an insurance payout, because the plane is insured. The insurance can then sue you for costs.

If you have a valid and subsisting insurance coverage policy, even if you don't follow their rules, it doesn't mean you are flying without insurance in a legal sense, you are just not likely to be covered personally while doing so.
Think a stolen car that gets crashed, the car is still insured, and the insurance will still cover the car even while the driver is driving illegally.
I have dealt with this hundreds of times in my former career.

I see, that makes sense, I just remember seeing something on my policy saying in motion insurance is null and void until training is complete, but maybe I read it wrong, I would also never insure "liability only" as everyone knows a simple mishap with minor damage on an aircraft can balloon into thousands and thousands of dollars, I'm not rich,

Sure, but those issues are your company's problems. Not a legal problem.
If the plane is insured, doesn't need a type rating, and you have the correct ratings, if you're given permission to fly it, you can; legally. It might not be the best idea, but it's not illegal. For instance say you fly a seneca. Company says "John, go fly the king air 90". Legally you can. Might not be a good idea, but it is lawful.

I understand, I don't have a problem with it at all just wanted to make sure it was all legal. I've also ran into this problem with house insurance..... House has 60 amp power and that is allowed by code (certain things have to be met) insurance say "we don't insure houses with 60 amp power, so I had to actually show them the page out of the electrical code and battle with them or upgrade