Attn. Canadian's!!

My friendly Transport Canada officer called me yesterday. Up till now, they've been really good about me not needing a SFOC to go out and fly, whether for testing or for getting some footage for personal use and demo reel. However, according to their new interpretation of the current regulations, they are now classifying commercial flights as all flights that are '...for hire or for reward...'. This means, footage for my demo reel is a reward, which now puts me in the commercial category, which means applying for an SFOC for that flight. It means that tuning or testing new parts or settings is a 'reward' (smoother flight and footage is the greatest reward, right?) and means I need an SFOC to go do test flights.

Not a big deal, however, thought I would share their intreptation with the community so that nobody gets surprised or goes and fly's outside of TC current expectations of use.

Here is the legal jargon from the CARs for those interested.
"As some of you may know, Canadian aviation law makes an important distinction between private and commercial aviation, the latter being subject to both elevated standards and increased regulatory scrutiny, resulting in an exceptionally high level of aviation safety.
To this end, a definition of “hire or reward” has been created in the legislative framework. That definition is set out in subsection 3(1) of the Aeronautics Act, as follows:
“hire or reward” means any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft;
Courts have consistently given a broad, expansive and liberal interpretation to the term “hire or reward”. The scenarios that follow illustrate this point.
In two older court cases, two operators of remote fishing or hunting camps had offered a fly-in service to guests at no extra charge. In other words, the rate charged for accommodations and guide services was the same whether the customers chose to use the fly-in service offered by the camp operators, or whether they decided to pay someone else to transport them to the camps. The hunting camp operators argued that, because they received no additional fee for the offered flights, there was no “hire or reward” situation. The courts in both cases rejected this argument and found that the free flights provided each operator a clear, albeit indirect, benefit. Therefore, the flights in question were “hire or reward” flights and the operators were found to have been operating a commercial air service without the appropriate licence.
In another, more recent, court case, a pilot was the director of Company A and Company B. Company A was the registered owner of the aircraft flown by the pilot. Company A rented the aircraft to Company B, and Company B was paid for bringing equipment, persons or other things to different sites. The Federal Court decided that, since Company A was the registered owner of the aircraft and had received an indirect benefit from the flights, it was required to have an air operator certificate (AOC) as set out in subsection 700.02(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).
There are situations where a person may operate for “hire or reward” and not require an AOC. One situation is covered by subsection 700.02(3) of the CARs, which allows farmers who own their own planes to use them to spray herbicides within a 25-mi. radius from their farm centre.
Another situation, covered by subsection 700.02(4) of the CARs, concerns sightseeing flights conducted by flight schools. This type of activity is permitted, without the requirement for an AOC, if the various conditions set out in the CARs are met: specifically, the pilot must hold a flight training unit (FTU) operator certificate and a flight instructor rating, the flights must be conducted in accordance with visual flight rules (VFR) in a single-engine aircraft with no more than nine passengers, and for the purpose of sightseeing.
Another situation where someone could conduct an operation for hire or reward without an AOC would be if the Minister issued an exemption. Pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Aeronautics Act, the Minister can issue exemptions from the application of any regulation, should the Minister be of the opinion that such exemptions are in the public interest and not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security. For example, situations involving charity flights, where pilots have been reimbursed only for fuel costs, have been issued exemptions in the past.
Another twist to the above concepts can be found if we look at section 401.28 of the CARs. This section deals with the reimbursement of costs incurred in respect of certain flights, by private pilots, in very specific circumstances.
Subsection 401.28(2) allows private pilots, who own their own aircraft, to receive reimbursements from passengers towards the operational costs of running the aircraft. Subsection 401.28(3) allows the private pilot to be reimbursed by his employer (who does not normally employ the person as a pilot). Subsection 401.28(4) allows private pilots to receive reimbursement when the flights are conducted for a “charitable, not-for-profit or public security organization”, on a volunteer basis. The three scenarios above are available only when certain specified criteria or conditions are met.
So, as we can see, the term “hire or reward” can be difficult to apply. Each situation must be looked at carefully in light of the case law and regulations that apply.”

 

Truthfully my contact was very open about how many grey areas there are that one could fly in if they wanted. I presented at least two that I would argue are non-commercial scenarios and he said, "True, but I'm not trying to argue scenarios, I'm just presenting the current interpretation that it could be interpreted as a reward. If there was an accident while flying like that, you and I both know your insurance will look for any excuse to not pay you out and cover you."

Fortunately, permits don't cost me anything except time. It just means that the overall cost of my business will go up because now I have to pay myself more often to fill out applications.

 

I was a a couple of permits away from my blanket when my region was switched to a new TC rep with no UAV experience. Now I need to file a few more times there before I can get my blanket.

However, even with the blanket, you still need to file with all the details of location, equipment and procedures.

 

Message me your number Jason and I'll give you the run down.