Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Personnel Licensing and Training): SOR/2025-241

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 159, Number 26

Registration
SOR/2025-241 November 28, 2025

AERONAUTICS ACT

P.C. 2025-839 November 28, 2025

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Personnel Licensing and Training) under section 4.9footnote a and paragraphs 7.6(1)(a)footnote b and (b)footnote c of the Aeronautics Actfootnote d.

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Personnel Licensing and Training)

Amendments

1 Subpart 6 of Part IV of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Canadian Aviation Regulationsfootnote 1 is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 406.47(1)”:

Column I

Designated Provision

Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
Individual Corporation
Subsection 406.47(2) 5,000 25,000

2 (1) Paragraph (b) of the definition flight instructor experience in subsection 400.01(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Paragraph (b) of the definition solo flight time in subsection 400.01(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Subsection 400.01(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

cross-country flight time
means the flight time recorded when a flight follows standard navigation procedures along a pre-planned route to a destination that is at least 25 nautical miles from the point of departure; (heures de vol-voyage)

3 (1) The portion of subsection 401.03(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.03 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no person shall act as a flight crew member or exercise the privileges of a flight crew permit, licence or rating unless

(2) Section 401.03 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) A person who is acting as an engineering test pilot may act as a pilot-in-command or second-in-command of an aircraft that is being operated to conduct a test flight of an aeronautical product, without holding a rating for the type of aircraft, if

4 (1) Subsection 401.05(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following after that paragraph:

(2) Subparagraph 401.05(1)(b)(i) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) The portion of subparagraph 401.05(2)(b)(i) of the Regulations before clause (A) is replaced by the following:

(4) Clause 401.05(2)(b)(ii)(B) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(5) The portion of subsection 401.05(3) of the Regulations before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

(3) No holder of a pilot licence that is endorsed with an instrument rating or to which instrument rating privileges are attached shall exercise the privileges of the instrument rating unless the holder has successfully completed, within the 24 months preceding the flight, one of the following:

(6) The portion of paragraph 401.05(3)(c) of the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(7) Clause 401.05(3)(c)(iii)(D) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(8) The portion of paragraph 401.05(3)(d) of the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(9) Subparagraph 401.05(3)(d)(iii) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(10) Subsections 401.05(3.1) and (3.2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3.1) No holder of a pilot licence that is endorsed with an instrument rating or to which instrument rating privileges are attached shall exercise the privileges of the instrument rating unless, following the first day of the seventh month after the completion of a test or check referred to in subsection (3) and within six months before the flight, the holder has completed six instrument approaches in accordance with the minima specified in the instrument approach procedure

(3.2) The holder of a pilot licence that is endorsed with an instrument rating or to which instrument rating privileges are attached shall retain a record of having met the applicable recency requirements set out in subsection (3) or (3.1) for three years.

(11) The portion of subsection 401.05(4) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(4) No holder of a flight engineer licence shall exercise the privileges set out in section 401.37 unless

(12) The portion of subsection 401.05(5) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(5) No holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a second officer rating shall exercise the privileges set out in section 401.53 unless

(13) The portion of subsection 401.05(6) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(6) No holder of a pilot licence or permit endorsed with a flight instructor rating — ultra-light aeroplane shall exercise the privileges set out in section 401.88 unless

5 Subsection 401.18(4) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) Where the holder of a pilot licence — balloon demonstrates, in accordance with the personnel licensing standards, additional methods of inflation to an instructor who holds a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — balloon, the instructor shall so endorse the holder’s personal log, recording therein the additional methods of inflation used.

6 Section 401.38 of the Regulations is renumbered as subsection 401.38(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) Despite paragraph (1)(d), the Minister shall not endorse a recreational pilot permit with a multi-engine class rating.

7 (1) The portion of subsection 401.53(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.53 (1) The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a second officer rating may

(2) The portion of subsection 401.53(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) A holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a second officer rating who supervises other holders of pilot licences endorsed with second officer ratings may conduct flight training and competency checks in respect of

8 The portion of section 401.62 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.62 Subject to paragraph 401.69(e), no holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — aeroplane or a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter shall exercise the privileges accorded by that rating unless the holder

9 Section 401.63 of the Regulations and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

Class 1 or 2 — Supervision of the Holder of a Pilot Licence Endorsed with a Class 4 Flight Instructor Rating — Aeroplane and Helicopter

401.63 (1) If the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 or Class 2 flight instructor rating — aeroplane supervises the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — aeroplane, they shall do so in accordance with the personnel licensing standards.

(2) If the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 or Class 2 flight instructor rating — helicopter supervises the holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter, they shall do so in accordance with the personnel licensing standards.

10 Section 401.64 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

401.64 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — aeroplane or a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter shall, in respect of the trainees under their supervision, keep records in accordance with the personnel licensing standards.

11 The portion of section 401.69 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.69 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — aeroplane may

12 The portion of section 401.70 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.70 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 3 flight instructor rating — aeroplane may

13 (1) The portion of section 401.71 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.71 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 2 flight instructor rating — aeroplane may

(2) Paragraph 401.71(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

14 The portion of section 401.72 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.72 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 flight instructor rating — aeroplane may

15 The portion of section 401.77 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.77 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter may

16 Section 401.78 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

401.78 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 3 flight instructor rating — helicopter may exercise the privileges of a Class 4 flight instructor rating — helicopter.

17 (1) The portion of section 401.79 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.79 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 2 flight instructor rating — helicopter may

(2) Paragraph 401.79(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

18 The portion of section 401.80 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.80 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 flight instructor rating — helicopter may

19 The portion of section 401.84 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.84 The holder of a pilot permit endorsed with a flight instructor rating — gyroplane may

20 The portion of section 401.88 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.88 The holder of a pilot permit endorsed with a flight instructor rating — ultra-light aeroplane may

21 The portion of section 401.92 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.92 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 2 flight instructor rating — aeroplane — aerobatic may

22 The portion of section 401.93 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.93 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a Class 1 flight instructor rating — aeroplane — aerobatic may

23 Section 401.94 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

401.94 The Minister shall endorse a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — glider with a flight instructor rating — glider — aerobatic if the applicant for the rating meets the requirements referred to in section 401.06.

24 (1) The portion of section 401.95 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

401.95 The holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating — glider — aerobatic may

(2) Paragraphs 401.95(b) and (c) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

25 Paragraph 402.08(3)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

26 (1) The portion of subsection 404.04(7) of the French version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(7) La fin de la pĂ©riode de validitĂ© du certificat mĂ©dical dĂ©livrĂ© ou renouvelĂ© en vertu du paragraphe (1) est calculĂ©e Ă  compter du premier jour du mois qui suit, selon le cas :

(2) Subsection 404.04(8) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(8) The end of the validity period of a medical certificate that is renewed under subsection (1.1) is calculated from the first day of the month following the day on which the medical examination for the renewal of the certificate is conducted.

27 Subsection 405.33(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) When a trainee has completed flight training, including all of the tests and written examinations required under Subpart 1, the person who conducted the flight training shall provide a paper copy of the trainee’s pilot training record to the trainee and forward an electronic copy of the record to the Minister.

28 Section 406.03 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(i), member of the family means:

29 Subparagraph 406.12(g)(i) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

30 The portion of section 406.35 of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

406.35 A flight training unit that operates an aeroplane or a helicopter shall establish and maintain a maintenance control system that

31 Paragraph 406.38(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

32 Subsection 406.47(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) The person responsible for the maintenance control system shall ensure that records relating to the findings resulting from the quality assurance program are distributed to the appropriate manager for corrective action and follow-up.

33 Paragraph 408.19(f) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

34 Paragraph 604.144(1)(b) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

35 Paragraph 700.02(4)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

36 The Regulations are amended by replacing “holder of a flight instructor rating” with “holder of a pilot licence endorsed with a flight instructor rating” in the following provisions:

37 The Regulations are amended by replacing “simulator” and “flight simulator” with “full-flight simulator” in the following provisions:

Coming into Force

38 (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(2) Subsection 4(10) and section 26 come into force on the day that, in the sixth month after the month in which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, has the same calendar number as the day on which they are published or, if that sixth month has no day with that number, the last day of that sixth month.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: Linked to the Transportation Sector Regulatory Review Roadmap, and as part of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review initiative, outstanding and emerging shortcomings were identified concerning the regulatory requirements related to personnel qualifications, training, and licensing. The issues include

  • perceived inconsistencies and ambiguities and concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR) related to sub-delegated authorities;
  • long-standing exemptions that should be codified;
  • definitions and other provisions that could be clarified;
  • unnecessary administrative burdens; and
  • a potential safety concern identified by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB).

Description: The Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Personnel Licensing and Training) [the Regulations] will

  • clarify provisions and address inconsistent use of terminology;
  • address discrepancies between the English and French versions of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs);
  • address concerns raised by the SJCSR related to sub-delegated authorities;
  • codify two long-standing exemptions to permit Transport Canada (TC) test pilots to fly planes for testing purposes without having the type rating for that specific aircraft, and to permit participation in a simulator as another means to meet recency requirements;
  • add definitions for “family member” and “cross-country flight time”;
  • align validity periods with current industry practice for aviation document booklets in relation to expert level language proficiency as well as clarify validity periods for medical certificates;
  • remove unnecessary administrative requirements related to record retention and operation of satellite bases; and
  • address a TSB recommendation related to instrument flight rules recency requirements.

Rationale: The Regulations constitute a housekeeping phase of TC’s response to the Government of Canada’s commitment in Budget 2018 to conduct targeted regulatory reviews with a focus on identifying and addressing regulatory irritants and bottlenecks to innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth. The Regulations will support a safe air transportation system for Canadians by enhancing the clarity of regulatory requirements respecting personnel qualifications, training, and licensing.

The Regulations will result in incremental costs to private pilots and cost savings for flight schools and the government, as well as incremental safety benefits for Canadians. All figures presented in this analysis are in present value of 2022 dollars using a 2025 base year and 7% discount rate, with totals representing the estimated impacts over a 10-year analytical time frame from 2025 to 2034. The total estimated monetized costs of the Regulations are $0.8 million, while the total monetized benefits are estimated to be $1.2 million. This is expected to result in an estimated net benefit of $0.4 million.

The Regulations will free up TC resources used to process exemptions, resulting in a total 10-year cost savings to TC of $9,026. Likewise, as the result of streamlining the procedure for satellite base extension applications, a total cost savings of $0.2 million is expected for TC and a further savings of $1.0 million is expected for businesses.

Flight training units will benefit from the elimination of sending hard copies of records to the Minister via postal services, with an estimated savings of $0.1 million. The most impactful provision will require that pilots have 6 landings with minima in instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions within the first 6 months of the validity period in order to maintain the IFR currency requirements for the 7th month. It is anticipated that this will result in some private pilots needing to increase their IFR flights to maintain their rating. The increase in the frequency of recency requirements is anticipated to positively impact the safety of private pilots and their passengers, in line with TSB’s recommendations.

The Regulations will result in an estimated incremental IFR cost of $0.6 million for pilots over the analytical time frame. An opportunity cost of $0.2 million has also been identified to be incurred by the pilots over the analytical time frame.

It is estimated that approximately 90% of affected flight schools are considered as small businesses. Therefore, it is expected that small businesses will incur $0.9 million of the overall benefit. Furthermore, the net reduction in administrative burden on businesses (one-for-one rule) over the 10-year time frame is expected to be an annualized administrative burden cost saving of $45,693 in 2012 dollars, discounted to the base year of 2012 at a 7% rate.

Issues

The SJCSR has indicated that certain requirements in the CARs governing personnel qualifications, training, and licensing could be perceived as ambiguous, and that there is some inconsistent use of terminology throughout the CARs. The SJCSR has also identified a number of sub-delegation issues in Part IV of the CARs. If unaddressed, these concerns could lead to misinterpretation of the regulatory requirements and, as a result, unintended non-compliance with the CARs.

Ambiguous provisions

The SJCSR identified concerns with interpretation of the CARs when terms such as “the applicable requirements of the related standard” are used. It could be challenging for users to know which requirements of the standard are applicable.

Similarly, the SJCSR questioned the use of the words “for which the validity period has not expired,” as there is a requirement to have completed one of the listed tests or checks within a designated time frame of 24 months, making the statement in quotations redundant.

The SJCSR also identified a provision where the term “and” was mistakenly used in place of the word “or” in the CARs. In this instance, the Regulations will allow authorized pilots to conduct instrument proficiency checks for “commercial or private air operators,” as pilots cannot work for both a commercial and private operator at the same time.

Inconsistent use of terminology

The SJCSR identified multiple terms in the CARs that are used interchangeably, such as “pilot license” and “Canadian pilot license”; “holder of a second officer rating” and “holder of a pilot license endorsed with a second officer rating”; “holder of a flight instructor rating” and “holder of a pilot license endorsed with a flight instructor rating”; and “simulator” and “flight simulator.” The SJCSR noted that these inconsistencies could potentially cause confusion.

Sub-delegation issues

The SJCSR raised concerns regarding the issue of sub-delegated authorities of rulemaking through certain provisions of the CARs requiring operators to comply with manuals, programs, systems, or procedures that the operators developed themselves. The SJCSR suggested that such rulemaking was not consistent with the enabling authority in the Aeronautics Act and, as a result, their view was that there may not be legal authority to take enforcement action against operators if the operators do not comply with processes they established themselves in manuals, programs, systems, and/or procedures.

Three instances of sub-delegation issues were identified in Part IV of the CARs:

All three instances refer to documents or systems developed by operators. The SJCSR’s view is that these provisions cannot be enforced in the same manner as regulations. To date, the SJCSR’s concerns related to these provisions have not materialized (i.e. no enforcement actions have been taken against operators with respect to these provisions). However, given the assessment by the SJCSR, the provisions need to be amended.

Exemptions

An exemption is an authorization that permits a person to do something that is not in accordance with a regulation, order, or security measure. The Minister may issue an exemption if the Minister is of the opinion that doing so is in the public interest and is not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security. There are currently several global (i.e. available to anyone) exemptions in effect. TC is of the opinion that the permissions provided through those exemptions should be made permanent. By contrast, reissuing exemptions upon their expiration is costly and time-consuming for TC.

For example, there is an exemption in the CARs that permits engineering test pilots who work for TC to act as pilot-in-command or co-pilot in an aircraft without holding the appropriate type rating for the aircraft. Without this exemption, test pilots would not be able to fly aircraft either in the manufacturing/production process or for testing purposes, which would be a barrier to introducing a new aircraft to the market. This exemption was issued as a temporary measure until the CARs could be amended. The exemption is set to expire in 2029.

There is also an exemption that permits participation in a Part VII training program in a level C or D simulator for holders of a Canadian Pilot Permit or Licence that have not acted as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aircraft within the five years preceding the flight as another means to meet the recency requirements set out in Part IV of the CARs. It is important that this exemption be upheld and regularized because it provides flexibility for pilots to gather necessary recency requirements. Taking into account the technological advancements in flight simulation since the introduction of the CARs in 1996, the realism, fidelity, and resolution of the current full flight simulators provide a standard that is equal to or better than meeting these requirements in a small aircraft with an instructor. This exemption is set to expire in 2026.

TC has monitored the impact of these exemptions and is satisfied that making these changes permanent will not compromise safety and security.

Ambiguous or missing definitions

TC identified some provisions that could be perceived as ambiguous and could lead to potential misinterpretations.

For example, in Part IV of the CARs, there is a section that allows family members of an aircraft owner to use that aircraft for training purposes but does not specify who qualifies as a “family member.” This could lead to confusion and make it difficult to maintain consistency in the application of the CARs across the country.

The CARs are also missing a definition to outline what qualifies as “cross-country flight time” for training purposes. This makes it harder to ensure that pilot training is consistent across the country and that trainees are receiving the correct training. The absence of a definition could lead to inadequate training.

Validity periods

TC determined that the validity periods for aviation document booklets that are currently established in the CARs should be modified. The expert level language proficiency needs to be increased from 5 years to 10 years. This change will be consistent with current practice followed across the aviation industry, which reflects 10 years for expert-level language proficiency. As this amendment will match current operating practices, it is not expected to result in any incremental costs for industry stakeholders.

Amendments are required to simplify the regulatory provision pertaining to the validity of medical certificates and to align with current practices. The CARs state that the issuance or renewal of a certificate is calculated from the first day of the month following either the day on which the applicant signs the medical declaration or on the day on which the medical examination is conducted. The CARs also state that, if the medical examination is conducted within 90 days before the end of the validity period, the calculation of the validity starts on the day on which the preceding validity period ends. The amendment will clarify that the validity is calculated from the first day of the month following the day on which the medical examination is conducted.

Administrative amendments

A provision in Part IV of the CARs states that the person responsible for the maintenance control system shall ensure that records relating to the findings resulting from the quality assurance program are distributed to the appropriate manager for corrective action and follow-up. This provision is not designated as enforceable via administrative monetary penalties (AMPs), which means that an administrative monetary penalty cannot be issued in the case of non-compliance with the requirement. While there is no specific compliance issue with this provision, it is a critical safety requirement to ensure that the issues or deficiencies identified through the quality assurance program are distributed to the appropriate managers and that corrective actions are implemented. Therefore, there is a need to designate this requirement as enforceable via AMPs to create a more efficient enforcement mechanism to incentivize continued compliance.

Recreational pilot permits allow people to become pilots in as little as 25 hours of training. While the CARs specifically allow recreational pilots who obtain the permit to fly single-engined aircraft, they do not explicitly prohibit recreational pilots from flying multi-engined aircraft. While no recreational pilots are flying multi-engined aircraft (as those planes are more complex and beyond their abilities), explicitly prohibiting this action will remove any potential ambiguity.

The requirements for the retention of pilot training records by the Minister are outdated and burdensome for TC regional offices. Currently, TC regional offices must store hard copies of each pilot training record that is sent to them by instructors/flight training units. Sending electronic copies will eliminate the cost of sending the records by mail and eliminate the need for physical space to store paper copies of records. Other documents, such as applications and copies of flight tests, are already being sent electronically to TC. Sending pilot training records electronically will therefore align with existing practices. Given that the same systems will be used for the pilot training records, TC does not anticipate any integrity or fraud risks associated with switching to electronic records.

Flight schools sometimes establish a satellite base with personnel, aircraft, and facilities for the operation of a flight training service on a temporary basis. Under the former Air Regulations, made pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, the authority to conduct flight training operations at a satellite base was limited to two sessions of 90 days, with a possibility of seeking a 30-day extension for each session with authorization from TC, resulting in the possibility of operating a satellite base for a total of 240 days in a calendar year. When the CARs were created in 1996 to replace the Air Regulations, the wording of the provision was changed to specify that a satellite base could be operated “on a temporary basis” but did not specify a maximum number of days. While no specific number of days was included, industry and inspectors continued to follow what was required under the former Air Regulations. There is a need to explicitly quantify what is meant by “temporary basis” to remove any potential ambiguity and to ensure consistent interpretation/application of the CARs across the country.

TC noted a typographical error in the English version of a provision in the Instructor Qualifications and Training section of Part VI where the word “an” was incorrectly used in place of “a.” This needs to be corrected.

Addressing a TSB recommendation

After an accident in 2013, the TSB made a recommendation in 2016 to shorten recency requirements for instrument flight rules.

The TSB found that, under the CARs, instrument-rated pilots may go up to 12 months following their instrument flight test before they are required to conduct any actual or simulated instrument flying. After 12 months, the CARs require pilots to have completed 6 hours of instrument flying, including 6 instrument approaches during the previous 6 months to maintain their instrument qualification. The TSB’s view was that many of these instrument-rated pilots do not routinely conduct instrument flight training or operations to maintain a reasonable degree of instrument flying proficiency. As a result, pilots who have had little to no instrument flying experience for 12 months may legally be called upon to carry out, and may accept, a challenging instrument flight without recent practice in the skills essential to the safe conduct of an instrument flight.

TSB concluded that IFR ratings are a perishable skill, and as a result recency requirements for IFR flight should be shortened from 12 months to 6 months to ensure pilot skills are maintained to an acceptable level for this type of operation.

In 2019, TC released an advisory circular to outline the conduct of instrument proficiency checks and describe how instrument-rated pilots can demonstrate compliance with recency requirements of subsection 401.05(3) of the CARs. Given that the recency requirement for IFR flights represents a “rule of conduct,” it is outlined in the CARs as opposed to in advisory material, hence the need to amend the CARs to change the recency requirement.

Background

The CARs touch on all aspects of aviation, including requirements pertaining to personnel qualifications, training, and licensing.

Linked to the Transportation Sector Regulatory Review Roadmap, and as part of the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review initiative, outstanding and emerging shortcomings were identified concerning the regulatory requirements related to personnel qualifications, training, and licensing. As a first step towards bringing the CARs up to date with continuous changes in the aviation industry, the Regulations constitute one of many planned initiatives to address non-controversial irritants within the aviation sector from a list of over 1 900 irritants identified over the years through internal and external consultations. The Regulations will address long-standing issues governing requirements related to personnel qualifications, training, and licensing. As part of the review, TC conducted a validation exercise to ensure the issues identified over the years were still valid; collaborated with internal and external experts to develop appropriate solutions; and engaged in broad consultations with industry to ensure that there will not be any unintended impacts.

The Regulations will address two long-standing exemptions from the CARs. An exemption permits a person to do something that is not in accordance with a regulation, order, or security measure. The Minister may issue an exemption if, in their opinion, doing so is in the public interest and is not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security. In granting the exemption, the Minister may include any conditions that are necessary for the authorized activity to meet the public interest, safety, and security requirements. While some exemptions are applied nationally — global exemptions — others are applied to a single person. Typically, as required by TC policy, exemptions have an expiry date, which can be defined as a specific date or a date on which a regulatory change that captures the purpose of the exemption is made. However, the Minister may at any time, in writing, cancel an exemption where, in their opinion, the exemption is no longer in the public interest or is likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security.

TC granted (and successively renewed) two global exemptions from the requirements of the CARs following a thorough assessment that determined that these exemptions are in the public interest and are not likely to adversely affect aviation safety. After monitoring and evaluating the ongoing safety and effectiveness of these exemptions, TC has determined that the permissions should be permanently codified in the CARs. Initially, a third exemption (NCR-011-2022) was included in this proposal; however, based on feedback received during the prepublication, the codification of this exemption was removed from the proposal and will be further reviewed by TC.

Some irritants and concerns that have informed this regulatory initiative were raised by the SJCSR. The SJCSR’s role is to review regulations against criteria that range from questions of validity and legal effect to matters of drafting and clarity.

One of the concerns raised by the SJCSR in relation to the CARs is the sub-delegation of rulemaking related to compliance with manuals, programs, systems, or procedures that have been developed by operators themselves. The SJCSR suggested that such rulemaking was not consistent with the enabling authority in the Aeronautics Act. As a result, the SJCSR’s view is that TC does not have the authority to enforce an operator’s compliance with its own manuals, programs, systems, or procedures.

The Regulations include an amendment to designate a provision. When a provision has been designated, it can be enforced via the application of AMPs. AMPs are financial penalties imposed by a regulator, rather than a court, that can be levied against an individual or a corporation that fails to comply with a legislative requirement.

The Regulations also include an amendment that was driven by a TSB recommendation. The TSB is an independent agency that advances transportation safety by investigating occurrences in the air, marine, pipeline, and rail modes of transportation.

In 2013, a helicopter accident occurred near the Moosonee Airport in Ontario. The TSB investigation concluded that two pilots and two paramedics departed for a night flight under visual flight rules in conditions that required the use of instrument flying skills because the ambient lighting needed to maintain visual reference to the surface was lacking. Although both pilots had met the instrument flight recency requirements in the CARs, once the aircraft passed the end of the runway lights, necessitating a transition to instrument flight, an excessive bank angle and rate of descent developed, which were not recognized by the crew at an altitude that permitted recovery. The helicopter crashed into trees and fell to the ground where it was destroyed. No one on board survived the crash. The TSB investigation concluded that both pilots lacked instrument flying proficiency and, in 2016, recommended that TC refine instrument currency requirements to ensure that pilots maintain an acceptable proficiency when flying with instruments.

TSB plays a vital role by providing recommendations to enhance aviation safety and to develop lessons learned from previous accidents. Implementing their recommendations helps eliminate or reduce perceived safety deficiencies that may pose risks to the transportation system.

Objective

The objective of the Regulations is to modernize the CARs by updating provisions that could be perceived as ambiguous; clarifying existing requirements; and addressing the inconsistent use of certain terminology. These amendments are expected to enhance aviation safety and reduce administrative burden for industry and for TC.

Description

The amendments included in the Regulations have been grouped by theme and summarized below.

Ambiguous provisions

Inconsistent terminology

Sub-delegation issues

Exemptions

Ambiguous or missing definitions

Validity periods

Administrative requirements/amendments

Addressing a TSB recommendation

Other amendment

To help partially offset the impacts of the above change to the recency period for instrument ratings, and to align the CARs more closely with requirements in the United States, the following amendment has been added to the Regulations following prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I:

Regulatory development

Consultation

Consultations prior to prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

Between February and April 2020, a public consultation via TC’s “Let’s Talk Transportation” platform was conducted to gather stakeholder irritants related to Parts IV and VII of the CARs (Personnel Training, Qualifications, and Licensing). The question posed was the following: “What specific irritants do you have with personnel training, qualifications, and licensing (as related to Parts IV and VII) in the Canadian Aviation Regulations?” Seven suggestions were received from stakeholders during the consultation period. Four of those suggestions were deemed out of scope as they related to Part VII of the CARs (Commercial Air Services). The other three suggestions have been reviewed but will require further policy assessment before amendments could be considered.

In June 2020, a multidisciplinary task team comprised of internal and external subject matter experts was convened to review and discuss the proposed solutions to the various irritants related to Part IV of the CARs. The purpose of the task team was to have early engagement with a limited number of stakeholders and identify any potential unintended consequences of the proposed changes before undertaking a broader consultation through a notice of proposed amendment (NPA).

The task team included representatives from TC headquarters and regions as well as industry members, including many airline associations, flight schools, and commercial aviation representatives. Three meetings, chaired and facilitated by TC, were held in June 2020 to discuss 68 irritants associated with Part IV of the CARs. The task team reviewed all the issues that were raised over the years, including those raised by the SJCSR, and assessed the potential impact of the proposed amendments. All members of the task team agreed with the proposed changes.

On February 10, 2022, a broader consultation with industry took place through the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) process. An NPA was issued and stakeholders were given 30 days to provide comments on the proposed changes. Feedback from this consultation demonstrated broad support for the proposed Regulations.

One stakeholder indicated that the terms “flight test” and “test flight” are often interchanged and that definitions should be included in the CARs. It has been determined that such definitions would have significant impacts on many other publications and could create more confusion; therefore, TC is not moving forward with this suggestion. Another stakeholder suggested that TC clarify the requirements outlined in standards 425.33 of the Flight Training and in paragraph 421.71(3)(b) of the Flight Crew Permits, Licences and Ratings to ensure that flight instructor candidates pass each flight test assessment to upgrade to a higher flight instructor class as opposed to simply doing the assessment. TC agreed with the proposed suggestion and will amend the relevant standards. TC aims to have the standards updated by the time that the Regulations come into force. Stakeholders will be consulted and notified about amendments to the standards through the CARAC notification system.

Two stakeholders made comments regarding the definition of “cross-country flight time.” Firstly, stakeholders questioned the distance of 25 nautical miles in the definition. TC explained that it determined the distance of 25 nautical miles as a safety distance and, beyond that point, a flight plan or flight itinerary to be filed with air traffic services or a responsible person is needed to maintain an acceptable level of safety. Secondly, one stakeholder expressed an interest in adding the conduct of a diversion (i.e. diverting from a pre-planned route) in the definition of “cross-country flight time.” Although it is recognized that diversions are navigation procedures and are included in other parts of the pilot training, TC chose not to include that aspect of training towards the gathering of cross-country flight experience requirements because cross-country flying is a practice of tracking pre-planned routes, not diverting from them. Lastly, a stakeholder suggested that TC remove the requirements that a cross-country flight be a “pre-planned” route and that the distance be measured from the point of departure. Given that the purpose of cross-country exercises is to train on longer-distance flights and acquire knowledge on the necessary preparation for such flights (i.e. pre-planning a cross-country route on a map), TC determined that the word “pre-planned” is a key aspect of cross-country training and, therefore, needs to be included in the definition. In addition, if the reference to the point of departure were removed from the definition, it could cause ambiguity and unnecessary confusion about the measuring of flight distance.

One stakeholder suggested that the allowable time period for a temporary satellite base be extended to up to 12 months (as opposed to 240 days) with a condition that the same location cannot be used 2 years in a row. TC considered the suggestion but, ultimately, determined that such a scheme could penalize operators who use satellite bases on a seasonal basis, e.g. during the summer period, each year. Therefore, TC concluded that 240 days per year would be more practical and appropriate for most flight schools. Any flight school that wishes to establish a longer-term training base at a different location would still have the option under the CARs to open it as a sub-base.

Regarding the change to the recency period for instrument flight rule operations, TC does not anticipate any significant impacts given that commercial pilots already exceed the minimum requirement. TC consulted with industry experts on this proposed change through the 2020 task team meeting and the 2022 notice of proposed regulatory amendments, and no comments were received. In addition, TC reached out to a pilot association in 2023 to assist in determining the potential impact on private pilots, but no response was received.

Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The proposed Regulations were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I (CGI) on March 30, 2024, followed by a consultation period of 30 days, closing on April 29, 2024. Over the course of this consultation, TC received 34 comments. Comments were received from two flight training centres, two airlines, two aviation associations, one academic institution, six individuals, and nine anonymous commenters.

Four comments were determined to be outside the scope because they were not related to the material included in this regulatory proposal. The thirty comments deemed relevant to the regulatory proposal touched on definitions, IFR recency, medical validity periods, satellite base operations, consideration for pilot permits, and the implementation period for the Regulations.

Definitions

The definition of “cross-country flight time” received six comments from three flight schools, two individuals and one association. Three comments related to the distance required for a pre-planned route, two asking if the 25 nautical mile distance must be in a straight line and one noting that preparation for a 25 nautical mile flight differs significantly by aircraft. Another comment suggested that pilot training sessions should count towards a pilot’s cross-country flight time, and that TC should consider defining both cross-country flight and cross-country training sessions. Other stakeholders wanted to know if there was a requirement to complete an entire pre-planned flight plan, by landing at the destination airport, in order for a pilot to log the hours flown as cross-country flight time.

In developing the new definition of “cross-country flight,” TC aimed to harmonize with the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). In order to meet the ICAO definition of “cross-country flight,” a pilot must follow standard navigation procedures along a pre-planned route to a destination that is at least 25 nautical miles from the point of departure. There is no requirement to complete the entire flight plan in order to log cross-country time. Guidance material related to the new definition will be included in an Authorized Person bulletin, and subsequently included in the new edition of the Authorized Person Policy Manual - Aeroplane and Helicopter. TC decided that one new definition of “cross-country flight” would be sufficient to cover both cross-country flight time and cross-country training sessions, as the flight time is logged in a pilot’s logbook in the same manner. As long as the flight training activity meets the definition of “cross-country flight time” — regardless of whether it is completed during a training session or during cross-country travel — it will be logged as cross-country time.

Two comments were received about the definition of “family member.” At prepublication, the intention of the proposed definition was to provide clarity and certainty about who qualifies as a family member. The absence of a definition had resulted in confusion among stakeholders, and inconsistent interpretations being applied by TC inspectors, with respect to the application of section 406.03 (Requirement to Hold a Flight Training Unit Operator Certificate). At prepublication, the definition included only parents, children, siblings and spouses. TC felt that the proposed definition was sufficient and would provide the clarity and certainty that stakeholders were seeking. During initial consultations, no concerns were raised about which family members would or would not be included, as most stakeholders were satisfied to know just that a definition would be provided. However, during the prepublication, stakeholders commented that the proposed definition seemed unduly narrow and recommended that it be expanded to include guardians, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, grandparents, grandchildren, stepparents, and stepchildren. These stakeholders argued that there was no obvious reason that aircraft owners should be prevented from training their extended family members, such as nephews, nieces, and grandchildren. In light of the feedback, TC reviewed the definition and other regulatory definitions of “family member,” and determined that it would be appropriate to recommend an amendment to the proposed definition to include the other family members requested by stakeholders. The definition proposed at prepublication was intended to provide clarity and certainty about who is considered a family member; it was not intended to exclude specific family members. However, upon review, TC acknowledges that the definition was unintentionally limiting and, therefore, agrees that it could be expanded. Therefore, the Regulations were updated to amend the definition of “family member” to include the family members suggested by stakeholders as well as first cousins and stepsiblings.

IFR recency

Eight comments were received from two associations, two airlines, a flight school and individual pilots related to updating the IFR recency requirements as a result of TSB recommendation A16-09. Concerns were raised about the potential economic impact of shortening the IFR recency requirements.

Commenters noted that shortening the recency period from 12 months to 6 months after an instrument proficiency check (IPC) could result in augmented workloads on 703 and 704 operators to track flying time/approaches, and additional flying required by private pilots to meet the new requirements. One stakeholder noted that this change would require industry to conduct more non-revenue flights for pilots to meet the revised recency requirement. Commenters also indicated that TC may be underestimating the number of pilots that would be impacted by this change, noting it would even be difficult for flight instructors, flight examiners, and pilots occupying a management position to maintain a six-month recency.

One stakeholder suggested that the amendment could discourage pilots from taking extended leave of six months or more. Another noted that fewer private pilots may take instrument training as the cost and time required to maintain the recency requirements are prohibitive, and argued for a training to proficiency approach rather than a fixed hour requirement for instrument flight time. The stakeholder argued that focus should be on successfully completing specific instrument flight tasks, such as conducting approaches. Additionally, commenters noted that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not have the six-hour requirement to maintain instrument proficiency; instead, the FAA requires that pilots successfully complete specific tasks within the preceding six months, such as six approaches; performing holding procedures to keep an aircraft within a specific airspace; and intercepting and tracking courses to get on a specific course and correct deviations to stay on the desired track. Lastly, one stakeholder noted that an implementation period of 6 months (i.e. a grace period) should be provided to give all stakeholders time after the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, to comply with the new recency requirement.

At prepublication, TC proposed to shorten the recency period for IFR flights from 12 months to 6 months to ensure instrument flying proficiency is maintained by instrument-rated pilots, as recommended by the TSB, while maintaining the other prescriptive requirements related to six approaches and six hours of flying. Considering the comments received, the Regulations will maintain the 6-month recency requirement as originally proposed but will remove the requirement to conduct six hours of IFR flying in the previous 6-month period. If pilots are able to conduct their six approaches in less than six hours, there is no reason to prescribe a specific amount of IFR flight time. Pilots will continue to be required to conduct six approaches in the previous 6 months. This approach will align with what is currently required in the United States. With the use of technologies, such as level C and D full flight simulators, TC determined that pilots could do the necessary exercises and maintain the necessary skill set to meet the recency requirements without a need to prescribe six hours of instrument flying time. Pilots and air operators were not consulted about eliminating the six-hour IFR recency requirement; however, it is expected that they will welcome the change as they had previously raised concerns about the IFR recency requirement.

TC recognizes that certain categories of non-frequent fliers, such as flight instructors, flight examiners, and pilots occupying a management position in 703/704 operations, could be more impacted by the shorter recency requirement than other pilots. TC attempted to validate with industry the number of pilots in those categories that could be impacted; however, the data were not conclusive and TC had to make assessments based on the best information that was available. Nonetheless, pilots in these categories have access to aircraft as part of their employment and have the opportunity to maintain their recency through their continuous flight operations. With respect to the comment about augmented workload to track flying time/approaches, this information should already be tracked in a pilots’ logbook.

The competency-based approach to the recency requirement, which removes the six hours of instrument time and focuses solely on skill-based activities, such as instrument approaches, will provide a balance between the need to ensure pilots maintain the necessary skillset to conduct IFR flights while partially offsetting the cost burden raised during this consultation.

Furthermore, a comment was received regarding the possibility of an increased safety risk in situations where pilots would forgo IFR recency in favour of flying in visual flight rules (VFR) in marginal weather instead of using instruments. TC disagrees with the statement about increased risk, as there are VFR minimum safety requirements outlined in the CARs, such as minimum weather operating conditions, with which pilots must comply.

With respect to the comment about the implementation period, the Regulations have been updated to include a provision that will bring the recency requirement into force six months after the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. This six-month delay was intended at prepublication and was noted in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement; however, due to an oversight, it was not included in the proposed Regulations. The new pilots who were subject to an instrument proficiency check within six months prior to the new Regulations coming into force will be required to maintain the new six-month recency requirements. Pilots who are past this six-month period will have until the first day of the 13th month following their last proficiency check to comply with the new requirements. This will eliminate any potential unintentional non-compliance.

Medical validity periods and implementation

Four comments were received related to medical validity periods. Stakeholders noted that the existing CARs regime, which allows the renewal of a medical certificate within 90 days before the end of a medical validity period without changing the end date of the validity period, provides welcome flexibility for pilots to access Civil Aviation medical examiners (CAMEs). TC’s position is that the policy intent of medical certificates is a 12-month validity, not a 12 to 15-month validity. Therefore, no changes were made in response to these comments about the new validity period in the Regulations. Under the Regulations, when a medical examination is conducted for the purposes of renewing a medical certificate, the renewal will start on the first day of the month following the day on which the medical examination (or self-declaration, as appropriate) is conducted as opposed to starting on the first day of the month following the expiration of the existing validity period. This will align the CARs with the ICAO standard of a 12-month validity period. Information regarding the new validity period will be shared via e-bulletins and newsletters when the Regulations come into force to keep industry apprised.

One comment noted that the revision to the validity period of a medical certificate in the proposed Regulations was only applicable to the original issuance of the certificate and not to the issuance of the renewals. In light of the comment, an update was made to the proposed Regulations so the change is applicable to both the original issuance and any renewal of a medical certificate.

Two stakeholders raised concerns that the revisions to the medical validity period could result in a situation where a pilot’s medical certificate is no longer valid upon the coming into force of the Regulations. In light of the comments, the Regulations have been amended to include a six-month coming-into-force period for the new validity period to avoid any inadvertent invalidation of medical certificates and to provide pilots time to book and undergo medical examinations.

Satellite base operations

One comment received was related to satellite base operations and the 240-day operating limit within a 12-month period. The commenter suggested that 240 days was not enough time to complete helicopter training. TC notes that satellite bases are not meant to be permanent. Any flight school that wishes to establish a longer-term training base at a different location would still have the option under the CARs to do so. No changes were made to the Regulations in response to this comment.

Consideration for pilot permits

Five comments were received noting that, for clarity, accuracy, and consistency, some references to “pilot licence” in the proposed Regulations should be expanded to “pilot licence or permit.” TC agreed with these comments, and the relevant provisions of the Regulations have been updated accordingly.

Exemptions

The codification of three exemptions was proposed at prepublication. However, the codification of NCR 011-2022 has been removed from the Regulations; only exemptions NCR 047-2021 and NCR 005-2024 will be codified in the Regulations.

There are two global exemptions in place to allow flight test pilots authorized by the Minister to exercise the privileges of acting as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of any aircraft, in the aircraft category endorsed on the pilot’s license, without having a type rating for the aircraft that is being operated, while conducting airworthiness flight testing of the aircraft. One exemption relates to TC employees (NCR 005-2024) and the other relates to external test pilot delegates who work in the aviation industry (NCR 011-2022). TC proposed codifying both these exemptions as part of the proposed Regulations. However, based on further internal review, only the exemption related to TC-employed test pilots will be codified in the Regulations. Further policy assessment is needed to ensure the appropriate control mechanisms are in place to address external test pilot delegates. While NCR 011-2022 will not be codified in the Regulations, it will remain in place and TC will consider the renewal of the exemption upon expiry as per normal exemption procedures.

Other

One comment was received suggesting that a provision be included under paragraph 401.03(3)(a) to require engineering test pilots to meet the recency requirements set out in section 401.05. TC has reviewed the suggestion and deemed it unnecessary to include in that section, given that the engineering test pilots are already subject to the recency requirements outlined in 401.05.

Other changes made after prepublication

Validity period for operational language assessments

At prepublication, an amendment was proposed to paragraph 401.12(4)(b) that would have reduced the validity period of a Canadian Aviation Document booklet from 10 years to 5 years for pilots whose language proficiency was assessed at an operational level. The objective of this proposed change was to align the regulatory framework with current practice. However, a recent audit conducted by ICAO revealed that the proposed amendment would not align with international standards. As a result, the proposed amendment to this provision has been removed from the Regulations. TC will conduct further analysis of the issue and, depending on the results, may propose an amendment in the future.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the Regulations are likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. The assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the Regulations in relation to modern treaties in effect. After examination, no implications or impacts on modern treaties were identified.

Instrument choice

Regulatory amendments are required to address the SJCSR’s concerns and ensure that the CARs are clear, consistent, and accurate. Given that most of the changes in these Regulations are intended to facilitate the interpretation of existing regulatory requirements, codify existing exemptions, eliminate sub-delegation issues, and address a TSB recommendation, amending the CARs was deemed to be the most effective way of resolving the identified issues. Furthermore, given that the issues raised by the SJCSR are technical and administrative issues affecting requirements in the CARs, they must be dealt with through regulatory amendments. No non-regulatory options were considered.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was conducted on the Regulations requiring instrument-rated pilots to conduct actual or simulated instrument flying in order to maintain their instrument qualification. The Regulations will require instrument-rated pilots to complete six instrument approaches during the six months prior to an IFR flight, which will represent an incremental requirement in the first six months of the two-year validity period. The CBA also looks at the implementation of a system to send electronic flight records to TC for flight schools, eliminating the need to apply for satellite base extensions, as well as the codification of two global exemptions into the Regulations that will otherwise be reissued by TC every five years.

The benefits associated with the Regulations are estimated to be $1.2 million (present value in 2022 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2025 at a 7% discount rate) between 2025 and 2034. These are the result of the modernization of the delivery of flight records, labour cost savings from the reduction in satellite base applications/renewals, as well as the codification of two global exemptions into the Regulations. The costs are expected to be about $0.8 million for the same period. Consequently, the net present benefit of the Regulations is estimated to be $0.4 million.

In addition, TC expects non-monetized benefits associated with the shortening of recency requirements for IFR flights as well as TC storage and office space gains as the result of no longer requiring the storage of physical training records. TC also expects non-monetized costs associated with IFR-rated private pilots who may choose not to keep their recency requirements current and therefore will limit their future operations.

Changes to the CBA since prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

As previously discussed under the “Regulatory development – Consultation” section, changes were made to the Regulations based on comments from stakeholders, one of which affected the cost-benefit analysis. Other minor adjustments were also made to the analysis to ensure all impacts were captured. Overall, the revisions resulted in a reduction in net benefits to $402,099 (from $518,282 at prepublication).

Analytical framework

The costs and benefits of the Regulations have been assessed in accordance with the TBS Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis by comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory scenario. These impacts are analyzed over a 10-year analytical time frame beginning in 2025 (when the Regulations are registered) and ending in 2034. Values provided throughout the “Benefits and costs” section, unless otherwise noted, are in 2022 Canadian dollars and expressed in present value discounted to the base year of 2025 at a 7% discount rate for the 10-year period between 2025 and 2034.

Additionally, note that (1) numbers presented in the analysis may not add up to totals due to rounding; and (2) the formula used to calculate annualized values under the “Cost-benefit statement” section and the “Small business lens” section follows the methodology prescribed in TBS’s Canada’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide for Regulatory Proposals (PDF) where impacts occurred in the first period are undiscounted.

Affected stakeholders

The Regulations will introduce requirements for private pilots to increase their IFR flight activity in order to carry and maintain their IFR rating. Therefore, private pilots who do not meet the recency requirements stipulated in the Regulations will be affected. It is estimated, based on TC subject matter expertise, that roughly 5% of private pilots holding IFR ratings will need to increase their level of activity to maintain their rating under the Regulations. The estimates were presented to pilot associations in Canada for their input; no objections were raised. Furthermore, it is assumed that an additional 5% of the pilots will not keep their recency requirements current and will subsequently be unable to exercise those privileges until they have received the necessary training to meet the six take-offs in the last six months requirement. Additionally, as a result of the changes to the medical validity periods, the analysis recognizes the possible impact this removal may cause for pilots.

The main beneficiaries of the Regulations will be flight schools, private pilots along with their passengers as the result of their improved safety and increased preparedness, and the Government of Canada. The modernization of the delivery of flight records through electronic means will allow flight schools to avoid postage costs associated with the mailing paper records to TC. In addition, the Regulations pertaining to satellite base extensions will reduce the number of applications/renewals required to be submitted by flight schools to extend satellite base operations, resulting in labour cost savings. Furthermore, the codification of exemptions in the Regulations will also benefit those covered under the codified exemptions from certainty about their exemption status. The exemptions will also reduce the strain on government resources from reissuing exemptions, yielding cost savings to the Government.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

IFR recency 

In the baseline scenario, pilots carrying an IFR rating will continue to follow the existing recency requirements of the 24-month validity period. In the first 12 months, there will be no recency requirements when flying IFR; however, beginning in the 7th month, pilots will need to accumulate enough recency experience to maintain their rating by the 13th month. During the 13th to 24th months, pilots will have a requirement to complete six take-offs and six hours of instrument flying in the previous six months (a rolling timeline for the 13th to 24th-month time frame). The validity period resets after 24 months when pilots take another flight test for their IFR rating and begin a new 24-month validity period.

In the regulatory scenario, while the 24-month validity period will remain unchanged, the recency requirements will begin in the 7th month instead of the 13th. For this reason, the Regulations will have an impact on some pilots in the first six months of the validity period, as they accumulate recency experience in the lead up to that 7th month. Therefore, some pilots will need to take additional instrument training to maintain their IFR rating.

Medical validity periods and implementation

Under the baseline scenario, pilots had the option to complete their medical validity examinations up to 90 days in advance of the scheduled renewal period. This allowed them to remain in compliance for up to 15 months before their next scheduled validity procedure. For example, if a pilot’s medical validity was set to expire on December 31 but they renewed it in October, their medical certification would still remain valid until December 31 of the following calendar year.

In the regulatory scenario, this practice has been adjusted. Pilots will instead have their 12-month validity period begin on the first day of the month following their examination.

Satellite base operations

From the benefit perspective, the Regulations will facilitate more efficient operations leading to industry cost savings in the form of avoided satellite base applications and renewal costs, as well as avoided mailing costs with respect to flight records.

In the baseline scenario, satellite bases will continue to follow the convention established in the old Air Regulations, whereby an initial request for 90 days is submitted with subsequent extension requiring authorization from TC. In the regulatory scenario, flight schools will be allowed to operate the full 240 days without the need to apply for incremental approvals for extension from TC, thus eliminating the labour costs associated with the application/renewal of satellite base extensions. With respect to the avoided mailing costs, the Regulations will allow the submission of documents via email, which will lead to postage savings.

In comparison to the baseline scenario, the regulatory scenario will include government cost savings in the form of avoided satellite base application processing costs due to the decrease in the annual number of applications as the result of increased in flight schools’ satellite base operation cycle without the need for further TC approvals.

Exemptions

The codification of the global exemptions as the result of the Regulations, which will remove the current baseline practice of reissuing every five years, will lead to additional governmental savings. These costs and benefits are further explored in the analysis below.

Costs

The total costs associated with the Regulations are estimated to be $0.8 million. The costs would be carried by private pilots and are comprised of additional flying hours required to carry and maintain an IFR rating and the opportunity costs associated with these additional flying hours. This present value cost translates to $4,833 per impacted pilot over the analytical period.footnote 3

Additional flying hours for pilots carrying an IFR rating

The Regulations will require that pilots have six landings with minima in IFR conditions within the last six months prior to an IFR flight beginning in the seventh month of their validity period. It is anticipated that this will result in some private pilots needing to increase their IFR flights in the first six months of the validity period to maintain their rating. The Regulations are expected to result in estimated incremental costs of $0.6 million.

Since May 1, 2015, instrument ratings have been non-expiring qualifications, but they require an IFR flight test or instrument proficiency check to be completed within 24 months preceding an IFR flight. As a result of this change, the numbers of pilots actively carrying these ratings and maintaining their recency are no longer tracked. This analysis therefore draws on historical data from 1998 to 2015 to forecast private pilots carrying an IFR rating. Over the analytical time frame, it is estimated that the number of private pilots carrying an IFR rating will slightly increase.footnote 4 The annual estimates are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Estimated number of private pilots holding an IFR rating between 2025 and 2034
Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Estimated number of private pilots holding an IFR rating 3 158 3 191 3 224 3 257 3 291 3 324 3 357 3 390 3 423 3 456

Based on TC subject matter experts, it is assumed that pilots who are maintaining IFR ratings using a pilot proficiency check (PPC), a form of maintenance only available to commercial or airline pilots in place of a flight test, will consistently be meeting the new recency requirements. These pilots are flying regularly and therefore the additional flying hours requirement for maintaining an IFR rating will still be met or exceeded. When compared to the baseline requirements, private pilots who are estimated to require additional IFR activity (5% as described above in the “Affected stakeholders” section) will need six take-offs in the first six months of the validity period to fulfill the regulatory requirements. As there is no data available to more accurately reflect baseline activity in those six months by these private pilots, the analysis uses the maximum incremental activity to ensure that costs are not understated. To summarize, it is assumed that affected private pilots will bear costs associated with the six take-offs and that this cost will be borne in the first six months of their validity period.

Pilots will be able to achieve the recency requirements in a few different ways. The most likely and most cost-effective way will be using a flight simulator with simulated IFR conditions. A scan of rates for capable flight simulators across Canada resulted in a low price of $85 per session, a high price of $198 per session, and an average price of $170 per session. These values include the cost of a supervisor. As previously mentioned, in order to ensure that the CBA analysis does not underestimate the costs associated with the Regulations, a conservative assumption was made that the pilots will do the six take-offs in six different sessions.

Instrument training opportunity costs

Given the number of flights required for pilots to maintain their IFR rating, this cost constitutes an opportunity cost due to the trade-off between additional flying sessions, including travelling to and from the simulation centre and the time spent in the facility, and leisure time for private pilots. It is assumed that, on average, each individual will commute 30 minutes to and 30 minutes from the location of the simulator, with an additional one hour spent in each simulator session, resulting in a total of two hours required each time to maintain their IFR rating. Verbooy et al. (2018) estimated that a person will be willing to accept $27.64 per hour to forgo leisure time for an hour of work.footnote 5 It is therefore expected that the Regulations will result in an opportunity cost to private pilots of $0.2 million.

Non-monetized costs

Forgoing opportunity to fly in IFR conditions

In addition to the monetized costs mentioned above, it is expected that approximately 5% of affected private pilots will not keep their recency requirements current. This is estimated to be 158 individuals at the onset of the Regulations, increasing to 173 individuals by 2034. Based on consultations with Transport Canada subject matter experts, for the most part, private pilots fly in good weather conditions that do not require IFR proficiency. Nonetheless, it is recognized that the Regulations to the recency requirement will limit available flying options for some private pilots.

Medical validity periods and implementation

As mentioned above, pilots who regularly took advantage of early renewal, effectively extending their validity period up to 15 months, will no longer be able to do so. As a result, at a maximum, they could be required to undergo up to two additional medical examinations over the analytical time frame in the regulatory scenario, which they would have otherwise avoided in the baseline scenario.

Due to uncertainty in how individual pilots would have taken advantage of the early examination, TC is unable to estimate the associated costs. However, the inconvenience and additional costs of extra medical examinations for those who would have elected to use the 15-month validity period should be acknowledged.

Benefits

The Regulations are expected to result in cost savings associated with the modernization of the delivery of flight training records through electronic means and satellite base extensions. In addition, benefits will be gained through the codification of two global exemptions. The monetized present value benefits of the Regulations are estimated to be $1.2 million.footnote 6

Moreover, the Regulations are expected to yield non-monetized safety benefits due to the shortening of recency requirements for IFR flights, which will help ensure that adequate pilot skills are maintained for the safe conduct of an instrument flight.

Industry (flight training schools)

Benefits to industry (flight training schools) are expected to be $1.0 million. This is broken down into the savings resulting from the introduction of electronic records and the avoided labour costs associated with satellite base extensions. These benefits are examined in greater detail below.

Avoided mailing costs of flight training records

The Regulations will allow flight training schools to send electronic records to TC via email instead of paper records via mail.footnote 7 It is assumed that similar minor work is required for the preparation of the mail and email; however, the postage cost will be considered an incremental cost savings for flight schools.

It is estimated that roughly 5 100 records are mailed to TC on an annual basis. Considering these records are approximately 25 to 50 pages each depending on the amount of training a pilot completes, each set of records mailed to TC will cost flight schools roughly $3.19 based on Canada Post rates. It is therefore estimated that flight schools will save an undiscounted $16,269 per year. The total postage cost saving is estimated to be $0.1 million.

Avoided satellite base extension labour costs

Under the Regulations, flight schools will be allowed to extend the operation of satellite bases up to 240 days without prior authorization from TC.

In the baseline, TC estimates that satellite bases operate for an average of approximately 180 days in a year, meaning that after the initial application (90-day permit), on average, satellite base operators need to apply for one renewal (30-day permit) and one new additional application (90-day permit). Under the regulatory scenario, as showcased above, the elimination of one application and one renewal is considered as the industry labour cost savings.footnote 9

As of June 2023, there were a total of 28 satellite bases (20 flight schools each owned one satellite base and 4 flight schools each owned two satellite bases). Based on TC subject matter expertise, it takes approximately 85 hours to complete a new application to extend the operation of a satellite base. Given that the Regulations will reduce the number of yearly applications for each satellite base by one, it is expected that the Regulations will save flight schools $0.7 million in discounted satellite base application costs.

Similarly, it takes approximately 25 hours for the renewal of a satellite base extension. Given that the Regulations will reduce the number of renewals for each satellite base by one, it is expected that the Regulations will save flight schools $0.2 million in discounted satellite base renewal costs.

In all, it is expected that the Regulations will save flight schools $0.9 million, at an industry hourly wage rate of $39.47 including overhead.footnote 8

Government of Canada

Benefits to the Government of Canada (represented by TC) are expected to total $0.2 million. This is broken down into the savings resulting from the codification of the two global exemptions that will otherwise be reissued by TC every five years, and the avoided labour costs associated with satellite base extensions. These benefits are examined in greater detail below.

Avoided exemption reissuance

The Regulations will codify two global exemptions that will otherwise continue to be reissued by TC every five years. By codifying these exemptions into the Regulations, the effort required by TC to reissue them will be avoided, resulting in cost savings for the government of $9,026.

Based on the time required by various employees within TC to reissue the exemptions, it is estimated that costs of $3,104 (undiscounted) are incurred for each exemption per their renewal year. The estimated breakdown of job classifications and time required for each reissuance is provided in Table 2. Based on the latest date of reissuing of each of the two exemptions, the years in which the exemptions would be reissued are provided in Table 3.

Table 2: Government employee position and time required per exemption issuance
Government position Hours required per exemption Estimated hourly wage table b2 note a
TI-06 22 64
EC-06 5 81
EC-07 3 90
AS-01 3 43
EC-06 10 81
EC-07 1 90

Table b2 note(s)

Table b2 note a

Including overhead cost (30%).

Return to table b2 note a referrer
Table 3: Years of expected exemption reissuance over time
Exemption No. 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
NCR 005-2024 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
NCR 047-2021 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Avoided satellite base extension review and issuance

Based on TC subject matter expertise, it will take a government program administrator approximately 15 hours to review an application to extend the operation of a satellite base. Given that the Regulations will reduce the yearly number of applications for each satellite base by one, it is expected that the Regulations will save the government $0.2 million associated with satellite base extension, at an hourly wage rate (including overhead) of $61.

It is important to note that there are no administrative costs pertaining to satellite base renewals for the government.

Non-monetized benefits

In addition to the monetized benefits, the Regulations concerning the recency requirements for IFR flights are expected to provide non-monetized benefits in the form of enhanced safety. It is expected that, with additional training as required by the Regulations, pilots will be further prepared to tackle any unforeseen conditions that may arise during the operation of an aircraft.

Furthermore, under the Regulations, TC will no longer need to store training records physically, resulting in storage space gains and optimization of available space at TC offices.

Cost-benefit statement
Table 4: Monetized costs
Impacted stakeholder Description of cost Base year (2025) Annual average (2026–2033) Final year (2034) Total (present value) Annualized value
Private pilots Additional flying hours for pilots carrying IFR rating $80,540 $62,722 $47,936 $630,255 $83,864
Instrument training opportunity costs $26,185 $20,392 $15,585 $204,907 $27,266
All stakeholders Total costs table b4 note a $106,725 $83,115 $63,521 $835,162 $111,129

Table b4 note(s)

Table b4 note a

Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding.

Return to table b4 note a referrer
Table 5: Monetized benefits
Impacted stakeholder Description of benefit Base year (2025) Annual average (2026–2033) Final year (2034) Total (present value) Annualized value
Flight schools Avoided mailing costs $16,269 $12,143 $8,849 $122,265 $16,269
Avoided satellite base extension labour costs $121,556 $90,731 $66,119 $913,524 $121,556
Government Avoided exemption reissuance $0 $917 $1,688 $9,026 $1,201
Avoided satellite base extension labour costs $25,607 $19,114 $13,929 $192,446 $25,607
All stakeholders Total benefits table b5 note a $163,433 $122,905 $90,585 $1,237,261 $164,634
Table b5 note(s)
Table b5 note a

Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding.

Return to table b5 note a referrer
Table 6: Summary of monetized costs and benefits
Impacts Base year (2025) Annual average years (2026–2033) Final year (2034) Total (present value) Annualized value
Total costs $106,725 $83,115 $63,521 $835,162 $111,129
Total benefits $163,433 $122,905 $90,585 $1,237,261 $164,634
Net benefits $56,708 $39,791 $27,064 $402,099 $53,505
Qualitative impacts

Positive impacts:

Negative impacts:

Sensitivity analysis

Number of operating days

Although it is estimated by TC that satellite bases operate for an average of 180 days in a year, due to the uncertainty, a sensitivity analysis exploring different operating bands beyond the 90 days was conducted. In addition to a central scenario described above, low and high scenarios are offered in this section.

In the low scenario, it is assumed that the average number of operating days of a satellite base is from 91 days to 120 days out of the maximum 240 days within a 12-month period. Therefore, there is a reduction of one renewal relative to the baseline.

In the high scenario, it is assumed that the number of operating days of a satellite base is from 211 days to 240 days out of the maximum 240 days within a 12-month period. Therefore, there is a reduction of two renewals and one satellite base application relative to the baseline scenario. The number of yearly satellite base applications/renewals and the present value of each scenario are shown below.

Table 7: Number of yearly reductions in satellite base applications/renewals by sensitivity scenario
Reductions Low scenario (91–120 days) Central scenario (121–210 days) High scenario (211–240 days)
Number of applications 0 28 28
Number of renewals 28 28 56
Table 8: Present value benefits of satellite base extension cost savings by sensitivity scenario
Impacted stakeholder Description of benefit Low scenario (91–120 days) Central scenario (121–210 days) High scenario (211–240 days)
Flight schools Avoided satellite base application and renewal costs $207,619 $913,524 $1,121,143
Government Avoided satellite base application costs $0 $192,446 $192,446
Table 9: Summary of monetized benefits by sensitivity scenario
Impacts Low scenario (91–120 days) Central scenario (121–210 days) High scenario (211–240 days)
Total benefits $338,910 $1,237,261 $1,444,880
Net present value –$496,251 $402,099 $609,718

IFR simulator prices

In the central scenario, it was determined that one hour of using simulators will cost $170 (undiscounted in 2022 Canadian dollars). Alternatively, a low-cost scenario of $85 and a high-cost scenario of $198 are considered. Table 10 provides the costs using different simulator prices.

Table 10: Summary monetized costs by sensitivity scenario
Impacts Low scenario ($85/hour) Central scenario ($170) High scenario ($198)
Total costs $520,035 $835,162 $938,969
Net present value $717,226 $402,099 $298,292

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens found that the Regulations will impact small businesses.

Based on discussions with TC’s subject matter experts, it was estimated that approximately 90% of the affected flight schools are considered small businesses, which is translated into 346 flight training schools (out of a total of 384 flight schools). Of these 346 flight schools, 22 have satellite bases.

The modernization of the delivery of flight training records will allow flight schools to send electronic records to TC instead of paper records. Using the data and assumptions presented above, it is estimated that the transition to electronic records will result in a total cost savings of $0.1 million for flight schools, or $318 per school.

Moreover, flight schools will see a decrease in administrative costs associated with the extension periods for satellite bases. Using the same data and assumption as above, these schools are expected to save a total cost of $0.8 million, or $38,558 per school.

Small business lens summary
Table 11: Administrative benefits: modernization of the delivery of flight training records table b11 note a
Number of small businesses impacted: 346
Activity Annualized value Present value
Avoided mailing records $14,659 $110,166
Benefits per impacted small business $42 $318

Table b11 note(s)

Table b11 note a

Due to rounding, values may marginally differ from Canada Gazette, Part I.

Return to table b11 note a referrer
Table 12: Administrative benefits: extension periods of satellite bases
Number of small businesses impacted: 22
Activity Annualized value Present value
Avoided satellite base extension labour costs $112,874 $848,273
Benefits per impacted small business $5,131 $38,558
Table 13: Total administrative benefits
Totals Annualized value Present value
Total administrative benefits (all impacted small businesses) $127,533 $958,439

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies, as the Regulations will result in incremental changes in the administrative burden on business. It is estimated that 384 flight schools along with 28 satellite bases will be impacted by the amendments. All listed values below are presented in 2012 dollars, discounted to 2012 at a 7% rate.

It is anticipated that there will be a reduction in the administrative burden due to the modernization of the delivery of flight training records. It is estimated that on average for each flight school, for which there are an estimated 384 in Canada, there will be a reduction of 13.28 flight training records mailed to TC per year. The average cost associated with mailing of one flight training record is $2.57. This will constitute an annualized reduction in administrative costs of $5,434.

Furthermore, it is expected that there will be a reduction in the administrative burden for satellite bases, for which there are an estimated 28, associated with the Regulations eliminating the need for additional satellite base applications/renewals. In the baseline scenario, satellite bases submit initial applications for 90 days of operation, with any subsequent extension requiring authorization from TC. In the regulatory scenario, flight schools will be permitted to operate satellite bases for the full 240 days without the need for subsequent approvals from TC. It is expected that, under the Regulations, in the central scenario, for each satellite base, there will be a reduction of one application per year relative to the baseline scenario, with 85 hours of work per application. The hourly wage rate associated with the labour required to complete the application is $31.50. This will constitute an annualized reduction in administrative costs of $31,109.

Similarly, the Regulations are expected to result in a reduction of renewals for satellite base extensions. It is anticipated that for each satellite base, there will be a reduction of one renewal per year, with each renewal taking 25 hours to complete. The hourly wage rate associated with the labour required to complete the application is $31.50. This will constitute an annualized reduction in administrative costs of $9,150.

The total reduction in annualized administrative burden cost on businesses is expected to be $45,693 (present value in 2012 dollars, discounted to the base year of 2012 at a 7% rate) for the 10-year period between 2025 and 2034.

Table 14: One-for-one rule table
Present value base year: 2012
Totals Annualized value
Annualized reduction in business costs $45,693
Annualized reduction in business costs per impacted business $119

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The Regulations are not related to any commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum. Although they are not primarily intended to address non-alignment with other jurisdictions, some of these amendments bring the CARs in line with similar jurisdictions.

The shortening of recency requirements for instrument flights and the elimination of the six-hour rule will align with the requirements of the FAA.

The amendment to prohibit a recreational pilot permit being endorsed with a multi-engine class rating will also better align the CARs with existing FAA regulations.

Although the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) does not quantify a distance for their definition of “cross-country flight,” the Regulations will align the CARs with the EASA by noting the flight is completed by following a pre-planned route, using standard navigation practices.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) assessment was conducted to determine if the Regulations will have differential impacts on the basis of identity factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. The assessment determined that, given their administrative nature, the Regulations are generally not expected to result in any significant differential impacts on any group of persons based on identity factors. Several consultations were conducted on the proposed changes and no concerns related to different impacts on the basis of identify factors were raised.

The above notwithstanding, TC notes that shortening the recency period (26 weeks instead of 52 weeks) for instrument-rated pilots may impact a limited number of private pilot licence holders. These holders generally fly their own aircraft or are employed by other individuals/companies to operate their aircraft. While most of the instrument-rated pilots already satisfy the new requirement, those who only fly occasionally or stop flying for a period of time (between 6 and 24 months after their test) may be required to undertake training to meet the revised recency requirements or wait until they are retested again before flying with instruments (all instrument-rated pilots must be tested every 24 months). Commercial pilots must undertake annual recurrent training so they would not be affected by the changes. Similarly, recreational pilots will not be affected either given that they are not permitted to fly with instruments.

Considering that existing requirements prohibit a female pilot from exercising the privilege of a rating if the female pilot has entered the 30th week of pregnancy or has given birth in the preceding 6 weeks (a total of 16 weeks), female pilots who are or were recently pregnant may be more limited in terms of opportunity time to satisfy the amended recency requirements. In some cases, such pilots may have only a 10-week window of opportunity in which they are eligible to meet the new recency requirements. If they are unable to complete the required 6 instrument approaches during this period, they will either need to undertake training to maintain their recency or wait to be retested to ensure their skills are up to date.

Women are significantly underrepresented among instrument-rated pilots. On October 24, 2023, there were 2 457 holders of a private pilot licence with instrument ratings, 82 of which were female pilots. Of the 82 female pilots, 53 were within childbearing years (i.e. under 60 years old). Despite the potential differential impact the shortened recency period may have on female pilots who are or were recently pregnant, TC has concluded, in part based on the TSB’s findings, that instrument ratings are a perishable skill, and that the shortened recency period is necessary for the safety of pilots, their passengers, and the general public. No mitigation measures were considered given that this new requirement is intended to ensure pilots have the necessary skills, ability, and experience to safely operate the aircraft. Despite the fact that no mitigation measures have been considered, TC does not anticipate that the new requirement will have a negative impact on female pilots in the industry or that the requirement would create a barrier to access for women. Irrespective of gender, pilots recognize the importance of maintaining their skills to an acceptable level for their own safety and the safety of their passengers.

TC’s analysis did not identify any impact on instrument-rated pilots based on other identity factors.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The majority of the Regulations will come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. The amendment to subsections 404.04(7) and (8) will come into force six months following publication to ensure that no medical certificates that are renewed within the previously accepted 90-day period are inadvertently invalidated when the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

The Regulations will address provisions and terminology that could be perceived as ambiguous or inconsistent, exemptions, and administrative requirements. Most of the Regulations clarify regulatory requirements and, therefore, do not require a change in existing implementation and enforcement procedures but rather enhance compliance by increasing the industry’s understanding of what is required of them to maintain a safe air transportation service.

Upon the coming into force of the Regulations, the exemption to paragraph 401.03(1)(a) of the CARs that enables engineering test pilots employed by TC to exercise the privileges of acting as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of any aircraft in the aircraft category endorsed on the pilot’s licence, without having a rating for the aircraft that is being operated for the purpose of flight testing the aircraft for TC, is cancelled. The exemption to subparagraph 401.05(1)(b)(i) of the CARs enabling the participation in a Part VII training program in a Level C or D simulator to meet the 12-month requirements to exercise privileges of a licence or permit is also cancelled.

Pilots will be expected to maintain their IFR recency based on the revised requirements upon the coming into force of the Regulations. Pilots who were subject to an instrument proficiency check within 6 months prior to the Regulations coming into force will be required to maintain the new 6-month recency requirements. Pilots who are past this 6-month period will have until the first day of the 13th month following their last proficiency check to comply with the new requirements.

Stakeholders will be notified of the Regulations and of their coming into force through the CARAC process once the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Compliance and enforcement

TC will continue to enforce compliance with the CARs through the assessment of administrative monetary penalties for contravention of designated provisions under sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Aeronautics Act, which carry a maximum fine of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations; or through suspension or cancellation of a Canadian aviation document pursuant to sections 6.9, 7 or 7.1 of the Aeronautics Act, or as applicable, proceeding by way of summary conviction, pursuant to section 7.3 of the Aeronautics Act.

This will also apply to the newly designated provision (requiring the person responsible for the maintenance control system to ensure that records relating to the findings resulting from the quality assurance program are distributed to the appropriate manager for corrective action and follow-up), which carry a maximum fine of $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations.

With respect to the revised IFR ratings requirements, there will be no change to the oversight and enforcement program. Should an incident occur, records would be reviewed to ensure that the pilot had the necessary qualifications to operate the aircraft.

Contact

Steve Palisek
Acting Director
Regulatory Affairs
Civil Aviation
Safety and Security Group
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613‑993‑7284 or 1‑800‑305‑2059
Email: TC.CARConsultations-RACConsultations.TC@tc.gc.ca