Originally Posted by
+TSRA
I'm not going to get into the should Canada be more like the US. On some things, yes we should. On most things, absolutely not. But I would suggest that if you are going to be working in Canada, you get used to using the CARs and forget the FARs. They don't count while you're working here. But, in order to use the CARs, it is important to understand how they came about before you dunk on why Canada does things that the US does not, and this requires some historical context.
I did my initial PPL ground school back in the mid-90s when the CARs were just about to replace the Air Navigation Orders (ANOs). At the time, I was told by a gentleman who went on to work for Transport Canada that the CARs would be published with the understanding that they would not attempt to replicate or duplicate items that were already covered in any ICAO Reference Standard. This was meant to streamline the regs, and bring us closer to international compliance. I remember him saying that this meant that for a Canadian pilot to fully understand their place in the world, we would need to study the ICAO documents and the CARs. It's for this reason I keep an out-of-date copy of some of the ICAO Reference documents with me. Unfortunately, either what I was told was wrong or we as an industry have forgotten history, and pilots now are only trained to review the CARs. I would argue it is a mix, slanted towards the later. If so, this means that Canadian pilots are not fully trained on the "why" behind things, trusting that the CARs have all the information when, in fact, they're only a part of the puzzle.
Regardless, being a signatory to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944), Canada is required to file any differences that it may have between ICAO and the CARs. I have never come across such a document in my time related to the definition of pilot-in-command, meaning that insofar as Canadian pilots and the responsibility of the pilot-in-command are concerned, ICAO Annex 2, Section 2.3.1 applies to us.
That section states that: "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, whether manipulating the controls or not, be responsible for the operation of the aircraft in accordance with the rules of the air, except that the pilot-in-command may depart from these rules in circumstances that render such departure absolutely necessary in the interests of safety." Then, in Section 2.4, the Annex reads "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command."
So when you say that the CARs are not clear about a certain question, you're right. But that's likely because the CARs are the wrong document to look at when attempting to interpret certain components of Canadian aviation regulations. Being a signatory to the Chicago Convention as well, the US is also bound to follow the ICAO rules, but they do seem to have many more differences than Canada does, meaning more of what a pilot needs to understand is contained in the FARs. But, if it's not in the FARs, then it'll be in an ICAO document.
That's not right or wrong, it's just different.
But when it comes down to court proceeding and charging someone, the only law and regulations that can apply is Canadians one, not ICAO one.
So if they want to take someone to court, they need to be able to point out a violation of legislation or regulations that are
based in Canada.
And again, if it was that clear as you say, TC themselves should’ve being able to simply say it, but neither offices I tried could’ve answer it, so maybe they are ought to put it into the Regs if they want to take enforcement action over it.
Edit: I just remembered that back in 2016-2017, when I was in the process of getting my CPL, I had some US hours I wanted to claim. I emailed TC, and got their approval in writing, and the authorized person ask a copy of it, to say - “if they ever question me, I will use their own words and admission on that email against them”. Which means their answer over the email is admissible against them.