Flight test examiner's status change

[photofly]

According to the new CAR amendments, students are no longer PIC on their flight tests:

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/201 ... 15-eng.php

See change to 401.19(1) et al.

That means the examiner is now going to be PIC

[bizjets101]

Also this; http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=814969


Government of Canada introduces changes to pilot licensing

February 12, 2014 – Ottawa – Transport Canada

The Honourable Lisa Raitt today announced amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations which will set the groundwork for the introduction of the Multi-crew Pilot Licence (MPL), extend the validity period of medical certificates associated with certain pilot licences and modify the requirements regarding credits of co-pilot flight time.

Industry groups, including training organizations, pilot associations, unions and operator associations, have widely supported these regulatory amendments, which bring Canada in line with international standards.

The amendments were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I in February 2013, followed by a 30 day public consultation period. The final regulations were published in Canada Gazette II today and come into force 60 days from today.

[Schooner69A]

"...That means the examiner is now going to be PIC"

Well, that's going to suck. I hope there's an interpretation hiding in someone's in basket that states that for flight test purposes, the candidate is the PIC. Failing that, a statement somewhere that will protect the examiner from any accident, incident, or any excursion through the sagebrush that might occur during the flight. I wonder how all the TC Inspectors and DFTEs feel about this?

[photofly]

"...That means the examiner is now going to be PIC"

Well, that's going to suck. I hope there's an interpretation hiding in someone's in basket that states that for flight test purposes, the candidate is the PIC. Failing that, a statement somewhere that will protect the examiner from any accident, incident, or any excursion through the sagebrush that might occur during the flight. I wonder how all the TC Inspectors and DFTEs feel about this?

Considering the amount of trouble they went to to change it, it has clearly been done for a reason, so why would should they try to reverse the effect of putting the onus on the examiner?

The change to medical validity periods is relatively minor. If you're over 40 and you fly non-passenger revenue flights or not single-pilot then you're good for 12 months instead of 6. I imagine that includes flight instructors who don't do sight-seeing, as their students are not passengers (I think).

[frozen solid]

I guess that change was made because MCPL license does not allow the holder to be a PIC? I don't know much about this new license. It's going to require that students already have a pretty clear idea of what they want to do after they graduate, whereas the old way of getting your CPL with various ratings gave a guy some time to think about it.

[1000 HP]

That will be interesting. I hope that the examiner is current enough to be insured on my airplane when I go for my flight test. I also hope he has good personal insurance because if he breaks anything through mishandling I would be likely launching a lawsuit.
Probably the best way to handle this would be to nicely explain to him to not touch anything. And also tell him that in the event of me failing my IFR ride ( example ), I will act as VFR Captain back to the airport. I doubt they would object.

[5x5]

I also hope he has good personal insurance because if he breaks anything through mishandling I would be likely launching a lawsuit.

Sure hope you're kidding about this. Otherwise, I'd say that's a pretty messed up attitude.

[Rowdy]

I also hope he has good personal insurance because if he breaks anything through mishandling I would be likely launching a lawsuit.

Sure hope you're kidding about this. Otherwise, I'd say that's a pretty messed up attitude.

I don't think thats messed up at all. When I let anyone else drive my car, they are now liable for anything they break as well as anything that isn't covered under MY insurance. If you had an examiner take control and jam the throttle on a boosted motor and over boost and do some cylinder damage OR crack a cylinder from mishandling.. who is gonna pay for it?

This change has me wondering why TC is putting the liability on the examiner. Insurance purposes? To feed more work to the flight schools, as no private guy will now take the risk in their own machines? How about for those that are doing rides in two crew aircraft? The examiner is now PIC when he's sitting in the back?

[Skymark]

According to the new CAR amendments, students are no longer PIC on their flight tests:

Maybe I'm reading it different, but it says:

(1) The holder of a student pilot permit may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft of the category for which the permit is endorsed if
(a) the flight is conducted for the purpose of the holder’s flight training;

So the student IS PIC.

[single_swine_herder]

The "Student" has always been the PIC for the purposes of the flight test examination .... at least for the last 3+ decades or so.

It does pose an interesting situation that the revised section is now silent on the conduct of flight tests.

ACPs and DFTEs are supposedly guaranteed legal representation to cover lawsuits arising from conducting flight tests.

That coverage assumes all regulations, guidelines, advisory circulars, policies, etc are followed in the process of administering the test. If a person representing the Crown were being sued for several million arising from a loss of life, third party liability, or extensive hull damage, I would imagine there would be considerable TC senior management pressure to find fault or negligence on behalf of the examiner though.

Skymark, it is clearly provided for the purpose of flight training, however .... "checking is not training," and in the past the flight test could not be considered to be time required to meet the minimum for the licence, PPC, or rating.

[spafloats]

The simple procedure to negate the issue is to have yourself added to the Pilot roster on the aircraft insurance policy, including hull "IN MOTION" (make sure that there is hull coverage!), and get it in writing from the insurance broker.

Do not rely on "Open Pilot" clauses or the aircraft owners statements (oral or written)!

Spafloats

[Skymark]

OK, I was reading it wrong...

[Pop n Fresh]

What a bummer. I'll lose tons of PIC time during failed flight tests.

[digits_]

The problems could potentially only occur if something were to go wrong, right ? And didn't the examiner have to take control/ensure the safety of the flight in real emergencies ? This means he would have had to take over if you were to crash the plane on landing. At that point he would have been PIC, potentially crash the plane, and thus be liable, no ?

[5x5]

Hey Rowdy - pop quiz! Was I saying I wasn't in agreement with someone damaging your airplane being responsible or was I saying I thought the quick jump to suing people was abhorrent?

[1000 HP]

Hey Rowdy - pop quiz! Was I saying I wasn't in agreement with someone damaging your airplane being responsible or was I saying I thought the quick jump to suing people was abhorrent?

I'd consider a cash settlement rather than a lawsuit. I think making the flight test examiner PIC is a big mistake. It really opens them up. Despite having no proof, I have heard that most TC guys get only 50 hrs a year. Hardly enough to make them current. A DFTE is more likely to be current.

However, if either would like to spend some time with me at their expense doing a check-ride based on my insurance companies requirements for minimum hours, and my personal opinion of their competency for maximum, I'd have no problem allowing them to be PIC. Also, if I do the flight test in my own aircraft, which i would be doing in the case of an IFR ride, I suspect that the weather at the time of the test will be VFR which means that I am legal to be PIC anyways. So why the change?

I've flown with a few guys in the past that I would never let touch the controls on my airplane. Allowing a complete stranger to be PIC on my personal machine would be unthinkable. That applies to TC or a DFTE.

To me this change sounds like a complete waste of time and money. Probably somebody got told to get their hands off the controls and as a result got bent out of shape.

Call it what you like, if somebody wrecks my airplane or injures me during a flight test, they better have very good insurance. I do.

[old_man]

Call it what you like, if somebody wrecks my airplane or injures me during a flight test, they better have very good insurance. I do.

Sorry, I maybe a little ignorant on the latest rules but how is this different than having a free lance instructor teach you on your plane? Do they have a special insurance? What happens when they make a dumb mistake and blow your engine or something?

[1000 HP]

Good point. I had planned on using a school's instructor on my plane, but I expect they will have liability insurance. They would be nuts not to. Lawsuits, accidents, death, injury and dismemberment are a fact of life. That's why insurance companies are so busy. I've got business insurance, life insurance, car insurance, house insurance, life insurance on the wife, kids, and could probably get it on the dog. I even have airplane hull and liability

[TG]

On a side note according to someone I knew who worked high up in insurances, 'life insurance' is were they make the most of their money!
In Canada, a very low percentage of the population die before age from various reasons, hence why.



Disclaimer: Just a messenger, I'm not saying that accidents or bad medical news don't happen.

[5x5]

Sorry, I maybe a little ignorant on the latest rules but how is this different than having a free lance instructor teach you on your plane? Do they have a special insurance? What happens when they make a dumb mistake and blow your engine or something?

That, and the unfortunate reality that more and more people these days think "sue first", is a big part of why there aren't more freelance instructors. And why many schools won't do training on someone's personal airplane.The risk just isn't worth it. Especially since the guy with the plane who's saving the money on his training is potentially the same guy that will sewer the school should anything go wrong.

[North Shore]

introduction of the Multi-crew Pilot Licence (MPL),

Industry groups, including training organizations, pilot associations, unions and operator associations, have widely supported these regulatory amendments, which bring Canada in line with international standards.

We did?! If AvCanada is any representation of the industry in Canada, I don't think that I've seen anyone with anything positive to say about the MPL..

[Big Pistons Forever]

Sorry, I maybe a little ignorant on the latest rules but how is this different than having a free lance instructor teach you on your plane? Do they have a special insurance? What happens when they make a dumb mistake and blow your engine or something?

That, and the unfortunate reality that more and more people these days think "sue first", is a big part of why there aren't more freelance instructors. And why many schools won't do training on someone's personal airplane.The risk just isn't worth it. Especially since the guy with the plane who's saving the money on his training is potentially the same guy that will sewer the school should anything go wrong.

I do some freelance instruction but only on planes that have full insurance, both liability and hull, and I insist that I be a named pilot on the airplanes insurance.

With respect to flight test I don't see how insurance comes into it. The PE is acting as a direct agent of the crown so any owner would be free to sue TC over any damage and the government have both deep pockets and will almost always settle smaller claims without a trial.

The bigger issue I think is going to be the fact that PE's are going to become very very risk adverse. For example on the instrument flight test no PE is going to risk an altitude bust so if the PE thinks a student may be heading for an altitude bust they will take over early and the student will have failed the ride.

[Rowdy]

Hey Rowdy - pop quiz! Was I saying I wasn't in agreement with someone damaging your airplane being responsible or was I saying I thought the quick jump to suing people was abhorrent?

That wasn't a stab at you mate. I agree with you, BPF and 1000HP. We certainly are in a 'sue first, ask later' society these days. We're also in one where no one wants to take responsibility for anything!

I honestly believe it is simply another way that transport is trying to release themselves from any apparent responsibility. It also seems like a means to feed more work/money to the flight schools by essentially and passively forcing the examiners to only utilize flight schools machines/insurance/liability.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I honestly believe it is simply another way that transport is trying to release themselves from any apparent responsibility. It also seems like a means to feed more work/money to the flight schools by essentially and passively forcing the examiners to only utilize flight schools machines/insurance/liability.

I don't see how this releases the crown from liability. They only reason the PE would be in the airplane is to do a flight test under the authority delegated to them by the crown. Therefore if there was damage to the aircraft as the result of the actions of the PE then it would seem to me you would have grounds to pursue a claim against the crown.

The difference is now the PE has considerably more personal liability with respect to his own license. Enforcement goes after the PIC when bad things happen....

Personally I think all PE's should simply refuse to do any tests until the matter is addressed.

[1000 HP]

I agree with that.

It has been a long time since I had a flight test of any sort, but I can't remember the examiner ever touching the controls. If anything the new rule would actually relieve the test subject of any chance of a lawsuit because if the DFTE let things get so far gone that there were injuries involved, he will now be at fault. I used to teach way back but for the wages they paid it would not have been worth the risk.