The public interest is protected by the party holding an OC. I can't think of any area of administrative law where a party must comply with the more stringent requirements if it holds multiple authorizations within the same jurisdiction to conduct a given operation. (The exception is the requirement to comply with both federal and provincial legislation in areas such as natural resources or environmental - see Spray Tech case). Same thing goes for 703/704/705 operators. (If they're operating under 703, only the 703 regulations apply. No one makes them put an FA in a Caravan because they also hold a 705 AOC.)Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:28 pm Since "sightseeing" operations are mentioned in 2 places in the CAR's 700.02 (4) which allows an FTU to operate sightseeing flights and 703.01 which specifically mentions sightseeing flights, the question is which one takes precedence in the case where an operator has both an FTUOC and a 703 AOC.
The Minster could argue that they can make a public interest determination that those flights should be operated under Subpart 703 but at the end of the day there is no doubt that the regulations should be clearer on this point. TC Inspectors follow the policy guidance they are given and that is the guidance as it stands now.
Anybody, of course has the right to challenge a determination, and in this case I personally would like to see someone force the issue so that Inspectors have clear direction and don't have to use rectal plucks to figure what to do.
Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
Yes it is "the word of the law". Spotters, operators, etc. are not flight crew, but they are definitely not passengers. Passengers pay for being taken from point A to point B. Spotters are getting paid.Squaretail wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:09 amWhile that's the intent perhaps in the view of some TC inspectors, its not the word of the law. The problem being what does one classify these persons on board, since under most of the definitions they would be what you call passengers. From my reading of the CARs, if you have disembarked your passengers at the point of departure, then you have effectively done "aerial work" as opposed to an air transport service. Its been a point of wrangling over the years with inspectors. I should say that the FAA came down officially classifying these people as passengers when pushed on the subject. TC has always punted. Some inspectors have voiced a similar opinion, others have determined that they are classified as "crew" though not "flight crew".The intent of para 702.01 (1) (a) is to allow the carriage of persons needed to conduct the aerial work but who are not involved in operating the aircraft, like forest fire spotters. LIDAR operators etc etc.
See definitions in the Aeronautics Act.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5927
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
One example where a Canadian pilot would have to apply a more restrictive clause is when operating in US airspace. There are many kinds of operations where a pilot in a C registered airplane would be prohibited from doing what a pilot in an N registered airplane doing the exact same operation would be legal to do. There is also the reverse where a US requirement is higher than the Canadian one so the C registered airplane woudl have to conform to the US rule even though it is legal in Canada.
I don't think the 703 vs 704 is a completely comparable analogy as it doesn't work both ways. You can't operate an airplane meeting the 703 requirement under 704 by for example having 10 passengers in it. You can obviously operate a 704 airplane like a 1900 with 9 passengers. Also 703 vs 704 are both covered under Part 7.
The issue here is further complicated because we have a situation where that exact same operation, day VFR sightseeing in a single engine airplane, is authorized in 2 places in the CAR's; one for a FTUOC issued pursuant to Subpart 406 and the other for an AOC issued pursuant to Subpart 703. Both Subparts explicitly permit it, yet the Subparts have very different requirements.
So the question is does one trump the other, and who gets to decide TC, or the operator. As I have mentioned TC's position is that it gets to decide.
Whether that is correct is obviously subject to debate as it is not directly addressed in the regulations
Sadly this is just another example of the fact that the CAR's are a very imperfect document as this should have been explicitly addressed in the CAR permitting FTUOC's to conduct sightseeing flights
I don't think the 703 vs 704 is a completely comparable analogy as it doesn't work both ways. You can't operate an airplane meeting the 703 requirement under 704 by for example having 10 passengers in it. You can obviously operate a 704 airplane like a 1900 with 9 passengers. Also 703 vs 704 are both covered under Part 7.
The issue here is further complicated because we have a situation where that exact same operation, day VFR sightseeing in a single engine airplane, is authorized in 2 places in the CAR's; one for a FTUOC issued pursuant to Subpart 406 and the other for an AOC issued pursuant to Subpart 703. Both Subparts explicitly permit it, yet the Subparts have very different requirements.
So the question is does one trump the other, and who gets to decide TC, or the operator. As I have mentioned TC's position is that it gets to decide.
Whether that is correct is obviously subject to debate as it is not directly addressed in the regulations
Sadly this is just another example of the fact that the CAR's are a very imperfect document as this should have been explicitly addressed in the CAR permitting FTUOC's to conduct sightseeing flights
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
Like I mentioned, within the same jurisdiction.Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:30 pm One example where a Canadian pilot would have to apply a more restrictive clause is when operating in US airspace. There are many kinds of operations where a pilot in a C registered airplane would be prohibited from doing what a pilot in an N registered airplane doing the exact same operation would be legal to do. There is also the reverse where a US requirement is higher than the Canadian one so the C registered airplane woudl have to conform to the US rule even though it is legal in Canada.
I just can't see TC trying to prosecute such a case. My guess is the DOJ lawyers wouldn't want such a case to see the light of day.Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:30 pm The issue here is further complicated because we have a situation where that exact same operation, day VFR sightseeing in a single engine airplane, is authorized in 2 places in the CAR's; one for a FTUOC issued pursuant to Subpart 406 and the other for an AOC issued pursuant to Subpart 703. Both Subparts explicitly permit it, yet the Subparts have very different requirements.
So the question is does one trump the other, and who gets to decide TC, or the operator. As I have mentioned TC's position is that it gets to decide.
Whether that is correct is obviously subject to debate as it is not directly addressed in the regulations
To be honest, the CAR's are actually pretty clear. Certainly no worse than any other regulation. Do you know if it's possible to submit CAR's amendment suggestions? How does one do this? There's a few things that I think should be changed like, let's say, advanced flight training on aircraft that are not eligible for an FTUOC (warbirds) yet it's unrealistic that someone buys their own warbird and hires a freelancer.Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:30 pm Sadly this is just another example of the fact that the CAR's are a very imperfect document as this should have been explicitly addressed in the CAR permitting FTUOC's to conduct sightseeing flights
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
So the question is then what do you call the spotter? If he's not a passenger, and not flight crew. show me the CARs definition of what he is. Now to complicate things: what if the spotter is paying to spot from point A to point B? Is he now a passenger and that's an air transport service, or is he not a passenger because he's paying to spot and not specifically get to point B? When it comes to sight seeing slights, per your definition, are they passengers or not? Whether they are specifically defined as such depends on what rules you could be found to need to be operating under.
In my specific case having both a 703 and 406 OC, the inspector had determined that since they are passengers, even sight seeing operations fell under my 703 rules, since we were effectively hauling passengers from point to point, and were only entitled to do sight seeing flights without passengers under the 406. That flights were returning to point of origin didn't matter to them, Point A to Point A and Point A to Point B were differences without distinction to them.
In this case though, each position has separate rules for a reason. Using your 406 OC rules in this case restricts one somewhat more than 702 or 703 does for aerial work as per 702.02 (4). If one is operating with those restrictions, I can't see why one needs to be bumped up to 703. One should note that training requirements are hardly different, and in some ways more onerous of 406, since instead of being able to employ a bare bones 200 hour pilot, you are required to have someone with 30+ more hours of experience, and additional testing from a qualified PE, where as a PCC may be administered in house.So the question is does one trump the other, and who gets to decide TC, or the operator. As I have mentioned TC's position is that it gets to decide.
Whether that is correct is obviously subject to debate as it is not directly addressed in the regulations
I would postulate that some of these rules are perhaps unspecific intentionally, since when we get into the weeds on aerial work and whether 406, 702 or 703 presides depending on some of the definitions, it must be recognized that the lines here can be blurred, and if one is to use TC's mandate as a guiding principle, that whichever set it falls under, is still safe (that is to say that the non-pilot public is protected by ensuring QC of crews and operations) and that it is efficient (only the necessary regulatory burden is placed). Personally if TC makes a determination that something requires a higher burden of regulatory compliance they must shoulder the burden of providing proof that the current structure is unsafe and/or inefficient. We could work in "green" into there as well but I won't get into that discussion.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
- Conflicting Traffic
- Rank 4
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:58 pm
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
The CARs distinguishes between a flight crew member and a crew member. Your spotter is a crew member.Squaretail wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:18 pm So the question is then what do you call the spotter? If he's not a passenger, and not flight crew. show me the CARs definition of what he is.
CAR 101.01 wrote: crew member means a person who is assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time, or assigned to duty related to the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system during flight time
CAR 101.01 wrote: flight crew member means a crew member assigned to act as pilot or flight engineer of an aircraft during flight time
----------------------------------------
Conflicting Traffic please advise.
Conflicting Traffic please advise.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
And to round it out, everyone else is a passenger:
“passenger means a person, other than a crew member, who is carried on board an aircraft; (passager)”
“passenger means a person, other than a crew member, who is carried on board an aircraft; (passager)”
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
I would be concerned that this was a regulatory avoidance scheme. Why any one would "pay" to be a "spotter" to get from point A to point B is beyond me. See Driedger's Modern Principle of Statutory InterpretationSquaretail wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:18 pm Now to complicate things: what if the spotter is paying to spot from point A to point B? Is he now a passenger and that's an air transport service, or is he not a passenger because he's paying to spot and not specifically get to point B? When it comes to sight seeing slights, per your definition, are they passengers or not? Whether they are specifically defined as such depends on what rules you could be found to need to be operating under.
So I guess you have a few options (not being sarcastic):Squaretail wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:18 pm In my specific case having both a 703 and 406 OC, the inspector had determined that since they are passengers, even sight seeing operations fell under my 703 rules, since we were effectively hauling passengers from point to point, and were only entitled to do sight seeing flights without passengers under the 406. That flights were returning to point of origin didn't matter to them, Point A to Point A and Point A to Point B were differences without distinction to them.
1) You can play nice in the sandbox and comply.
2) You can not comply, state your case and dare them to take enforcement action.
Obviously Option 2 comes with it's own set of consequences and costs. But I would imagine that you're not the first operator that has found themselves in this situation and I can't think of a case where TC has ever taken enforcement action for this. There's probably good reason for this.
I remember a few decades ago my father had a spat with a TC inspector over something that wasn't prohibited but the inspector didn't like. The inspector just put it down as "oral counselling". Knowing what I know now, oral counselling should not have been available- it should either have been a very stiff fine, or no enforcement action. My guess is the inspector found out that his position was not supported by the CAR's, but still wanted to make a point.
That's why we have mechanisms of judicial review.Squaretail wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:18 pm So the question is does one trump the other, and who gets to decide TC, or the operator. As I have mentioned TC's position is that it gets to decide.
Whether that is correct is obviously subject to debate as it is not directly addressed in the regulations
Last edited by Bede on Sun Apr 04, 2021 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
That’s such a “Government of Canada” concept.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
You could do sightseeing for pets - perfectly legal. Don't even need an AOC!
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
People pay to be pilots; I imagine a lot of people would pay to be spotter for a day in an exciting aircraft.
Nothing in the regulations links the status of a person on board an aircraft in respect of being crew or passenger with payment received or given.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
I have to say, I am surprised the number of times this comes up and gets discussed. The CARS are clear, and we all should have learned this during PPL ground school.
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
If you value your brand new license, then just don’t.flyindutchman1996 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 9:26 am I was just wondering if anyone has done this or knows someone who has? Is it allowed, and if so, are there any legal hurdles to get through?
Any info helps!
Thanks!
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... l#h-279248
12 Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
I presume you don’t deny someone can pay to be flight crew?
Why then would you disagree someone can pay to be crew? What about someone paying to train as a radio operator? Or an air navigator? Or to get operational experience as a flight attendant?
Why then would you disagree someone can pay to be crew? What about someone paying to train as a radio operator? Or an air navigator? Or to get operational experience as a flight attendant?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
Because we have a minimum wage in Canada and HRDC would get involved.
I believe that a Western Cargo operator got a talking to years ago when they had their Metro FO's not paid. Gov't said if they're flight crew, they need to get paid minimum wage. If you don't want to pay them, they're not flight crew.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
Completely irrelevant to Transport Canada and the CARs, which says, in black and white, if I’m assigned duties during flight time, I’m crew. You yourself even paid to be flight crew, all the way through your PPL, CPL, And the rest of your flight training.Bede wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:16 pmBecause we have a minimum wage in Canada and HRDC would get involved.
I believe that a Western Cargo operator got a talking to years ago when they had their Metro FO's not paid. Gov't said if they're flight crew, they need to get paid minimum wage. If you don't want to pay them, they're not flight crew.
I want to be trained as an air navigator. Bede forbids me to pay for it? I want to be trained to operate geomagnetic survey equipment. I can’t pay for that?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
Just because its beyond you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I can think of, and have operated where that is exactly the case. But "spotter" is just one of the possible examples of things people might do on board an airplane, and possibly pay to be there. Its been brought up that training is one of those things, but its not limited to that. Now I'm not being critical of you, you're not the first that can't imagine what purposes an airplane might be used for, and to be honest, there's a sector of doing these things that doesn't fall neatly into TC's or the public's cookie cutter assumptions about what might be done.
2) You can not comply, state your case and dare them to take enforcement action.So I guess you have a few options (not being sarcastic):
1) You can play nice in the sandbox and comply.
Obviously Option 2 comes with it's own set of consequences and costs. But I would imagine that you're not the first operator that has found themselves in this situation and I can't think of a case where TC has ever taken enforcement action for this. There's probably good reason for this. [/quote]
I took option #2. To be fair, the story is longer and more drawn out than I'm willing to divulge here, and some aspects of it are ongoing. Effectively "playing nice" was to go out of business. I will say that enforcement action was threatened, and my reply was I look forward to your letter notifying me, and you can expect a call from my lawyer when I get it. I never heard back from them.
TBH I think inspectors need to get bitten for that attitude once in a while. Just because they don't like something, doesn't mean they get to act on their soapbox. They get in precarious positions way too often, often not supported by or in some cases contradictory to the CARs. And it wouldn't hurt if they actually did some research before brandishing the big stick. I don't like being threatened when someone thinks I violated the CARs, you'd better know.I remember a few decades ago my father had a spat with a TC inspector over something that wasn't prohibited but the inspector didn't like. The inspector just put it down as "oral counselling". Knowing what I know now, oral counselling should not have been available- it should either have been a very stiff fine, or no enforcement action. My guess is the inspector found out that his position was not supported by the CAR's, but still wanted to make a point.
The problem really is that "sightseeing operations" as defined in the CARs doesn't necessarily mean anyone is, well, seeing the sights. Any commercial flight that isn't a flight training flight and returns to its departure point is a "sightseeing operation" as per CAR 101.01 (1) it is no longer an air transport service. The problem now is if you do a flight that doesn't end up at the departure point, even though the purpose may have been to sight see, it is no longer a sight seeing operation. However, its also not an air transport service - the purpose wasn't to transport persons (personal belongings, baggage, goods or cargo) to a point other than the departure. It is still aerial work.
Personally I think it is a remnant of older legislation. Its like how a lot of inspectors I have found refer to the 700 series AOCs as "charter OC" which are not mentioned in the CARs nor is the term "charter" defined (by dictionary definition flight training flights could also be considered chartered)
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
Sorry gents, you gave me absurd hypotheticals and I weighed in. I probably should have stepped back sooner.
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
I don't see anything theoretical about training to become a flight navigator. The FAA specifies a syllabus: 14 CFR Part 63 Subpart C.
There's also a section on what has to be included in a navigator course. The requirement for in-flight experience (as a crew member, for which you will have to pay) is explicit.
Are you saying it would be unlawful for CASRA to ask volunteers to pay to train to be a spotter?
https://www.casara.ca/en/membership/rol ... ifications
There's also a section on what has to be included in a navigator course. The requirement for in-flight experience (as a crew member, for which you will have to pay) is explicit.
Are you saying it would be unlawful for CASRA to ask volunteers to pay to train to be a spotter?
https://www.casara.ca/en/membership/rol ... ifications
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours
They weren't absurd. Forget about training, and lets just go to the spotter part. Wildlife or agricultural purposes are the big one. Anything from searching for cows, counting caribou. I was dragooned by the police in a body search once. The spotters are paying to be on board the airplane. Now if you happen to do that search and return to your departure point, that's easily a sight seeing operation. But if you have a more circuitous route, and say need to stop for fuel somewhere to complete that patrol, TC would argue that you transported those people somewhere and just engaged in an air transport service even if transporting them was incidental to the purpose of that flight. I have had the argument with TC before that those folks suddenly became passengers instead of crew, and thus also needed a 703 OC to do 702 work. That interpretation would effectively neuter the usefulness of a 702 OC almost to the level of permission granted to 406 OC users.
TBH, while when these have come up I feel I have successfully argued my point to the individual inspectors, it keeps coming up, or new angles of attack on that subject, which leads me to believe there is someone in TC leadership that would like things to change and is unhappy with the current workings of how aerial work is conducted in this country.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.