Question of interpretation/semantics of CARS

[DanWEC]

I have just heard two completely different interpretations of IR validity, both coming from instructors. One must be wrong. Why is there so much interpretation in the CARS?
So now I have to post what seem like elementary questions because people with several times my experience are saying different things, and I'd like to know the correct answer.

Anyways...
Person A states that the rating is good automatically for 12 months after the checkride (initial or renewal). After the 12 months, you must adhere to the 666 req. Up till the 24 months rating expiry that you need a renewal checkride.

Person B says that the 666 rule is always in effect, in addition TO the 12 month renewal. So you'd need to have 666 satisfied immediately after an initial/renewal ride. Hm...

Now, my interpretation of 401.05 (3) is that the subpart sections are the various ways that you can satisfy the recency, not a combination of them- just an individual one will do it. So why would person B be correct? That would mean that even though you've had your initial, or renewal, within 12 months, you would still need to have flown 666. It just seems like he made an arbitrary combination of 2 of the several subpart options available for recency... (PPC, etc)

I think person A is more correct, and was my impression as well- I just wanted to verify with you guys in case I was wrong... At 180 hours its tough to argue with an instructor.

Of course, before the 12 month expires, you will have needed to have the 666 req satisfied at that moment or else you can't file IFR as PIC. You need to get an instructor or qualified pilot to accompany you as PIC while you do IMC/simulated ones- not just a competent right seat person to help with radios, etc while flying IFR.

Cheers

[smnoi]

My understanding is that option A is correct

[AuxBatOn]

People need to start learning to read properly.......

(3) No holder of an instrument rating shall exercise the privileges referred to in Section 401.47 unless the holder has

(a) within the 12 months preceding the flight, successfully completed an instrument rating flight test in an aircraft or in a Level B, C or D simulator of the same group as the aircraft;

(b) within the six months preceding the flight, acquired six hours of instrument time and completed six instrument approaches to the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions, or in a Level B, C or D simulator of the same category as the aircraft or in a flight training device under the supervision of a person who holds the qualifications referred to in subsection 425.21(9) of the personnel licensing standards;
(amended 2001/03/01; previous version)

(c) within the six months preceding the flight, acquired six hours of instrument time and completed six instrument approaches to the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions, while acting as a flight instructor conducting training in respect of the endorsement of a flight crew licence or permit with an instrument rating; or
(amended 2001/03/01; previous version)

(d) successfully completed, for an aircraft, a pilot proficiency check whose validity period has not expired and which included the instrument procedures portion of
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

....(i) Schedule I to Standard 624 - Private Operator Passenger Transportation of the General Operating and Flight Rules Standards, in respect of aircraft operated under Subpart 4 of Part VI, and
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

....(ii) the following schedules to the Commercial Air Services Standards in respect of the corresponding aircraft operated under Subparts 2 to 5 of Part VII:
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

........(A) Schedule I to Standard 722 - Aerial Work in respect of aeroplanes operated under Subpart 2,
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

........(B) Schedule II to Standard 722 - Aerial Work in respect of helicopters operated under Subpart 2,
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

........(C) Schedule I to section 723.88 of Standard 723 - Air Taxi - Aeroplanes in respect of aeroplanes operated under Subpart 3,
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

........(D) the schedule to section 723.88 of Standard 723 - Air Taxi - Helicopters in respect of helicopters operated under Subpart 3,
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

........(E) Schedule I or II to section 724.108 of Standard 724 - Commuter Operations - Aeroplanes in respect of aeroplanes operated under Subpart 4,
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

........(F) the Helicopter Schedule to section 724.108 of Standard 724 - Commuter Operations - Helicopters in respect of helicopters operated under Subpart 4, or
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

........(G) Schedule I, II or III to section 725.106 of Standard 725 - Airline Operations - Aeroplanes in respect of aeroplanes operated under Subpart 5.
(amended 2001/03/01; no previous version)

That's the full text. If you notice, there is an "; or" after the second last lower case letter point (point (c)), therefore it applies to all lower case letter point (ie: same as if it said (a), (b), (c) or (d)).

So, you need to have an IR done in the last 12 months OR 6/6/6 as a line pilot OR 6/6/6 as a Flight Instructor OR valid PPC that included an instrument portion.

Maybe people should start taking logic classes.

[willing to fly]

What good would a logic class do when it comes to the CARS? Just sayin'.

[DanWEC]

CARS < Logic
lol

Anyways, funny you should mention logic, it's the "or" progression that brought me to the fact that I believed person A was correct, and person B was an impossibility- since the inclusion of more than one option combined, means they would ALL have to be included.

BUT why isn't there an "or" between all the (a) to (d) options? Would that just make it too easy??

Anywhow, thanks, I just had to make sure. Like I said, it was coming from an instructor.

[iflyforpie]

Part 0, Section 000 (a) 1(c)



Section I - No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of a pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make, or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned Aviation Regulations, except as authorized by the Administrator or an agent appointed by, or inspected by, the Administrator.



Section II - If a pilot, or group of associate pilots becomes aware of, or realizes, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Aviation Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify, in writing, the Administrator.



Section III - Upon receipt of the above-mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Administrator shall immediately rewrite the Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.



Section IV - The Administrator may, at his or her discretion, require the offending pilot or pilots to attend remedial instruction in Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.

[DanWEC]

Haha, that's awesome. So I wonder if TC lawyers are the only ones on earth that still get paid by the word???

[Hedley]

Sometimes I harbour deep suspicions as to whether the emporer is bare-@ss naked, when it comes to people understanding the CARs.

[mbav8r]

There is no "or" after (a) within the 12 months preceding the flight, successfully completed an instrument rating flight test in an aircraft or in a Level B, C or D simulator of the same group as the aircraft;

The way I'm interpretting it you must be in compliance with (a) and (b) , so when in doubt the best advice is to call your local TC inspector and ask for clarification. That's why they make the big bucks.

[AuxBatOn]

Sigh...

Thats why people need logic classes...

If I tell you: "I want an orange, an apple, a banana or a strawberry", dont you think I only need one of the item???

[paddy]

Sigh...

Thats why people need logic classes...

If I tell you: "I want an orange, an apple, a banana or a strawberry", dont you think I only need one of the item???

You may NEED none, one or even four, there is no way to know from your statement, but it is clear you only WANT one. Sigh right back at you.

[KK7]

There is no "or" after (a) within the 12 months preceding the flight, successfully completed an instrument rating flight test in an aircraft or in a Level B, C or D simulator of the same group as the aircraft;

The way I'm interpretting it you must be in compliance with (a) and (b) , so when in doubt the best advice is to call your local TC inspector and ask for clarification. That's why they make the big bucks.

Wow.

You should some more of the CARs. You'll find that some lists have "and" on the second last point, some have "or", and don't put it at the end of any other of the points preceding it. Why? Because this is how english is written.

There is absolutely no doubt that Person A in the original post is correct about this. I am baffled as to why this is even a discussion. If you have an instrument rating, and you don't know this, then you should have your rating taken away!!!

[Big Pistons Forever]

A Regulator:

Would mind clarifying this question ?

[BTD]

Its person A.


To read it any other way doesn't make sense. If all 3 had to be accomplished then the rating would only be valid for 12 months. You would have to do a flight test every year and we all know that isn't right. Then not only would you have to do 666 normally you would also have to do it as an instructor. That wouldn't work for people who do not instruct.

Note the "or" and "and" when reading the CARs, everything becomes much clearer,.

[Bushav8er]

There is no "or" after (a) within the 12 months preceding the flight, successfully completed an instrument rating flight test in an aircraft or in a Level B, C or D simulator of the same group as the aircraft;

The way I'm interpretting it you must be in compliance with (a) and (b) , so when in doubt the best advice is to call your local TC inspector and ask for clarification. That's why they make the big bucks.

I guarantee that if you ask more than one, you'll get different answers. The only 'correct' answer will come from a lawyer following a tribunal and unlike 'real' court, it would have NO bearing on future decisions.

[Posthumane]

If I tell you: "I want an orange, an apple, a banana or a strawberry", dont you think I only need one of the item???

(1) In order to satisfy AuxBatOn's desire for fruit the reader must give him
(a) an orange;
(b) an apple;
(c) a banana; or
(d) a strawberry.

(2) In order for the reader to be AuxBatOn, the reader must
(a) enjoy fruit;
(b) be a fighter jock; and
(c) have correctly interpreted the CARs reference in question.

Everybody clear on the difference? There is no "or" required after each point.

[Brewguy]

.....If you have an instrument rating, and you don't know this, then you should have your rating taken away!!!

Very true. And on that same note, perhaps the alleged "instructor" who obviously don't know, and can't explain it should have their instructors rating pulled too.

[mbav8r]

There is no "or" after (a) within the 12 months preceding the flight, successfully completed an instrument rating flight test in an aircraft or in a Level B, C or D simulator of the same group as the aircraft;

The way I'm interpretting it you must be in compliance with (a) and (b) , so when in doubt the best advice is to call your local TC inspector and ask for clarification. That's why they make the big bucks.

Wow.

You should some more of the CARs. You'll find that some lists have "and" on the second last point, some have "or", and don't put it at the end of any other of the points preceding it. Why? Because this is how english is written.

There is absolutely no doubt that Person A in the original post is correct about this. I am baffled as to why this is even a discussion. If you have an instrument rating, and you don't know this, then you should have your rating taken away!!!

Yep, you're absolutely correct, thats the most important piece of information about instrument flying, in fact it's so important, it should be the only question on the INRAT exam, or; should it be at least a question on the exam, and; if you get it wrong, everything else correct, you still fail.

[Beefitarian]

.....If you have an instrument rating, and you don't know this, then you should have your rating taken away!!!

Very true. And on that same note, perhaps the alleged "instructor" who obviously don't know, and can't explain it should have their instructors rating pulled too.

Allright, now we're getting somewhere. Once you've "pulled" enough ratings wages will go up for the qualified guys..

[RenegadeAV8R]

Person A states that the rating is good automatically for 12 months after the checkride (initial or renewal). After the 12 months, you must adhere to the 666 req. Up till the 24 months rating expiry that you need a renewal checkride.

"Person A" is right.

The CAP GEN is also worded the same way. Maybe TC should revise their wording because as we can see here, it generates a lot of confusion.

[DanWEC]

So the CARS are arranged the same as the English Language. That in itself can be confusing to people. Operators such as AND or OR, should, for the sake of simplicity, be between every subpart, as opposed to having the elements arranged as an English sentence- with one operator between the last two elements.
We all know that English is the most ridiculous and least logical language on the planet.

I'm going to graciously contact the guy who was incorrect about the interpretation (though he isn't at my FTU), just so he doesn't keep leading other students astray. He seemed to have a pretty good argument when I first questioned it. I asked him "How can you satisfy the 666 rule immediately with a fresh rating?" He said obviously you'll have it from training... which I took at the time as correct, but now that I think of it, none of that time was PIC except for the checkride. One of those "duh" moments that only dawns on you after you've left the conversation.

Oh well. I'm pretty sure he didn't have an IR anyways, but as an instructor you should know these things.

On a side note. Why aren't the CARS more like the FARS? Easy to read, simple (er). and they mostly make sense.

[RenegadeAV8R]

...none of that time was PIC except for the checkride...

Do you have to act as PIC to satisfy the 666 rule?

The CARs does not seem to specify anything. Therefore the pilot could be "dual".

[DanWEC]

...none of that time was PIC except for the checkride...

Do you have to act as PIC to satisfy the 666 rule?

The CARs does not seem to specify anything. Therefore the pilot could be "dual".

Amazing. It really doesn't.
It specifies" "Acquired time ... in an aircraft", "As a flight Instructor" , "or under supervision of... in a flight simulator"

Waiiiittt........
Of course, if it was only PIC, it would be impossible to get back the 666 requirement once it lapsed.....

[Brewguy]

....On a side note. Why aren't the CARS more like the FARS? Easy to read, simple (er). and they mostly make sense.

They're written using the same language and format as every other Law (an Act or the Regulations and Standards associated with them) in Canada .... well, at least the English versions of them. I'm not sure how legalese French compares with everyday French.

Legal language is intended to be precise, so that it can be correctly interpreted - i.e. it's intended meaning easily understood; and to limit people creating loopholes based in vague / imprecise language.

I know, I know, you can stop laughing now. In reality it seems to work out to have the exact opposite effect. The layman (and that unfortunately includes people like TC inspectors, etc) will try to over complicate it because they don't understand legal language, and come up with very obscure interpretations. But the intent is for the language to be precise.

For those who work with it every day, such as those working in Regulatory Compliance, it's actually not too bad. If you understand what AuxBatOn and Posthumane have written (examples of a list where OR or AND are used before the last point) - it's very simple. Personally, I much prefer reading something like our Regs over the simplified, plain language sort.