What exactly are the requirements to be chief pilot? I have heard something regarding 3 "consecutive" years working, but have not found anything in the CAR's to corroborate that. If anyone knows the requirements please help. Thanks.

For 704 Check CASS
724.07 (2) (b) (i) (E)


For 703 READ CASS
723.07 (2) (b)

Hope this helps

Frosty

By the way,
you don't need three years of any thing for a 703 CP as long as you meet the CASS qualifications under 723.07!

Frosty

Being able to spell it would be a good start.

Being able to spell it would be a good start.

priceless

Also the ability to navigate your way through the CAR's. Which are online and contain the answer to your question.

thanks for the help frostbite.... u others never miss a chance to rag do u...lol

hey frostbite you must be finding your self with a little more time now. I have never seen so many post from you

PT6-114A,

Congrats on your 208th post!

thats it I will stop here oh shit this is 209 maybe i can fly a bigger plane

any direct link to the CAR someone ?

b) Chief Pilot

(i) Qualifications

(A) If the Air Operator Certificate authorizes:

(I) VFR day only - hold a valid Airline Transport Pilot Licence or Commercial Pilot Licence for the category of aircraft operated;

(II) VFR at Night - hold a valid Airline Transport Pilot Licence or Commercial Pilot Licence valid for night and a valid Instrument Rating for the category of aircraft operated. Where the Air Operator Certificate authorizes VFR at night only without an instrument rating, the chief pilot need not be instrument rated;

(III) IFR - hold a valid Airline Transport Pilot Licence or Commercial Pilot Licence and a Valid Instrument Rating for the category of aircraft operated;

(B) if applicable, hold a type rating for one of the aircraft operated;

(C) have at least 500 hours of flight time, of which 250 hours were acquired within the preceding three years on the category of aircraft operated by the air operator;


(D) be qualified in accordance with the air operators training program to act as pilot-in-command on one of the types operated by the air operator;

(E) have demonstrated knowledge to the air operator with respect to the content of the operations manual, provisions of the regulations and standards, and if applicable, the company check pilot manual and standard operating procedures.

phillyfan wrote: (D) be qualified in accordance with the air operators training program to act as pilot-in-command on one of the types operated by the air operator;

You should know that in ON they don't only want you to be qualified PIC on one of the types but they often insist on it being the most complex type operated. This seems to be "Inspectors Choice" depending on where you are and who your POI is but they do seem have the blessing of the higher-ups.

but they often insist on it being the most complex type operated

If this comes up for anyone, ask the inspector how he defines 'most complex', and where you can find a definition of this......... Just cause a Beaver is bigger than a 185, dosent make it more complex! But that is the thinking of people who have no or the wrong kind of experience for the type of operation being inspected.

The fact that they can't justify it doesn't seem to matter. There is (or was) no place in the CAR's where it specified "most complex" either but that didn't mean they'd entertain a discussion about it.

Also, sometimes the most complex type is pretty obvious. I know Kenora Air was forced to have their C.P. checked on the Beech (if they operated it) instead of the Otter. However, I don't think Hidden Bay's C.P. is checked on their 'Van (though I could be wrong). Like I said, depends on where you are and what side of the bed your POI woke up on.

Just something to be aware of.

TUI, if a company has a beech (18 i assume) then, yes, they have to be checked out on it,(PPC) and have the approiate experience on 'multi engine sea planes'.
CARS 703.88 (1)
(c) has successfully completed a pilot proficiency check or competency check for that type of aircraft, the validity period of which has not expired, in accordance with the Commercial Air Service Standards as follows:
(i) in the case of the pilot-in-command of a multi-engined aircraft or of a single-engined aeroplane that is operated in accordance with subsection 703.22(2), a pilot proficiency check for that type of aircraft,

However, a Van is no different than an Otter, is no different than a 180. Single engine sea plane. (When operated under day VFR)

(B) if applicable, hold a type rating for one of the aircraft operated;

(C) have at least 500 hours of flight time, of which 250 hours were acquired within the preceding three years on the category of aircraft operated by the air operator;

For (B), in KAS's case, the company only has 1 plane needing a type rating. The Beech. You dont need a type rating to fly an otter, van or 180, just a pcc.
Maybe they could have 2 CP's.....one for single engine, and one for twin? Or maybe that would require 2 OC's....i dunno, but it sure sounds like a lot of extra paperwork!
The POI can discuss it all they want. The kid flying the J-3 could be CP as long as they have the 500 hrs, and 250 in the last 3 yrs. Scary i know!!!
In this case, the 'cp' would delegate a/c training to another more experienced pilot, or could even hire someone to preform the training.(as long as it says this in the ops manual, which i believe is in the standard 'copy and paste' ops manual most opearations have)

I'm not saying i agree with this, it is just the way it is!! And what a company 'could' do.

So you need a type rating on a Beech 18 in canada?

Or am I reading this wrong?

you need a check ride with a TC inspector or a person approved by TC thats when you get your little card that you have to carry with along with all the other crap

Yeh, but only to fly for a commercial operation, if you own the thing privately all you need is private pilot license with a multi engine rating.

very true

And if you own a B18 on floats what more could a pilot want?

A sexy cute young chick with big tits who also owns a liquor store would be nice.

Ahhh, now I understand. Thanks for the clarification 185_guy.

phillyfan wrote:b) Chief Pilot

(i) Qualifications

(A) If the Air Operator Certificate authorizes:

(I) VFR day only - hold a valid Airline Transport Pilot Licence or Commercial Pilot Licence for the category of aircraft operated;

(II) VFR at Night - hold a valid Airline Transport Pilot Licence or Commercial Pilot Licence valid for night and a valid Instrument Rating for the category of aircraft operated. Where the Air Operator Certificate authorizes VFR at night only without an instrument rating, the chief pilot need not be instrument rated;

(III) IFR - hold a valid Airline Transport Pilot Licence or Commercial Pilot Licence and a Valid Instrument Rating for the category of aircraft operated;

(B) if applicable, hold a type rating for one of the aircraft operated;

(C) have at least 500 hours of flight time, of which 250 hours were acquired within the preceding three years on the category of aircraft operated by the air operator;


(D) be qualified in accordance with the air operators training program to act as pilot-in-command on one of the types operated by the air operator;

(E) have demonstrated knowledge to the air operator with respect to the content of the operations manual, provisions of the regulations and standards, and if applicable, the company check pilot manual and standard operating procedures.

The big issue on the Chief Pilot thing is the interpretation of (C) above. It does vary from region to region and the worst a holes are apparently the Ontario guys.

Some interpret it to mean that if you operate say, two 185's on floats and a Cessna 310, in order to be CP you have to have 250 hours on single engine float planes, and 250 hours on a 310 or a similar airplane, which to some inspectors is taken to mean only a 310.

The law really is that if you are applying to be approved for CP in an airplane operation, you must have the 250 hours on an airplane. Period. If you are running IFR, then obviously you must have an IR and a multi rating. But all the rest is complete nonsense and wouldn't hold up in court if anyone challenged it under the Charter.

Denial of a position which you are logically qualified for on an arbitrary basis which is different in different regions of the same country is a violation of one section of the Charter. If someone challenged it, it would never stand up in court.

In days of yore, you did need an ATPL for an IFR operation, and obviously 1500 hours. But no bullshit about the last three years. What conceivable difference could that make? It didn't matter whether your time was multi or single.

The air regs define "category" as either helicopter or fixed wing, for practical purposes. I think balloons is another category. So the law really is 250 hours of fixed wing time, or helicopter time, as the case may be, in the last three years.

The thing that would cause TC to lose in court is their arbitrary definition of "category" beyond what the regs say quite plainly. The three years is BS, but the court might allow that.

Just as an example, I have an offer to be ops mgr at a carrier, and they want me to be chief pilot of a multi IFR op inthe dual role thing. I don't have 250 hours in the last three years, because I've been flying mostly choppers, but I have over 4000 PIC hours in airplanes and over `1000 hours PIC multi. On top of that, I have been an OPS mgr and CP in three different carriers in the past. I haven't applied yet, but I expect to be denied for the CP position, although not for ops mgr. The guy who is chief pilot now has about 800 hours and 220 hours multi and is approved, because he has the time in the last three years.

Obviously there should be good and adequate reasons why someone should be the "chief" pilot, but what you've been doing in the last three years is irrelevant in a rational analysis of the requirements.

Another absurd example. Let's say you are chief pilot of a multi IFR op and your company decides to put a couple of Beavers on floats. I have heard one regional air carrier superintendent say that his understanding is that you can no longer be chief pilot because you don't have 250 float hours in the past three years. He doesn't dispute that it's bullshit, but he says that's the law and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Many things make up a good chief pilot. Obviously one of the things that would make a difference is whether the person had any instructor experience, as that involves understanding how people learn and how to present what it is you are trying to train line pilots about. Good administrative skills is another requirement in a rational world. Experience that allows one to exercise the day to day judgements of a chief pilot would seem to be very important.

But to TC, none of that matters. For reasons known to none of us, it is the 250 hours/3 years thing that TC fixates on. If the guy has that plus 500 hours, it doesn't matter if he slobbers when he talks and couldn't explain how to boil water, he can be chief pilot, and the guy who had 10,000 hours and has been a designated flight test examiner, a Class 1 instructor, and Chief Pilot at Borek for 10 years, but only has 150 hours in airplanes in the last 3 years can't.

I generally support what TC does, but someone's head is way, way up their ass on this.

What exactly are the requirements to be chief pilot?

Ask Cloudrunner. He apparently runs the show in Thailand for the chief pilot.