Transport Canada CPL - 65 training hours in Canada vs overseas - HELP!!

[Skysurfer66]

Hi all,
This is a bit of a tricky one, and I would appreciate some wisdom from the collective!

I have done most of my flying and flight training for and post PPL in Africa and Europe. I have 400 odd hours. I went to Canada, wrote the CPAER and completed refresher training, and undertook and passed my CPL flight test. All good there.

My application is in with TC for the issuance of my CPL. They have asked for my PTR showing 65 hours of training IN CANADA. I've gone through the CARS, and nothing in it indicates to me that the 65 hours training has to be done IN Canada or with a CANADIAN flight instructor. The email from TC states:
"If you do not hold a foreign CPL and did not do the full CPL training here in Canada you do not meet the requirements for a Canadian CPL."

From the CARs that I refer to:Division VII - Commercial Pilot Licence421.30 Aeroplanes - RequirementsThe requirements in respect of an application for a Commercial Pilot Licence — Aeroplane are the following:
(amended 2006/12/14)



(4) Experience


(a) An applicant for a commercial pilot licence — aeroplane shall
(amended 2006/12/14)

(i) have completed, subject to paragraph (b), a minimum of 200 hours flight time in aeroplanes, of which a minimum of 100 hours shall be pilot-in-command time including 20 hours cross-country pilot-in-command flight time, and
(amended 2006/12/14)
(ii) following the issuance of a private pilot licence — aeroplane by Canada or another contracting state, have completed 65 hours of commercial pilot flight training in aeroplanes consisting of a minimum of:
(amended 2006/12/14)

(A) 35 hours dual instruction flight time, under the direction and supervision of the holder of a Flight Instructor Rating — Aeroplane, including:
(amended 2006/12/14)

(I) 5 hours night, including a minimum of 2 hours of cross-country flight time;
(amended 2006/12/14)
(II) 5 hours cross-country, which may include the cross-country experience stated in subclause (I); and
(amended 2006/12/14)
(III) 20 hours of instrument flight time in addition to the experience stated in subclauses (I) and (II). A maximum 10 hours of the 20 hours may be conducted on an approved aeroplane simulator or synthetic flight training device.
(amended 2006/12/14)

(B) 30 hours solo flight time including:
(amended 2006/12/14)

(I) 25 hours solo flight time emphasizing the improvement of general flying skills of the applicant which shall include a cross-country flight to a point of a minimum of 300 nautical mile radius from the point of departure and shall include a minimum of 3 landings at points other than that of departure; and
(amended 2006/12/14)
(II) 5 hours solo flight time by night during which a minimum of 10 takeoffs, circuits and landings were completed.
(amended 2006/12/14)



(b) An applicant who is a graduate from an approved integrated course shall have completed the applicable experience requirements in section 426.75 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
(amended 2006/12/14)

I meet all the training hour requirements stipulated in CARS from my training post PPL in both Africa and Europe, but those countries don't operate a PTR, and utilise the pilots log book to evidence training and hours. Interestingly, the CARs also do not reflect that a PTR is required to be submitted either. Obviously, the flight instructors I flew with in Africa and Europe were not Canadian FI's or CFI's, but I can't see a requirement for them to be?

Am I missing a trick here, and is there some other stipulation somewhere that I have missed please?

Any insight very gratefully received!

[MrAverage]

From experience with the UK CAA, which TCA are of broadly similar approach when it comes to crediting training outside of their jurisdiction, I'd bet only TCA can answer your question Furthermore, if they're stipulating a minimum 65 hours of training is required, it's virtually certain that will need to be done in Canada. Their answer will be the only one you can count on.

[MrAverage]

From experience with the UK CAA, which TCA are of broadly similar approach when it comes to crediting training outside of their jurisdiction, I'd bet only TCA can answer your question. Furthermore, if they're stipulating a minimum 65 hours of training is required, it's virtually certain that will need to be done in Canada. Their answer will be the only one you can count on.

[selfin]

The conversion guidance used to be published on Transport’s website. An archived copy is here, https://web.archive.org/web/20160811195501/http://tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/general-personnel-fore-1812.htm

It is self-evident that a PTR is unlikely to be available in the case of conversions. When I obtained a Canadian CPL based on a UK CPL, copies of my personal flying logbook were sufficient.

I’d recommend getting in touch with Sharon Chandler with Transport in Ontario. Her contact details are at https://www.goc411.ca/en/149640/Sharon-Chandler

[Whopity]

This is not a conversion, it is an initial. Without a formal training record for the Canadian flying then you are not likely to get anything.

[+TSRA]

Interestingly, the CARs also do not reflect that a PTR is required to be submitted either.

Correct, but also incorrect. CAR 405.33 (https://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/FullText.html#s-405.33) requires that a flight training unit in Canada maintain and then submit a PTR at the end of a pilot's training for a PPL, CPL, or Flight Instructor Rating as this validates the training. TC uses the PTR as evidence that the training took place, but it is submitted by the training unit, not by the pilot. So Transport only has your word that the training post-PPL was done. That's not good enough in the context of this scenario given that you are not converting a CPL but obtaining an initial issue. This leads me to ask if your logbook was certified when you left Africa and Europe.

​​​​​​​Am I missing a trick here, and is there some other stipulation somewhere that I have missed please?

The catch for you is likely in 421.08 (https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-services/acts-regulations/list-regulations/canadian-aviation-regulations-sor-96-433/standards/standard-421-flight-crew-permits-licences-ratings-canadian-aviation-regulations-cars#421_08), which says that foreign licence holders who are "unable to provide a certified personal log may be credited...with the minimum flying experience specified in ICAO Annex 1 for the foreign licence held."

If your post-PPL training experience was not certified by your instructor after your training was completed (normally each school has a stamp for this very purpose), then the only thing TC can do is credit you with the minimum hours for the license you hold - a PPL. ICAO Annex 1 specifies this minimum is 40 hours of flight time (35 if completed during an approved course).

So running this down as you've written it, this is how TC will go through the process:

1. Your application arrived showing a completed CPAER and CPL Flight Test (and applicable fees). On to the next step.
2. They check to see if you have a valid Class 1 medical. You do, on to the next step.
3. They check to see that a PTR was submitted by the flight school. They cannot find a PTR.

3a. They open up your logbook to see if you have a stamp that certifies the training hours from the flight school. They do not find this stamp.
3b. They continue looking through the logbook to see if you have a stamp from any other training location that could certify any of the required 65 hours of training. If they do not find this stamp they are forced to conclude you have not received the required training and deny your application for a license. They are also forced to conclude that, in the context of pilot licensing, you have only logged 40 hours of flight time - not 400.

I hope for your sake you have a certified logbook that you can argue your point. If you do, point this out to TC. It may take some back and forth, but at least you'd be covered.

If your logbook was not certified, I see that you only have two choices if you want to proceed to a CPL: return to Africa and Europe to get your logbook certified by the flight school(s) you attended or complete the required 65 hours of training plus any additional flying that brings you back up to 200 hours. This is because, unfortunately, even though you have 400 hours logged, TC believes that because they can only validate your PPL, the additional 360 hours you have in your book cannot be used for the issuance of a license or rating. As far as they're concerned, as of 4 January 2024, you have 40 hours. And you best believe that they'll have that on your file for the next time you submit your license; they'll be looking for another 160 hours logged after 4 January 2024 before they issue you a license. That's why going overseas to get your logbook certified may be the cheaper option. It sucks, and the takeaway for any aspiring or student pilot is to always get your logbook certified.

[EXDAC]

This concepts of training by a flight school, certified log books, and a PTR are all totally alien to me. I have none of these and none of my students has any of these. All I have in my log is an instructor's signature for the instruction I have received. For instruction I gave there is a signed entry in the student log and an entry in my log.

A student in USA may receive instruction from multiple instructors none of whom is affiliated with any flight school. Who would certify the log book of such an student or licence applicant? I wouldn't and I don't have any authority to do so. I'm authorized to sign off only the instruction that I gave myself.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The difference is that there is bilateral agreement with the US with respect to flight training. There are non with any African countries

[+TSRA]

Who would certify the log book of such an student or licence applicant?

So, it depends. In the easy cases, it would be the Chief Flight Instructor or, in the case of an Air Operator, the Chief Pilot. TC is only about 30 years or so behind the FAA in the way they do things. Whatever the FAA or JAA did in 1990 is what TC is redoing as the latest and greatest! We're so far behind the world we think we're first! I'm joking of course. But not by much.

For the rest of this, a bit of context: In Canada, we use the term CFI to describe the Chief Flight Instructor, not just any ol' certified instructor as they do in other locales.

The CFI compares the PTR to the pilot's logbook. Upon seeing that they were within an acceptable range, they apply a stamp or written statement to the most applicable page in the logbook that reads something along the lines of "(All) Times certified correct on [Company Name] Company Aircraft from [DATE] to [DATE]" or "I hereby certify that [STUDENT] has undertaken [TRAINING] as logged." Then signed by the instructor along with their printed name, the date, and their license number. The CFI cares about accuracy because if you send too many pilots to a flight test without the proper credentials, you eventually get a visit from TC.

Now, in those cases where an instructor is not affiliated with a flight school, it will be the instructor who signs the hours in the logbook. As for which instructor if there are multiple instructors: I don't remember there being a hard and fast rule, but I used to interpret the regs to mean the instructor who is either sending the student to the flight test or who is authorizing the student to now hold the privileges if no flight test is required. However, when I was coming up the ranks, unaffiliated instructors were not as big here in Canada as they were in the US. This may have changed in the last 20 or so years, so I'll defer the correct answer to Big Pistons Forever if I'm wrong.

For commercial operators, it is the Chief Pilot who certifies the logbook. But instead of a training record, they compare the company records to the pilot's logbook; although it's been my experience here that most just look at the total time and sign away as long as it's not in gross error - they generally don't care if it's that accurate as the only time a working pilot gets their logbook certified is when they're applying for their ATPL or another job (or both!).

I'll also note that certified logbooks were also the rage when I did my PPL conversion and CPL training down in New Zealand back in the early 00s, so this is not a uniquely Canadian thing.

[Skysurfer66]

Gents, thank you all for taking the time to reply. I've had a few back and forths with TC, and its pretty much copy book as +TSRA mentions :(

My log book does have stamps and signatures going through it, pretty much when I hit training milestones such as night rating, IRR rating etc, and certifying time spent with an instructor (mostly).

Unfortunately, TC has stated that:
CAR 425.21(3) states “… A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of a commercial pilot licence shall…(a) have a flight instructor rating for the category of aircraft used for the training;

400.01(2) - (2) Any reference in this Part to a permit, licence, rating or foreign licence validation certificate is a reference to a valid Canadian permit, licence, rating or foreign licence validation certificate

If I'm honest, I think it is pretty poor that the requirements are not clearly stated in 421.30, which is where most mere mortals would go to look at the requirements, and not think to themselves "Hmmmm,.... I wonder if there is a one line caveat somewhere else in this small set of documents called the CARs that might change the interpretation completely!"

So it looks like I have no option but to withdraw my application for my commercial, and return to Canada and redo the training to get a PTR signed off. TC have said that as long as I get that done within one year of the flight test, then there is no need to re-do the flight test. So it is pretty much go away, redo the training to evidence you have met the standard required to take the test that you have already passed :)

[Jhieminga]

It is not going to change anything for your situation, but a bit of background behind this might be useful. The issue for TC is that you are asking them to issue a certificate based upon a flight test and a bunch of training and experience logged in your logbook. The problem is: that training and experience has been carried out outside of their jurisdiction and therefore they are completely unable to know whether this was done to the standards that they require. BPF mentioned bi-lateral agreements. In some cases there may be an agreement to accept foreign training/hours/experience but without such an agreement they are limited in what they can do with your logged hours. You could have logged those hours on a fairground ride (not saying that you did!) for all they know. It's a quality issue in that TC wants to make sure that you received the training from a training provider that is up to their standards.

Getting your logbooks certified may seem to be a solution, but this only provides a link between your records and the records of the training facility. It does not say anything about the quality of said training establishment.

Please note that I am not trying to badmouth your experience and training at all, I'm only trying to show TC's perspective on this. In cases such as these, your experience is suspect until proven genuine, and TC can only accept that from Canadian training providers or a limited list of foreign establishments based on bi-lateral agreements (I don't know if these even exist for this specific situation).

The outcome could have been worse, they have accepted that you passed the test and are only asking you to redo the training. To me that sounds like a pretty good result. Hope you can get it sorted soon!

[Whopity]

If I'm honest, I think it is pretty poor that the requirements are not clearly stated in 421.30, which is where most mere mortals would go to look at the requirements, and not think to themselves "Hmmmm,.... I wonder if there is a one line caveat somewhere else in this small set of documents called the CARs that might change the interpretation completely!"
It would seem from your comment that you are not very familiar with aviation law which in most States is spread over a number of references not a single one. In the UK, the PPL law paper would seek to test the applicants knowledge of the relevant regulations. It also seems that you have not sought or received any professional guidance on obtaining a commercial licence. Based on the information you have provided here, you would not have been able to even consider sitting a CPL Skill Test in the UK or Europe.

[MrAverage]

Hear, hear!

[Skysurfer66]

It would seem from your comment that you are not very familiar with aviation law which in most States is spread over a number of references not a single one. In the UK, the PPL law paper would seek to test the applicants knowledge of the relevant regulations. It also seems that you have not sought or received any professional guidance on obtaining a commercial licence. Based on the information you have provided here, you would not have been able to even consider sitting a CPL Skill Test in the UK or Europe.

I've done aviation law in 4 countries now, but it is true, I'm not a lawyer! :) I'm just saying, the single entry in a different section of the CARs that changes the meaning of the bulk of the licensing requirement section is not great.
I spent nearly 2 years speaking to flying schools, and asking questions on different forums. This completely stumped both my FTO and the TC examiner whom I did the flight test with. But it is true, I could have asked TC directly before embarking on this journey, although I didn't realise it was going to be a problem until it was a problem. And I might still be waiting for an answer from TC!

You live and learn I guess. Hopefully this will serve as good information for someone else.

[rudestuff]

Have you figured out what you're going to do? You should be well above FAA minimums and they require significantly fewer hours with an authorised instructor, plus you can convert back to TCCA with a 20 question exam.

[Skysurfer66]

Have you figured out what you're going to do? You should be well above FAA minimums and they require significantly fewer hours with an authorised instructor, plus you can convert back to TCCA with a 20 question exam.

That's not a bad idea Rudestuff, my intention was just heading back to Canada and banging out the hours, but it might be worth looking at the FAA route as well.

[selfin]

An FAA commercial followed by conversion under the US–Canada BASA–IPL will be the most efficient route at this stage.

You can subsequently take the Canadian IR flight test and apply for a US instrument rating under the same conversion agreement. Therefore, you might want to also take the FAA ICP knowledge test while in the States.

Alternatively, you could do the eight exams, some additional flight training, and the skills test for the SACAA CPL. Transport will give you a free MEL class rating if you also pass the SACAA MEA skills test.

Re certification of logbooks. The CARs make no reference to who must certify your flying logbook. The entries there ought to be accepted pursuant to the (Canadian) Aeronautics Act, section 28:

”Document entries as proof28 In any action or proceeding under this Act, an entry in any record required under this Act to be kept is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of the matters stated therein as against the person who made the entry or was required to keep the record or, where the record was kept in respect of an aeronautical product, aerodrome or other aviation facility, against the owner or operator of the product, aerodrome or facility.”

[+TSRA]

If I'm honest, I think it is pretty poor that the requirements are not clearly stated in 421.30.....I wonder if there is a one line caveat somewhere else in this small set of documents called the CARs that might change the interpretation completely!

​​​​​​​I'm just saying, the single entry in a different section of the CARs that changes the meaning of the bulk of the licensing requirement section is not great.

I'm not trying to be rude here so forgive my bluntness, but they are stated very clearly in 421.30, because to properly interpret 421.30, you have to know how Transport Canada defines things, which means knowing what is included in 400.01. That's the problem when pilots like you and me try and interpret the rules and regulations. They've been written by lawyers for lawyers, not for pilots (even though we are required to follow them). So when reading the regs, we can't read them as a pilot, but as a lawyer. Heck, even I made the mistake of forgetting to check 400.01 when I first responded. Had I done so, I would have been able to let you know in my original post as it provides the only answer to your original question (and I've made a lot of money in my aviation career looking for that one word or sentence in another part of the regs that changes the interpretation of things so I'm beating myself up pretty good for a simple mistake like that).

Indeed, that is why Division I of any CARs part is titled "Interpretation." As in - this is how you are to interpret the following sections.

Now, if you decide to stay in Canada and clean up those hours, make sure to keep your correspondence with TC. The last thing you need is to find you're dealing with a new inspector who differs in their interpretation of you being able to avoid another flight test!