TC vs. ICAO

[Caballero]

Just for a background, ICAO changed the standard for time as F/O in a 'true' 2 crew aircraft to 1:1 credit. Canada, as an ICAO country elected to adopt this system. There was supposed to be an 'exemption' in place last June to begin processing ATPL's under this ICAO rule. This exemption apparently failed to go through and now it could be 2-3 years until the 'paperwork' can be processed to 're-write' the regulations.

Transport Canada's website currently still states that "Consistent with the international requirements of ICAO, these flight experience credits are applied at a rate of 50%" which is complete false advertising. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/gener ... el/cop.htm

I am aware of many other regulatory changes which have been implemented in short order when it is required or is in interest to TC.

As I am sure many of you feel this has come as a huge frustration. I am not sure if TC understands or cares of what an impact this uncertainty has on many of us with our career routes and decisions.

The classic debate of committed flying around the continent in high performance two crew aircraft vs. running the circuit in a 150 to obtain an ATPL I'm sure hits home hard for many. Understanding the argument that there is no substitute for PIC experience.. for years in a two crew environment you are exposed to an abundance of situations, make decisions as PF and are involved in the entire crew decision making process. After all, shouldn't this Airline Transport Pilot Licence, which allows us to act as Captain in a two-crew aircraft be based upon some 'crew' experience?

For those of us in stable jobs where we would like to remain and to legally qualify for captains positions.. would we be proving something in stepping over to clapped out cargo machines or going to get instructor ratings? If so, with this 1:1 credit timeline should we?

[ScudRunner]

ICAO changed the standard for time as F/O in a 'true' 2 crew aircraft to 1:1 credit.

So does this means that people who have acted as a Co-Pilot in a Single Pilot certified Aircraft (PC-12, PA31,C-208,King Air, etc.) are SOL?

[Birdman]

I would have to completely agree with your take on this topic. Especially, as I am a crew member second-in-comand of a large A/C and certified 2 crew only operations. Now most people would be happy to point out that pilot-in-comand time is very important to the level of experience of a crew member in resept to decision making and operations. However, in many cases time-on-type, total time, time in particular operations involving weather conditions, flight segments, and other considerations all have to be taken into account when evaluating acceptable experience. I do believe that a regulation change on this topic may possibly effect my career decisions in the short-term and would like to see some action on this topic. Now in order to stick to the topic at hand of possible 1:1 ratio and not who deserves to be captain and what not I will explain IMHO where the discrepancy arises.

Earlier today I was reading the fabulous aviation safety letter that arrived in the mail. Now this issue was an interesting one as it dealt with many issues that could be discussed or have been discussed on this forum many times. To my surpise right there in front of me was an article entitled "regulations and you", about the way in which regulation changes and evaluations are conducted in Canada and all the procedures involved. Now in the forth paragraph of this article it states that, "A risk assessment is not required when harmonizing Canadian regulations with the FAA or ICAO if it does not impact on bilateral agreements". I would hope that the concept of a lack of a risk assessment would be instituted to speed up the process. Unfortunatly, this risk assessment is only the first step in a long process, which is put in place to in most cases to adjust regulations to be more restrictive then they currently are would be my guess.

It hurts me to discover from caballero, provided his info is top notch, that it may take 2-3 years to complete the process flow chart nicely provided in the aviation safety letter. Why should this process take 2-3 years? How does taking an eternity to deal with regulation amendments fall in line with the safety culture that is promoted in this country? It is my hope that I am simply misinformed or not following along with information thrown in my direction.

[CD]

Why should this process take 2-3 years?

One guess would be the Department of Justice. If a regulation actually comes into force after only 2-3 years, I think that is pretty good considering how long some are taking. A quick check of the CARAC NPA system that tracks all regulatory change proposals, indicates that there are 305 NPAs currently "Pending Legal Editing", some of these going back to 1997 And these are only the Standards, not even the proposed changes to Regulations. From all of those, only the ones that have a "File Number" associated with them are even active with Justice...

So, Justice would seem to be where the bottleneck is - but as to why

CARAC NPA System

[Caballero]

Thanks for the reply Bird.. I agree I would really like to see this try to stick to the topic at hand being the 1:1 credit.

Last Spring I had been in contact with many different TC personel who all seemed to be quite misinformed on the subject and very unwilling to provide any information or updates as though it was all a big rumor. Once I was in touch with a senior inspector in Ottawa, he was very helpful in explaining the entire situation. The changes in the ICAO standards are clear, however after completion of a review by TC's regulatory affairs staff; it appeared as though the amendment was not possible for whatever reason.

It was appreciated that the concern was addressed that "the department is aware of the interest in the pilot community in expediting the amendment to the CARS to bring this change into effect".

It is frustrating to understand how regulations so clear could take so long to push the paperwork through. CD's explanation is understood and I have heard of how some larger regulatory changes can take years to put in place. TC is bringing in this multi crew pilot licence (MPL) also to be consistent with the ICAO standards and at least with this they are planning to formally keep us in the loop with their plans for implementation. The advertisement of the 1:1 credit on their website quite contradicts this.

I am curious if we as a pilot community can generate some extensive interest towards the 1:1 credit and can at least get a clear answer on the subject.

[Birdman]

Thanks CD for your input and this is a very valid point. When laws or regulations are drawn up it must a very difficult task. After it is written and set into practice it will be scrutinized and interpreted till the end of time. In a sense, when a regulation, rule, or law, is created, the idea of success would be to take a concept or action and narrow this from a possible 'grey' area down to more 'black and white'. I guess you could say the job of a courtroom laywer is to now make it seem more 'grey' so that the answer we seek from the judge will forever shape future interpretation. But I digress, and getting to the topic at hand I think this involves our personal interpretation.

It is my belief that this issue is already 'black and white' and that alone may influence my decision about the topic. My belief is based on the info that ICAO already has acted on a 1:1 ratio and that it has not been acted upon in Canada. As stated by caballero "The changes in the ICAO standards are clear", so he may agree with me on this. It may also be true that the information presented to the review commitee and subsequently the Department of Justice, made it seem like a very 'grey' area when considering any impact to current or future regulations. But would it not be as simple as (YES you can credit 1:1), or (NO you can NOT credit 1:1)? Would someone outside of a conflict of interest unlike myself see it a different way?

[TC Guy]

Hello!

I can understand the frustrations with this issue. A year ago, we were told this was likely to occur in the summer (of 2007) as soon as Legal looked at the regulations, and gave the wording for an exemption (to actually change the regulations, as was pointed out, is a long process).

From what I understand (and I am very far removed from the regulatory process -- I am effectively a "grunt") there was a problem with the wording of the regulations -- something about the Minister not being able to expempt himself. I don't pretend to be a Lawyer, so maybe some smarter people here could give you some insight as to why that would be.

So, what exactly does this mean? As far as I am aware, it is TC's intent to impliment this policy as soon as the regulations can be amended. In the short term, the "1/2 co-pilot" time still applies towards the ATPL. The change *should* occur in the future, once it runs through the process.

I know that I (and many in our office) were as shocked as many of you that it didn't happen as we thought it would.

TC is a regulatory body -- the rules (standards/exemptions/etc.) must support the licencing process.

Sorry.

-Guy

[Valhalla]

I just think it's shameful that we can all agree (and I'll assume TC agrees also) that the rule should be changed to reflect ICAO, yet it cannot get done because of legal wording.

I know it's all about covering ones ass, but Transport Canada has to remember that there are more barriers to becoming Captain on a two crew airplane than getting the ATPL. You have to get hired by a company, recommended for upgrade, pass the upgrade ride and line indoc, AND perhaps most difficult, meet insurance requirements.

OR, you can go out and buy a large two crew airplane and operate it under 604. Then you don't need an ATPL. And THAT'S the most ironic part. Under the current wording of the CARs, rich guys with too much money can exercise the rights of their private licence and act as captain on a two crew airplane, but the highly trained 704/705 commercial pilot cannot.

[Croissant Wrench]

Hello

I don't understand the frustration. I, among others logged 1/2 time towards a ATPL because in the name of safety a co-jo shouldn't be credited with PIC experience until the company feels it's safe to "cut 'em loose".

The system is fine the way it is. Too many pilots think they are ready when they're not.

[Valhalla]

The system is fine the way it is. Too many pilots think they are ready when they're not.

The problem is that Canada is an ICAO country, and therefore we should be consistent with the ICAO rules (as per transport canada's website). And you're probably right - too many pilots do think they are ready before they are - but that's a different topic all together.

[Captain_Canuck]

Thanks for starting this thread. This was what I was refering to in a thread that I started a week ago; which was then hijacked but the usual suspects.

Awsome insight guys!

[Caballero]

Thanks again for all the response.. TC guy I really appreciate your take coming from a reputable source as well. Croissant you may be right but as Valhalla said, there are a lot more barriers to overcome. There are many different situations and that argument can go on forever. The issue at hand here is the ICAO standards and our countries inability to abide by them due to paperwork. What is required to get the best lawyers in Canada to tune this wording to exactly how someone high up would like to read it?

[Tiny Tyke]

I spoke with big shot TC guys in YOW regarding changing the GPS approach regulations last week. They told me it took them 4 years to get the regulations into place as they stand now. And when i asked them questions for interpretation on certain portions there answer was.."well, there are a lot of gray areas on this subject, we don't want to answer that question because your local inspector may have a different answer. Our intent is to remove those gray area regulations in the near future." I told them that they better start now if you want to have it changed before 2011.

Moral of the story is, retarded bureaucracies take a long time to do things. I totally agree that co-pilots flying 2 crew aircraft should be able log time 1:1. Here's hoping the regs change soon.

[Caballero]

Anyone heard any movement on this? Last I was informed that it was going to be presented at a CARAC meeting at the end of September. You out there TC guy?

[CD]

Well, there is a Part IV meeting scheduled for September 23-25 but I don't see any indication yet of what might be on the agenda:

CARAC Meeting Schedule - September 2008

[Cat Driver]

As I am sure many of you feel this has come as a huge frustration. I am not sure if TC understands or cares of what an impact this uncertainty has on many of us with our career routes and decisions.

Hmmm.....interesting thought provoking question, does TC care about the average person in Canadian Civil Aviation?

Sure they do I can attest to the fact they truly care and will go the extra mile to insure that each and every one of you are treated fairly and your best interests will be their top priority......

As to time counting one for one in two crew operations for the purpose of upgrading to the ATPL license I personally think it is only common sense.