Flight review by class 4 instructor outside of FTU
 

Hey everyone.
So here is a question even TC couldn't answer, neither the prairie branch nor the Ontario branch.
Would a flight review for a pilot who is still current, and therefore hold his PIC privilege, be considered instruction? If not, that can be provided outside of an FTU.

TC couldn't answer that, since the regulations do not define flight review as instruction (as it seems), and if the pilot is still within the two years period, they can be the PIC, and all the instructor do is verify they hold their standards to the flight review.

What are your thoughts?

I think that there is vigorous agreement all the way around here - a "flight review" is not instruction. It's a great idea, and I encourage pilots to fly with peers and instructors from time to time to refresh their skills and confidence. From the bad experience of one colleague many years ago, I have one piece of advice: As the "reviewer" is not intended to be PIC, actually check that the intended PIC has a valid license and medical, and that the airplane is properly insured for the flying such that you do not become liable for it. As to whether payment for service can be made/taken... an other aspect to be certain about - TC might view paid reviewing as a commercial activity.

My friend, as a favour, checks out new pilot on the Grumman Tiger he just bought. I had delivered it to the aerodrome from which they took off for the training (which is how I was drawn into the situation). They fly for a few hours, then run it out of fuel (okay, partly on my friend, he should have been paying much more attention to that!). I got the urgent call: It's upside down off the end of the runway, how much gas had I left in it? - Full tanks, less the half hour delivery flight - lots. 'Turns out that new owner pilot misrepresented himself to my friend - medical not valid - so he was not PIC, my friend was. Suddenly, my friend is responsible for an accident and the value of an airplane, whose insurance did not name him as an insured pilot. It was messy, and my friend was just trying to do a favour, 'didn't even take payment. If you're right seat, and don't think you're PIC, may certain that the other pilot is.

And, from personal experience: I'm giving a fellow his float rating in an amphibian. He's flying from left seat as PIC (he'd had the plane of over a year, flying it wheels only, flew it very well), we depart a runway. We land on the water, and I fail to correct his error - the airplane, and we get wrecked. The airplane had no hull insurance, that was agreed before the training began, and a hold harmless was signed to me. What I did not think about was that although there was valid passenger insurance on the airplane, I was not entitled to make a claim. I became the PIC as the keel touched the water (he did not have the float rating yet), so as PIC, I was not insured as a passenger - no injury money for you!

So just know what you're signing up for when you offer a much needed service to other pilots!

In short, no. It is not instruction. A flight review is defined as a component of the recency requirements, which have clear guidelines that a flight review must be completed by a flight instructor. While that flight review could be conducted outside of an FTU, you have a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating, which muddies the waters. Muddies them, but I do see a work around.

Here is the research and rationale.

We start with the need for a flight review in the first place, which only occurs if the other parts of recency are not met:

In CAR 401.05, when the paragraph is parsed together, we get a statement that reads that "No holder of a flight crew permit, licence or rating shall exercise the privileges of the permit, licence or rating unless that holder has, within 12 months preceding the flight, completed a flight review, in accordance with the personal licensing standards, conducted by the holder of a flight instructor rating for the same category of aircraft." Again, this only applies if the pilot has not met the other method of maintaining recency, which is simply flying once in the last five years.

Put into normal language: when required, a flight review must be completed by a flight instructor. So far, so good. You're a flight instructor, you can conduct a flight review.

But, you're a Class 4 Flight Instructor, meaning we have to look at the language surrounding supervision.

CAR Standard 421.62 states that "The holder of a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating shall be under the supervision of f the holder of a Class 1 or 2 Flight Instructor Rating, in the applicable category..."

Yes, it follows on to say what documents shall be submitted for review to the supervising instructor, but that on its own cannot be used as an argument for using the flight instructor rating outside of supervision. Or, put in another way, just because you don't have to submit a flight review to your supervising instructor does not imply that you can use the privileges of the rating to conduct that flight review outside of supervision. You still have to be supervised to use your privileges, you just don't have to submit the paperwork to your supervisor.

Could you conduct a flight review outside of an FTU? Yes. There is no requirement that says the flight instructor must be attached to an FTU. They just have to have a valid rating. However, for a Class 4 flight instructor to conduct a flight review, you must still be supervised, which generally (although not a requirement) means you work for an FTU. If you could find a Class 1 or 2 who was willing to supervise you outside of an FTU, then as far as I can see, you're golden to complete the flight review.

Just make sure you have all your ducks in order, otherwise you're putting that other pilots recency in jeopardy as if you were not legal to complete the flight review in the first place, then they don't have a valid flight review, and any flight they take after could be in violation of the CARs, setting them up for a fine if TC ever found out.

TC were the ones not being able to answer that question to begin with..

In the US, a valid written answer by a safety inspector or licensing officer can and will be used against them in court, and in fact it already had. Even if a different inspector reach a different conclusion, according to AOPA, and COPA, the test is reasonableness, and a reasonable person will not ask more than one inspector or officer for the answer.

Now, had it being stipulated clearly into the Regs that would be a different scenario, but it's not. So that kinda strike down the procedural fairness required by any agency that is part of the Government of Canada, which include TC, which is violated when one they can't act on the same page.

Another example - the PIC last word as the safety, including the right to violate clearance or instruction is not stipulated in the Act (unlike the well known FAA 93.1, which allows for everything I mention), so TC could, in theory, charge a pilot making such decisions, while they verbally, and through the flight tests, expect you to make those decisions. On the procedural fairness test, they failed, because they counterdict themselves, and therefore those charges can't stick.

My take - they need to be crystal clear, no if or buts, and either be able to stipulate it in a simple email, in writing, so they can be held accountable or amend the regulations (Remember, if they, licensing officers and safety inspectors, can't answer a simple question over an email, they can't expect to charge someone later when they themselves couldn't make up their mind)

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.

CAR 401.62

...... no holder of a class 4 flight instructor rating -aeroplane.....shall exercise the privileges accorded by that rating unless the holder
a) is conducting training in accordance with a flight training unit operator certificate and
b) is under the supervision of a supervising instructor of the flight training unit

As was noted in a post above only pilots exercising the privileges of their instructor rating can do the instruction required for a recency qualifying flight. therefore a Class 4 instructor doing this must be under supervision and working for an FTU