CARs clarification

[Cap'n P8]

Does anyone have a link on the TC website for the interpretation of certain regulations? I remember for certain regs which could be considered ambiguous, TC published their official interpretation of said reg.

For example, there was some confusion around the max flight time you could do single-pilot IFR (8 hours). Some people assumed that you could continue flying VFR after the 8 hours of IFR. I admit, that was my take on it until I read TC's official stand on the subject online.

Looking for a link, go figure I couldn't find it myself online anymore.

[CD]

Well, your question is sort of ambiguous, but I'll take a stab at providing some pointers...

There are a number of sources that one could refer to for clarification or additional explanation. However, you're not likely going to find actual "interpretations" -- only guidance material that might or might not be helpful depending on the question one has:

Online Reference Centre - Advisory Circulars (since 2007)
Online Reference Centre - Guidance and Advisory Documents (prior to 2007)
Guidance Material Concerning Flight Time and Flight Duty Time Limitations and Rest Periods
Guidance Material for Regulations & Standards - Part 703 - Air Taxi Operations
Guidance Material for Regulations & Standards - Part 704 - Commuter Operations
Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) and Commercial Air Service Standards (CASS) - Part VII - Subpart 5 - Guidance Material

If you can't find the answer you're looking for, here are two additional options:

Civil Aviation Communication Centre
Civil Aviation Issues Reporting System (CAIRS)

Here, also, is the dual-instruction that Hedley so graciously offered us previously for searching any website (which is especially useful for Government sites) using the search term "GPS" as an example:

Yup. You can use google to search any website, either using the "advanced" page as CD says, or simply by entering this on the google search input line:

GPS site:www.tc.gc.ca

which yields this:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=GPS ... arch&meta=

which, using http://www.tinyurl.com I can shrink to:

http://tinyurl.com/2lhvvv

to avoid URL-wrap in emails, etc.

Neat, huh?

If you like google for searching websites, if you're
really lazy and unorganized like me, you can even
use it to search your computer.

Really.

http://desktop.google.com/

[stopsquawk]

deleted - redundant

[snoopy]

Just remember, when you use the word "interpretation" as it pertains to CARS laws and standards, you enter dangerous territory. Regrettably, interpretation may be personal, and quite often varies by region. Often, interpretation, policy and "guidance" is used to take the place of proper legal procedure in order to put "laws" in place without properly vetting them.

What this industry needs is access to an ombudsman - complimented by a legal review board - both of which are competent (read trained in the law), independent and neutral; and empowered to issue official "interpretations" and ensure that consistency and fairness is applied to the law. Both should be freely accessible by anyone in industry, and by Transport Canada.

IMHO.

Kirsten B.

[Doc]

What we seem to need, is the CARS to be translated into "English" and proof read by a twelve year old. Pilots are not lawyers, and we shouldn't need one to translate the CARS for us. Write them so we can read,and understand them. Too much to ask? Probably.

[snoopy]

The CARS are not at all difficult to understand! People make them out to be difficult as an excuse - but as the saying goes, ignorance is no excuse.

Didn't you ever watch the Matrix? "Free your mind".

Kirsten B.

[Doc]

Oh, I have no problem understanding CARS, but when you start talking "interpretations", obviously somebody isn't getting it? Especially when different Regions within the system interpret the same written word to take on different meanings....

[Bushav8er]

They aren't that difficult, although some sections are trickier to figure out then others, just ask yourself 'what is the intent of the law/reg, why did they make this rule?' Then you can better interpret the CAR.

You probably already know this but the subpart 0 - General section is the Interpretation section which helps too. The first thing TC does when you respond to them quoting a reg with an explanation is call their lawyers for a Departmental Interpretation; you may never hear from them again as they hate to be wrong.

[CD]

As snoopy notes, the CARs aren't all that bad, especially in comparison to other Canadian regulatory publications. They're also better than the old ANOs and Air Reg structure ... but I feel that improvements could certainly be made in a number of areas.

You're also getting back to the interpretation concept, Doc. It's the lawyers that have the final say on the structure of the phraseology when regulations are published, not the end user. All the drafters and end-users can do through the CARAC process is try to make sure that the idea originally desired is adequately communicated within the proposal so that the lawyers can hopefully understand the intent, then keep a sharp eye on the Canada Gazette for the public comment period to have the ability to identify any errors that might have crept in during the legal process. Once the regulation is published, the only group that can provide an "interpretation" is the courts.

Of course, with the newest "Performance-based Regulation" processes adopted by the government, it's likely that there will be less detail in regulations going forward and potentially more grey areas, as regulation is not a favoured route under the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulations. Here is a graphic of the options available for "assessing, selecting, and implementing instruments for government action":

[trey kule]

Snoopy...Easy to interpret? Really? What do you think of someone who would post that the CARS (Canadian Aviaition REGULATIONS as Laws? Read your posts. Am I being picky? There is a world of difference between a law and a regulation, though the good folks at TC would prefer we dont make the distinction.

The challange, as has been pointed out is primarily that TC can intrepret them as they see fit, as individuals, by region, or on a changing basis because the system of enforcement does not have the same safeguards built into it that a system based on laws would have. And the case history is known only to TC. The proper interpretaition of the regualations is important.

Now, it is Saturday morning (I think), and I must get more coffee

[snoopy]

"REGULATIOMMS???" "regualations???" " challange?" "interpretaition?" Read your own posts! LOL

Better make it a triple espresso...

[Cap'n P8]

CD

That one link on the duty time was the kind of thing I was looking for, (although I wasn't actually looking for guidance on any particular regulation at this time...the SPIFR was just an example).

One thing that I did notice was the the 4 for guidance...I've never noticed that before. I only knew of the 0 for reg and 2 for standard. Where does one find a list of all the 4s eg. 743.1 (don't know if that one actually exists...just an example)?

[snoopy]

On the page prior to the one that CD posted (you can step backwards from the link he gave), or: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/comme ... s/menu.htm, you can find the information you seek from the box labeled "Checklists and Guidance Material".

On the page itself, i.e. http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/comme ... 3/menu.htm
you'll find a boxed menu on the right - if you click on each division it will show you the published guidance material for that division. If you want to save the evidence, you can download a .pdf file from a link on that same page.

It has happened on occasion that TC "guidance" has actually been in contravention of the regulations.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[Cap'n P8]

Cool, this is the links I was looking for.

[Bede]

I read a judgment by a Federal Court Justice. He said, "the CARS are a document which make the Income Tax Act seem like elegant prose."

[CD]

One thing that I did notice was the the 4 for guidance...I've never noticed that before. I only knew of the 0 for reg and 2 for standard. Where does one find a list of all the 4s eg. 743.1 (don't know if that one actually exists...just an example)?

Yes, the original concept for the CARs was actually quite good: "0" for the Regulation, "2" for the associated Standard and "4" for any related Advisory material. The concept being that everything related to a particular topic would be located in one place.

General Information on the CARs


However, the only actual published Advisory material currently exists in Part III for Airports (302/322/342) and ARFF (303/323/343):

Part III - Aerodromes, Airports and Heliports

The guidance material available for Part VII has often contained errors, as snoopy notes, and hasn't been made available as part of the CARs - yet. It's hidden away on a separate part of the website. I would hope that one day the information is added as actual Advisory material and associated with its respective Regulation and Standard on the Part VII site.

Bede...

Hedley shared that tidbit with us back in 2007 on this thread:

AvCanada: Rules and regulations

[Big Pistons Forever]

What a great thread !

Mods you should make this a sticky.

What would be even better would be feature which would prohibit people from posting a CARS question without proof they had read the
sticky first

[Bushav8er]

What would be even better would be feature which would prohibit people from posting a CARS question without proof they had read the
sticky first

[Cat Driver]

I read a judgment by a Federal Court Justice. He said, "the CARS are a document which make the Income Tax Act seem like elegant prose."

I became quite familiar with trying to research definitive answers from CAR's during my struggle with Pruess and Nowzek.

I have a tough time just reading the letters CAR's let alone trying to find a definitive answer by going into them.

My experience was the meaning is what ever they want it to be at any given time.