Private Operating Certificate. When is one needed?

[Colonel Sanders]

According to your logic, every aircraft in Canada that
can carry a passenger ought to have an OC.

Sorry, not buying the "bigger government is always
better government" argument.

Nor do I accept the argument that the entire pilot
licensing regulatory structure in Canada is useless.
If so, can we get rid of it? No more PPL/CPL/ATPL,
just every aircraft operated IAW an OC with centralized
control, like the good old Soviet Union would have us do?

[Schooner69A]

Sanders: sorry about the delay in responding. More pressing matters.

Anyway, I am confused with your last message, and can only presume it was penned late at night or after a period of prolonged negative “g”. (;>0)


You wrote: “According to your logic, every aircraft in Canada that can carry a passenger ought to have an OC”.

No, the thread IS about corporate aviation. How did you infer anything else?

And “Sorry, not buying the "bigger government is always better government" argument.”

I’m not sure from whence you gleaned that… ?

And then: "Nor do I accept the argument that the entire pilot licensing regulatory structure in Canada is useless. If so, can we get rid of it? No more PPL/CPL/ATPL, just every aircraft operated IAW an OC with centralized control, like the good old Soviet Union would have us do?"

Again, I’m not sure to what you are referring? To what are you responding?

Now, I made the assumption that, as your message followed mine, you were responding to me; if that was not the case, disregard this…

[Bede]

Schooner69,

I think you are missing the point. The fact is that every regulation pertaining to a 604 OC is pretty much already covered in other regulations. It doesn't need an OC for someone to not fly 50' off the deck. W&B, maintenance schedules, proper training, etc are already covered in the CAR's and would be required for an operator of any aircraft. Does there really need to be a COM, Ops Manager, CP, etc. for someone to do what they are already required to do by law.

[UltraMan]

Some intelligent replies on here from the older chaps, but alas some typical uneducated ones as well.

An employee, that boards a company aircraft usually assumes that the pilot holds a CPL, has received recent and type specific training, the aircraft is maintained to the same standard as a commercial aircraft, the pilot has not worked all day in the factory only to fly another 8 hour trip that evening.

Yes, any commercial operator/pilot could be in violation of anyone one of the above, but to have no system of checks and balances of the above, for a private operator of any corporate run aircraft be it a Cessna 421 or a PC12 is simply irresponsible.

Lets say a construction company goes out and buys a Cessna 421, the boss's second cousin's third nephew is a private pilot with a mulit-IFR. Now two days after they buy their new plane, in 1/2 mile and 200' ceilings, the boss calls up your Dad who just happens to work for this company and says he is to report to the local airport for a business trip to a northern work site with 6 others.

Are the employees notified that they are about to go flying on an aircraft that only had an annual inspection 10 months ago, with 5 service bulletins that have not been complied with, the pilot has only flown IFR twice, never in icing let alone incloud, has received no training on the plane, there is no flight following, no record left behind of the pilot's weight and balance calculation, no flight and duty limitations for the pilot.... and on and on. The answer is NO.

It is truly a failure on the part of Transport Canada, who is mandated by the Aeronautics Act to ensure the safety of the flying general public. One day, God forbid, there will be a commission or court case brought about by family members of employees that tragically assumed their loved ones were boarding a plane that was regulated to some standard or regulations that would provide at least a comparable level of saftey to a commercial airplane.

Sorry for the rant, but this topic really boils my blood.

[skymarc]

UltraMan,
With or without a POC, pressurized turbine need to submite a maintenance schedule to TC. Basically maintenance will be done according to Aircraft Manufacturer Maintenance Manual. In most case these aircraft are maintained better than charter or part 135.
As for the other stuff its all BS and extra paper work that wont solve nothing.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It is truly a failure on the part of Transport Canada, who is mandated by the Aeronautics Act to ensure the safety of the flying general public.

How is SMS working out in the 703/704 sector of commercial aviation?

Has TC's new way of regulating made those sectors safer?

[UltraMan]

Yes .,

SMS is a failure, looking at only paper, only proves the paper is safe. And the man that forced it through in his vision, is now heading up the CBAA. One has to love the irony there.

SMS is only regulatory in Canada for 705 operators, not 703/704. Problem is that TC applied its new oversight techniques to all carriers, stopping doing audits on 703/704, and performing PVIs instead. That being said try getting any oil field work without having an SMS system.

Without oversight, it is simple human nature to bend and break rules, and test limits. No regulatory system is perfect, and ultimately puts excessive but unavoidable limits on good honest folks. Sadly we have to teach and regulate to the lowest common denominator. Geeze, even I would probably start parking in those nice parking slots right in front of the door at Wal-Mart if nobody enforced that blue and white sign with the wheelchair on it.

I've been in the business just over half the time you have and we both have seen what goes on when no one is looking, and how bad things are in countries without regulation.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I've been in the business just over half the time you have and we both have seen what goes on when no one is looking, and how bad things are in countries without regulation.

Yes for sure, except there is always some sort of regulation be it like overseen by the former DGCA who now is in private enterprise or like ones will find in many African countries where money paid to the regulators will solve any problem.

Me I'll take the African regulator over what Canada has because they have more integrity generally speaking.

The bottom line is when survival and safety are the consideration I decide what I will and will not do.

TCCA has offloaded their responsibilities of over site and SMS is not the best answer.

[midwingcrisis]

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/ ... 2-eng.html



Vol. 147, No. 49 — December 7, 2013
Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts Ⅰ, II, IV, VI and VII — Private Operators)

Statutory authority

Aeronautics Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Transport
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

[x-wind]

Brutal. My job just became much more difficult. The applicable aircraft requirement for 604 is to include turbine pressurized, again.

[skymarc]

Here is the email I sent to CBAA.


As a Canadian TBM owner operating without a POC under the interim rules, CBAA's position on 604.03(c) (pasted below) makes absolutely no sense. The TBM is typically an owner flown personal aircraft and the PC12 is typically professionally flown by charter operators and businesses for corporate use.

In my view, and in the view of every TBM and Meridian owner that I have spoken to, Transport Canada is on the right track by excluding Meridians and TBMs (6 seat aircraft) and I do not understand CBAA's motive in wanting to include them. What you propose will unfairly discriminate against owners who pilot aircraft themselves for personal and recreational use (not as their primary profession). These owners are not flying passengers for hire don’t have the resources and staff to maintain the same level of compliance as a charter operator or a corporate flight department. It places an onerous burden on our group and does nothing to alleviate the compliance requirement on the Pilatus group. What’s fair about that?
By trying to force a POC on the TBM (after it as been removed from CBAA) or any other 6 or less passengers seats to TC, you have lost my support and fate in your association.



Government's Proposed Regulation:

604.03 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate any of the following Canadian aircraft for the purpose of transporting passengers or goods unless the person is the holder of a private operator registration document:
(a) a large aeroplane;
(b) a turbo-jet-powered aeroplane; or
(c) a turbine-powered pressurized aeroplane certificated for more than six passenger seats.


CBAA's ridiculous comment:

604.03(c) is problematic. The turbine powered aircraft certificated for 6 passengers provision to limit who qualifies as a private operator draws an arbitrary boundary between aircraft types currently in service. For example, it
unjustifiably discriminates against Pilatus aircraft in favor of TBMs. Furthermore, assuming that CAR 604.47 prohibiting the issue of special authorizations (ops specs) to other than AOC holders or private operators does not change, business aviation turbine powered aircraft not certified for 6 passengers or more, and for that matter all other business and general aviation operators cannot be issued special authorizations.
Given that the draft regulations significantly reduce the requirements for approvals ie regulatory burden on operators is greatly reduced, the new regulations should apply to all turbine powered, pressurized aircraft.

[arctic navigator]

CBAA's ridiculous comment:

604.03(c) is problematic. The turbine powered aircraft certificated for 6 passengers provision to limit who qualifies as a private operator draws an arbitrary boundary between aircraft types currently in service. For example, it
unjustifiably discriminates against Pilatus aircraft in favor of TBMs. Furthermore, assuming that CAR 604.47 prohibiting the issue of special authorizations (ops specs) to other than AOC holders or private operators does not change, business aviation turbine powered aircraft not certified for 6 passengers or more, and for that matter all other business and general aviation operators cannot be issued special authorizations.
Given that the draft regulations significantly reduce the requirements for approvals ie regulatory burden on operators is greatly reduced, the new regulations should apply to all turbine powered, pressurized aircraft.

What's your bet Kelner had something to do with this?

[Schooner69A]

I may be mistaken, but I think that the thrust of CBAAs position was to highlight that turbine powered aircraft with seats for less than six passengers would be penalized (unable to utilize Ops Specs for one) as compared to those with more. If the paragraph was changed as follows, it would make more sense. Possibly Skymarc will receive some clarification.

CBAA position:

604.03(c) is problematic. The turbine powered aircraft certificated for 6 passengers provision to limit who qualifies as a private operator draws an arbitrary boundary between aircraft types currently in service. For example, it unjustifiably discriminates against TBMs in favor of Pilatus aircraft. Furthermore, assuming that CAR 604.47 prohibiting the issue of special authorizations (ops specs) to other than AOC holders or private operators does not change, business aviation turbine powered aircraft not certified for 6 passengers or more, and for that matter all other business and general aviation operators cannot be issued special authorizations. Given that the draft regulations significantly reduce the requirements for approvals ie regulatory burden on operators is greatly reduced, the new regulations should apply to all turbine powered, pressurized aircraft.


John

[photofly]

You can get a POC for any aircraft; so you could still get one for a TBM, and get ops specs. You just wouldn't have to have one.

[midwingcrisis]

There will longer be a "POC" required. Just registration. Wonder how this proposal will fair for the 703/04 "management co's" aka caretakers, babysitters ?

[x-wind]

Anyone have any idea what the "one for one" & "small business lens" is? Any links?

[CD]

Anyone have any idea what the "one for one" & "small business lens" is? Any links?

From the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management:

(M) "One-for-One" Rule

48. Under the "One-for-One" Rule, departments and agencies are responsible for:

i. Controlling the number of regulations by repealing at least one existing regulation every time a new one that imposes an administrative burden (i.e., red tape) on business is introduced; and
ii. Restricting the growth of administrative burden by ensuring that new administrative burden on business caused by a regulatory change See footnote 3 ("IN") is offset by an equal decrease in administrative burden on business from the existing stock of regulations ("OUT").

49. Departments and agencies must review existing regulations in order to identify outdated, burdensome regulations that can be reformed or removed to offset increases in administrative burden on business arising from regulatory changes.

50. "Carve outs" (exceptions) from the scope of the "One-for-One" Rule are as follows:

i. Regulations that implement non-discretionary obligations;
ii. Regulations related to tax or tax administration; and
iii. Regulations that address emergencies or crisis situations, or that are deemed by Cabinet (in this case, the Treasury Board) to address other unique or exceptional circumstances.

(N) Small business lens

51. Departments and agencies are responsible for applying a "small business lens" when designing regulations and for being sensitive and responsive to the burden that regulations place on small business. More specifically, as stated in Section 6 (D) 26 (iv), (G) 35 (i), (H) 37 (ii) and (iii) of this Directive, departments and agencies are to:

i. Engage small businesses in alternative approaches to compliance, including costs, when selecting the appropriate mix of government instruments;
ii. When assessing options to maximize net benefits, identify and assess the potential positive and negative impacts on small businesses;
iii. Demonstrate that the recommended option minimizes the regulatory burden on small businesses without compromising risk protection; and
iv. Provide a justification for the recommended option when other less burdensome options exist for small businesses.

Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management

[Colonel Sanders]

That's pretty funny. I can't think of anything more essentially
Canadian than excessive regulatory burden.

Apart from the Hell that I've been put through - four years for
flying aerobatics, then six years to get an MCM approved for a
two-plane FTU - I have one friend who's cheese factory was shut
down by the government, another guy who's maple syrup business
was shut down by the government. An FTU nearby was attacked
by the looney Ontario Career College police (and fined $10,000)
whom I understand Jim Dow at TC is a big fan of.

The list goes on and on and on and on.

A friend of mine is a notorious criminal and he told me the other
day that even he can't make any money in Canada.

You know it's bad when even criminals can't make any money.

Back on topic ... CAR 604 is an out-of-control monster, that
was brought in to simply keep track of pilot training. Typically
Canadian, it grew into the out-of-control bureaucratic monstrosity
that we are saddled with today.

Note that you go south of the border - ever heard of the USA? -
and you can buy your own King Air or Lear Jet and off you go.

The only thing that Canadians love more than big government is
high taxes and ridiculous prices.

[x-wind]

Thank's for the awesome reply to my question CD.

For anyone with a point to make about these proposed regs the contact is below.... especially those that are operating a turbine powered pressurized aircraft that is certified with more than 6 seat but is not a large aircraft. Please write in to voice you're view on Transport flip flopping on the application criteria.

Here is a departmental contact on the issue.

Nicole Girard
Director
Policy and Regulatory Services
Civil Aviation

Tel: (613) 990-1224

E-mail: nicole.girard@tc.gc.ca

[rigpiggy]

Oh well, I guess when I win the 50M tonight, I will have to buy a KA F90 instead of a 200. Too Bad, I would have liked to bring the grandparents along

[x-wind]

F90 has more than 6 seats. Go ahead and get the 200 there is no differnce from a regs point now.

[Canadian Skyhawk]

The changes proposed to the standing interim order are unwarranted and stifling. As usual, we get more regulations to strangle small business, private users and general aviation in Canada - as if there weren't already enough smothering private flying to death in Canada. Granted, not everyone goes out and buys a King Air to fly privately, but I know of many successful professionals and small / medium sized businesses who have considered purchasing this type of aircraft to operate privately for both business and pleasure. There is no way that they can afford or have the desire to set up a corporate flight department, hire a chief pilot, write up maintenance manuals, operations manuals, SOPs, etc.

Ultimately, safety in smaller aircraft (including King Air 90/100/200 sizes) boils down to the pilot's knowledge, skill and care - not the requirement of doing a ton of paperwork which practically requires full time staff. I am all for pushing for stricter pilot training criteria - if the safety statistics demonstrate that such is required (as with the SFAR requiring type-specific training on the MU-2 in the USA). Our friends south of the border have a much more enlightened view on aviation and how an onerous bureaucracy kills jobs, entrepreneurship and business initiatives. Apparently, TC does not.

My rant is over. I have written to TC and made my views heard. I encourage all to do the same.

Happy flying!

[Schooner69A]

I've been on both sides of the fence; first as a corporate pilot, then as a member of TC, and then back to corporate flying. Before there was CAR 604, there was ANO 1, No 2. That order came as a result of a couple of bad corporate accidents that killed a total of sixteen people. Now, these aircraft were flown by reasonable competent pilots with reasonable "knowledge, skill and care". Unfortunately, both aircraft went down. The first one:

...this aircraft crashed on approach to XXXX Airport when the pilot performed an instrument approach using the wrong beacon.


The second:

Narrative:
Optical illusion on a night time approach caused the plane to crash some 3km short of (the) runway.

CONCLUSIONS:
1) Cockpit discipline was inadequate as the approach entered the final phase.
2) Distractions in the cockpit degraded crew performance.
3) The pilots deprived themselves of essential altitude information by not effectively monitoring the flight instruments during the final approach.
4) The Captain, by relying on visual cues from the runway environment lighting in conditions where those cues were degraded, became exposed to visual illusions.
5) The pilots permitted the aircraft to deviate below the safe approach profile until it struck the terrain.


Out of these accidents came the ANO 1, No2; prior to that, corporate aircraft were treated as private aircraft. Indeed, with the insurance companies dictating requirements nowadays, I think we could still operate them as "private"; however, I don't think that will happen in the near future.

Transport Canada normally doesn't write regulations because they feel like it; I would hazard a guess that they are a knee-jerk reactions most of the time because of accidents. All one has to do is consider the new regulations coming down the pike concerning rail transmission of oil.

Aviation life was a little simpler "back in the day"; my first trip in a corporate jet occurred because I had a commercial licence - no instrument rating nor PPC; just a commercial licence. Because, that's all the regulations required of a co-pilot in a Cessna Citation back in the early seventies. You can just imagine how much friggin' help I was in the cockpit. Although... I did board the passengers and give them coffee.

[Colonel Sanders]

Ok, I'll bite.

How does this nightmare POC paperwork monstrosity
somehow magically address the pilot skill problem?

Not everyone does a cost/benefit analysis. I don't think
anyone in aviation even knows what a cost/benefit analysis
is. Or cares.

A bureaucrat with paperwork reminds me of a small frustrated
child with only a crescent wrench, hammering away at nails.
It's the only tool he has, so he's going to whack away with
it as hard as he can.

The illusion of activity does not actually create any tangible
benefits, and there is a cost to all this bureaucratic jungle,
which Canadian curiously ignore, until they realize that
everything in Canada is much, much more expensive
than it is, just south of the border.

[Hornblower]

Has anyone asked how a determination of what "certified for six passengers" means? Pretty well all the aircraft in this class are certified for number of occupants, which includes crew. Only large aircraft are certified for number of pax I believe.