Specialty flight training and CAR 406.03

[Cat Driver]

Aahhhh yes Colonel that is for sure.

I don't fear them...I just hold them in utter contempt......that way they don't know what to do with me.

[Shiny Side Up]

It would seem that paranoia is part of being a Canadian.

Its not paranoia if they really are after you, then its just good thinking.

[Rhys Perraton]

I've still got a couple of problems with this.
Yes, as far as CARS go it seems that a commercial pilot can do, for example, tail wheel training or experience flights, or even sightseeing, on an aircraft owned by himself without requiring a 406 OC, provided such flights are not counted towards the requirements for a licence or rating.
If he is paid, or receives any form of compensation, doesn't this become a commercial flight, and is for hire or reward ?
What about using a private registered aircraft for a commercial purpose and what about the insurance. I'm sure that if the aircraft insurance is for private use it would be invalid for commercial use.
Maybe I should ask a TC inspector, be fun to see the response, if any.

[Shiny Side Up]

I've still got a couple of problems with this.
Yes, as far as CARS go it seems that a commercial pilot can do, for example, tail wheel training or experience flights, or even sightseeing, on an aircraft owned by himself without requiring a 406 OC, provided such flights are not counted towards the requirements for a licence or rating.

Careful, sightseeing is covered under the 406 or 70x series of regs. Not sure what you're referring to with "experience flights", but they would probably be considered ab initio unless they took place with an already licensed pilot, but then might tread into the territory of "sight seeing". There is only a very narrow group of training activities which do not fall under 406 or 70x regs. That aside, the insurance companies are sort of the gatekeeper on this type of activity, since I have seen them issue "no training" clauses in their policies before, usually for group plans.

[Cat Driver]

Question.

You own a privately registered airplane.

Can you rent it without a commercial O.C. ?

[Rhys Perraton]

Leaving out the insurance issue, I would say no, but some people here are implying otherwise.
But private owners do sell hours to others, don't know if that counts as renting it.
All pretty confusing stuff, to me anyway.

[Masters Off]

As I asked before; If I ferry an airplane for an owner/company, and get paid (there are ferry pilots around, sure) no AOC that applies as i can see. How does that work?
As for flying around passengers, I can do it if we go with me flying with friends, but I refuse to get paid, as that goes back to the AOC rules.

And with what we were saying before; If I'm an ATPL, and I decide to teach some instrument, I have to follow 406.2.3 that means I have to tell "the minister" every time I want to log 0.1 with any student, with 10 days notice, and tell him when I'm done. Seems a little excessive...oh, and I have to fly some random guys airplane that we both don't own. What a weird set of rules.

[Cat Driver]

There are no rules preventing you from renting your private airplane, in fact I started my first flying school by renting a Cessna 150 by the hour.

[Colonel Sanders]

Many private owners lease/rent out their aircraft
as "block time". TC doesn't care about this clearly
commercial activity, because it is not threatening
to them.

A while back, TC claimed at the Tribunal that a
corporation, that owned an aircraft and leased it
to another corporation (dry) was operating a
"commercial air service" and thus was in violation
of the 700-series CARs (no AOC).

This was such a whopper that I had to take it on.

A commercial air service is clearly the combination
of an aircraft and a pilot. Not just an aircraft.

Unsurprisingly, the Tribunal, which is incredibly run
by the ex-head of Enforcement, agreed with TC
that a leased aircraft by itself (no pilot) is a
commercial air service and needs an AOC for
the dry lease to another corporation.

I don't have time to appeal that to the Federal
Court and have it overturned, so it's pretty bad
law and an awful precedent.

If TC doesn't like you, they can use that terrible
precedent to hammer you, if you are selling block
time to a pilot on your privately-owned aircraft.
According to TC and it's Tribunal, you need a
70x AOC to do that.

[Cat Driver]

I have a question for you Colonel.

My plan is to rent my Cub when I get it finished.

Do you think the head of the Pacific Region of T.C. would allow any of his inspectors to charge me with being in noncompliance of their rules after the last screw up he was responsible for?

Just imagine how it would go when my defense is they deliberately denied me my rights under Canadian law and still owe me $250,000.

That would really be an interesting gong show for the media.

[photofly]

A while back, TC claimed at the Tribunal that a
corporation, that owned an aircraft and leased it
to another corporation (dry) was operating a
"commercial air service" and thus was in violation
of the 700-series CARs (no AOC).

There's no leeway about what is, or isn't, a commercial air service, or any discussion to be had about whether it has to involve a pilot or not. It's a defined term in the Aeronatics Act:

"commercial air service” means any use of aircraft for hire or reward;

(my emphasis).

It seems plain that hire of an aircraft is use of an aircraft for hire and reward: A is using the aircraft, and B is receiving the reward. Plain as day.

BUT -

The CARs don't impose any requirement for an AOC to operate a commercial air service.

You require an AOC to operate an air transport service. Another defined term, which is not the same as a commercial air service.

Hire of an aircraft is not an air transport service. Ergo no AOC required.


See: http://tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision.php ... dc_id=1358

Here is a case (Freefall Express, Inc. v. Minister of Transport) which hinged on the nature of the arrangement between the parties. The tribunal held that

...t whether or not the pilot was an employee of Freefall Express, Inc., he was acting on its behalf in carrying out his activities as pilot. He was, at the very least, named to IFAW by Mr. Richards, and he was authorized to use the Freefall Express, Inc.'s credit card to purchase fuel for the aircraft.

[78] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the agreement between IFAW and Freefall Express, Inc. was in the nature of a charter and was not a lease within the meaning of Canadian aviation law.

The Tribunal also found that passengers had been carried, under the agreement. This consituted operating an air transport service, and, without an AOC, was an offense.

If the arrangement had been otherwise, this would not constitute an air transport servce, no AOC would be required, and no offense would have been committed.

[Colonel Sanders]

It's a defined term in the Aeronatics Act

Photofly: with all due respect (I feel a Ricky Bobby moment
coming on), you should refer to the 2008 edition of the CSB
(Colonel Sanders Bible), which amongst the 11 Secret Herbs
and Spices, you will find the following definition:

DOG: a small aquatic waterfowl with a beak. It has feet like
a duck, wings like a duck, and as a result walks like a duck,
flies like a duck and on occasion to be heard to quack like a
duck

Note that even thought the 2008 edition of the CSB defines
a dog to be a duck, it really isn't. Pause for a moment.

Similarly, you can't take too seriously what TC says or does,
sometimes. It frequently violates the Charter of Rights, for
example, and does all sorts of silly things like trying to outlaw
all aerobatics below 18,000 feet with a ridiculous interpretation
of "flight visibility".

In the case of block time, the owner of the aircraft is clearly
not operating a "commercial air service" in any sense of the
word, Transport ridiculous assertions aside, because the
owner isn't "using" the aircraft. The entity (pilot or
corporation) which has purchased the block time is by
definition "using" the aircraft. If he wasn't, then there
wouldn't be much point in purchasing the block time.

Is block time a commercial activity? Certainly. However
the owner in no way, shape or form is operating a
"commercial air service" requiring a 70x AOC, despite
what the Tribunal decided and TC contends.

[Beefitarian]

Gotta lurn two reed gooder...

New joke.

What sort of heathen doubts the CSB?

[Masters Off]

Now, would it be any worth getting this in writing from a TC representative, stating that a dog in fact is not a duck, or that renting for block time does not require an AOC?

[photofly]

However
the owner in no way, shape or form is operating a
"commercial air service" requiring a 70x AOC, despite
what the Tribunal decided and TC contends.

Colonel - there are two points here. One (which we disagree on) is whether block time counts as a commercial air service. Fair enough, no point me restating why I think it is, and you why you think it isn't. But, you, I, the tribunal, TC, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all don't and shouldn't care whether block hire is a commercial air service.

A commercial air service doesn't require an AOC.

What requires an AOC is an air transport service. I think we both agree that block hire isn't an air transport service. There's nothing to suggest that the Tribunal, TC or anyone else considers block hire to be an air transport service. If the precedent you were referring to is indeed the Freefall one, that was a very long way from block hire (they were allegedly supplying a pilot too, which is why the tribunal decided it was a charter.)


Is there another TATC precedent you're referring to?

[Colonel Sanders]

There's nothing to suggest that the Tribunal, TC or anyone else considers block hire to be an air transport service

Sure there is. I was at the frikken Tribunal at the time,
and did my level best to fight it. TC laid a charge that
a corporation that was leasing it's airplane to another
corporation was doing so without an AOC as required
by CAR 70x. Tribunal upheld it. More bad law, which
the Federal Court would have struck down.

But as OJ Simpson taught us all, you get the law you
can afford.

[Colonel Sanders]

getting this in writing from a TC representative

Best of luck getting that. The way it works in Canada is that
TC is currently not enforcing what it believes to be the law in
Canada, with respect to block time sale.

This is analogous to speeding. I am sure you could find people
that go 140 kph on the highway 401 all the time, and hence
would argue that it must be legal, because they are doing it.

WRONG. The police are simply choosing not to enforce the law
right now.

[photofly]

There's nothing to suggest that the Tribunal, TC or anyone else considers block hire to be an air transport service

Sure there is. I was at the frikken Tribunal at the time,
and did my level best to fight it. TC laid a charge that
a corporation that was leasing it's airplane to another
corporation was doing so without an AOC as required
by CAR 70x. Tribunal upheld it. More bad law...

Again, if you're talking about Freefall, I read it as exactly the opposite. TC had to jump through hoops to prove the operator was running a charter, and not a lease, in order to bust them. The Tribunal agreed. If it had been a bare lease then no AOC would have been need and no infraction would have occured. I guess people can look it up and make up their own minds.

Either way, one of the things Freefall makes clear is that block time is not a lease, so the actual Freefall verdict has no relevance to anyone involved in block time.

Are there any other TATC cases that are relevant? I can't find any.

[Colonel Sanders]

Never heard of Freefall, sorry.

[photofly]

Never heard of Freefall, sorry.

Ok. Well, it's here:
http://tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision.php ... dc_id=1358

To my understanding it supports exactly the opposite conclusion of the one you were worried about (from the point of view of setting a precedent) so it should give you some comfort.