Scudrunners

CAR 421.30:  Commercial Pilot Licence — Aeroplane

(4) Experience
(a) An applicant for a commercial pilot licence — aeroplane shall
(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:
(A) 35 hours dual instruction flight time, [u]under the direction and supervision of the holder of a Flight Instructor Rating — Aeroplane[/u]
(B) 30 hours solo flight time including ("long" x/c)

Anyone with a 3 digit IQ should be able to comprehend the above, which appears to
eliminate most of the posters on the "other" website.

(A) specifies that the 35 dual be under the "direction and supervision" of a flight instructor.

There is no such requirement for (B) - solo flight (incl "long" x/c).  No "direction and supervision" of a flight instructor.  That was specifically omitted.

CAR 421.30 make it clear that NO flight instructor supervision is required for the
"long" x/c of the CPL - merely that it occur after the "issuance of a PPL".  If it's in
the candidate's CPL PTR, it's golden, because it is "commercial pilot flight training".

Hey, I was only a flight instructor and Authorized Person for 25 years, so what the
fuck would I know.

There are lots of problems with the CPL 300nm x/c, but as usual, people focus on all
the unimportant BS.  In Ontario region, TC interpreted "solo" for CPL as PIC, which
is pretty slimy.  This enabled two CPL candidates to fly the long x/c.  One would
count it on the way out, the other would count if on the way back.  I know some
schools would sent weak students on the CPL long x/c with a flight instructor on
board to help them out.  TC was cool with that as long as the weak CPL candidate
logged PIC.  It revolted me, honestly.  So much for the "solo" time requirement in
the CARs.  I just couldn't get with the 21st century groove, I guess.

From the CARs:
[quote]    solo flight time means, with respect to the flight time necessary to acquire a permit, licence or rating,

        (a) in the case of a pilot, the flight time during which the pilot is the sole flight crew member, and

        (b) in the case of a student pilot permit holder, the flight time during which the holder is the sole occupant of an aircraft while under the direction and supervision of the holder of an instructor rating for the appropriate category of aircraft; (temps de vol en solo)[/quote]

It doesn;t say you need to be the sole occupant of the airplane, just the sole flight crew member. 2 PPL holders trying to get their CPL can never both be a flight crew member at the same time in a single pilot airplane. The CPL student flying/PIC will automatically be the sole flight crew member.

Nothing fishy there.

Well, I think it's pretty fishy when a weak pilot is accompanied by his
flight instructor, and the weak pilot logs PIC for the long x/c and claims
he is "solo".  If it looks like scum, and walks like scum, and sounds like
scum, it's probably scum.

If that's legit, I'm the next Queen of England.

I always encouraged CPL candidates to do the long x/c by themselves.

You bring along a flight instructor to "help" make decisions, the only
person you are cheating, is yourself. 

I couldn't give a shit if TC thinks cheating is ok.  My family has been in
aviation for a lot longer than they have.  I completely lost respect for TC
when I found out that they [i]knew[/i] about the cheating at the foreign student
puppy mills, and did NOTHING.

Listen.  English is our fucking mother tongue, and we can't make heads
or tails of those stupid fucking TC written exams.  You're telling me that kids
from China, who can't speak a goddamned word of English on the radio, have
[u]no problem[/u] with understanding TC's English language word puzzles on the
written tests?

Bullshit detector's through 130dB.

Try writing your ATP exams in Mandarin sometime and get back to me on
how well it went.

And in other news, the instructors that ran the corrupt puppy mills are now AC pilots.

"Good Moral Character"?!

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=10098.msg28972#msg28972 date=1570395076]
Well, I think it's pretty fishy when a weak pilot is accompanied by his
flight instructor, and the weak pilot logs PIC for the long x/c and claims
he is "solo".  If it looks like scum, and walks like scum, and sounds like
scum, it's probably scum.

If that's legit, I'm the next Queen of England.

[/quote]

Ah, no, that is ridiculous I agree.
While I think flying the 300 NM cross country by themselves is better, I can understand why TC can't really object to 2 students flying it together and switching at the 300 NM mark. As you probably would agree, just because it's legal, doesn't mean it is smart or the best way of doing things.

The dictionary defines "solo" as

> for or [u]done by one person alone[/u]; [size=14pt]unaccompanied[/size].

The authors of the CARs made it pretty clear that they wanted CPL candidates
to fly those hours as the only occupant of the aircraft.  TC can do whatever they
want today with their silly revisionist nonsense, but it's still scummy.

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=10098.msg28974#msg28974 date=1570396541]


The authors of the CARs made it pretty clear that they wanted CPL candidates
to fly those hours as the only occupant of the aircraft. 
[/quote]
Says who?

Then they should have added it to their definition of solo time in their own CARs. But they didn't. They added the "sole occupant" as the requirement for seaplane ratings. Using the same logic as in your opening post, if they specify it for the seaplane rating and they don't for the CPL, one could assume it is not required for the CPL  ;)

TC is free to redefine the word "solo" in the CARs, differently from how
it is defined in the dictionary.

This is akin to hanging a sign around a duck with the word "dog" on it.
Now, this creature which is labelled "dog" looks like a duck, walks like
a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck.  That means it really
is a duck, despite any stupid attempt to re-label it.

Moment of irony:  TC will frequently refer to the dictionary definition of
a word during legal wrangling, which in this case they don't want you to.

I don't really give a shit what TC does, though.  I spent 4 days in The People's
Republic of Canada this year, and it was 4 days too long.  I found the surveillance
offensive.

[img width=500 height=333]https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca88777 ... xSH-Po8X6c[/img]

TC proudly produces shitty pilots, or so TC says in the DPE manual.  Too dysfunctional for me.

[quote]
This is akin to hanging a sign around a duck with the word "dog" on it.
Now, this creature which is labelled "dog" looks like a duck, walks like
a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck.  That means it really
is a duck, despite any stupid attempt to re-label it.[/quote]

Unfortunately you can be to stupid to understand the above and you can still be a pilot in Canada.

And if you are that stupid and can't make it in commercial aviation you are a perfect candidate for employment with T.C. and end up deciding who is qualified to be a pilot.

Thus there is no minimum education requirement to be a pilot, as long as you can drive a machine without killing yourself you are qualified to be a pilot in the peoples socialist republic of Canada.

It's a sign of the times - we are in the era of we need a security blanket. I actually had pilots approach me questioning if it was safe and legal to fly Navajo single pilot - single pilot is a glorious escape from the nursery. Oh ya maybe back to some of the basics is also a good idea.

When I received CV's where new commercial pilots made a point that they trained for their IFR on a garmin 1000 I usually turfed it. It's comical to see reactions to an NDB approach. In the flatlands, back in the day ADF 200 ft was standard mins and now A LNAV/V is 5 to 600 ft and there seems to be little difference in accident statistics, why is that, maybe going from a hands and feet based group to a rules and regulations school room generation with little dirt under the finger nails. I agree "schooled" pilots of today know a lot more about theory and laws than I did but with mentoring and getting my ass kicked from experienced pilots brought me along - very little of that remains today and we are worse off for it.

Just to clarify I am not stuck in the past but I find it tragic to see the erosion of actual flying skills. Give me a cub and a 4 mile to inch map, now that's orgasmic.

[quote]if it was safe and legal to fly Navajo single pilot[/quote]

Hold on a goddamned second.  TC can't suck and blow at the same time.

TC says a pilot who can fly - and in fact developed, and was the first to demonstrate
in IMC - all-weather, low altitude, high speed nuclear bomb delivery in an F-104 is
a piece of shit pilot, compared to their TC Golden Arm Skillsâ„¢.

Ok.  I accept and embrace their rhetoric.  I think most people would agree
that straight and level in a 'ho, slow up high, is probably easier than low-altitude
high speed nuclear bomb delivery in an F-104, with an over-the-shoulder bomb
toss and a 1/2 cuban-eight in cloud at the drop.

So, what's the fucking problem?