The oversight of turbine pressurized privately operated aircraft such as a Kingair 90 seems to be more structured in Canada than it is in the United States. In the CARs, there seems to be a delegated authority with an annual membership or subscription fee required to operate private aircraft in Canada which is not required in the United States under the FARs.
Is this proving a successful model?
Is this equivalent to FAR Part 135?
Appreciate any insight or discussion.
Thank you.
Private operation of aircraft
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Re: Private operation of aircraft
I would turn the question around, and instead ask:
"What problem that exists in the USA is solved by CAR 604?"
It irks me when people assume that immense paperwork
overhead has no cost
A similar difference between Canada and the USA is
that any FAA instructor can get an airplane and start
instructing on it.
Not in Canada! Just like the airlines, an FTU OC is
required, with an MCM and an AMO. It can take a
year to get an FTU OC (assuming you contract out
to an external AMO, which ensures that you won't
make any profit) but Canada accepts FAA pilot
certificates at face value under the new reciprocity
program.
Hmmmm.
What problem is the FTU OC overhead solving?
And at what cost?
Has ANYONE in the government even bothered
to ever calculate a cost/benefit analysis of all of
the incredible layers of paper that they keep layering
on, year after year?
Anyone want to talk about the Ontario "Private
Career College Act?"
"What problem that exists in the USA is solved by CAR 604?"
It irks me when people assume that immense paperwork
overhead has no cost
A similar difference between Canada and the USA is
that any FAA instructor can get an airplane and start
instructing on it.
Not in Canada! Just like the airlines, an FTU OC is
required, with an MCM and an AMO. It can take a
year to get an FTU OC (assuming you contract out
to an external AMO, which ensures that you won't
make any profit) but Canada accepts FAA pilot
certificates at face value under the new reciprocity
program.
Hmmmm.
What problem is the FTU OC overhead solving?
And at what cost?
Has ANYONE in the government even bothered
to ever calculate a cost/benefit analysis of all of
the incredible layers of paper that they keep layering
on, year after year?
Anyone want to talk about the Ontario "Private
Career College Act?"
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Private operation of aircraft
20102m2 I can't give you any idea of how safe they are in Canada under their regulations for the operating of private aircraft, but I operated under the U.S. part 91 regulations for decades all over the world and we had a 100% safety record...I hope that helps.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Private operation of aircraft
Part 135 is a license to get violated, Part 91 is a license to get killed.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Re: Private operation of aircraft
I have to say I think it is ridiculous that the CBAA has any say over an aircraft that is operated SOLELY for the private use of the owner (ie. not for business use). I 100% agree with 604 for corporate flight departments as they should be accountable to their passengers who are required to fly aboard the business' aircraft.
It's funny too, because the insurance companies would never agree to cover someone if they hadn't first completed formal aircraft training, usually including sim/ftd.
It's funny too, because the insurance companies would never agree to cover someone if they hadn't first completed formal aircraft training, usually including sim/ftd.
"Hell, I'll fly up your ass if the money's right!"
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
